I thought Google was trying not to be evil

Google Scholar is a really useful tool — it's like vanilla Google in that it returns links to resources on the web, but it has additional filters to return genuine scholarly articles, enriched for the kind of stuff that gets peer-reviewed and formally published. Unfortunately, somebody or some algorithm is getting a bit sloppy, and it also returns articles for Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International. It's somewhat understandable — all of those institutions know deep down in their sweet stupid little hearts that rank theology has no credibility, so they do their very best to ape real science in style, if not in content.

So, anyway, a few people are trying to ask Google nicely and politely to clean up their act. There is a petition to ask them to remove bad sources from Google Scholar — and I know, internet petitions don't carry a lot of weight, but sign it anyway, just to add some recognition of widespread awareness of the problem to a decision they ought to make because it's the right thing to do.

More like this

I was sent a petition to call for conscious evolution. I have no idea what this means. I don't think the creators of this petition have the slightest idea, either. I don't even understand the point of pledging to "elevate consciousness". I do know that these loons seem to like the word "evolution"…
A trick question, of course. The answer is "the author of a blog post at WUWT entitled IPCC’s Report on Climate Change: Myths & Realities". The blog posting itself is a more-than-usually-pointless mish-mash of nonsense, and isn't worth reading. I did anyway, though, and can assure you that "A…
The Intelligent Design creationists have done it again: thrown together another piece of sloppy scholarship to defend themselves from a non-argument. John Lynch is lazing in the balmy Mediterranean, and casually demolishes them in an afternoon in a Cretan cafe. It sounds like hard work,…
Chris Lawrence defends Lott against the charge Wyeth made yesterday. James Joyner also comments. Lawrence is correct when he points out that Lott's claims about Baghdad murders are not lies unless Lott knows them to be false, and, in the absence of reliable data we don't know…