This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Helloooo Talk page!
There a number of things the entry still needs. For example a controversy section. ScienceBlogs has generated a lot of controversy among religious groups, holocaust denialists, scientologists (anti-psychiatry), anti-vacc. people. It might be a great section to highlight some of the groups Sb has pissed off and what posts did it.
There might also be a use of a more complete listing of the blogs.
Any other ideas? Omnibrain 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain
I added the 5ish most popular blogs since the beginning of 2006 so that should take care of a decent list. As for a third party reporting... hmm...I can't think of any besides the actual primary sources of the controversy (Discovery Institute, etc.) Omnibrain 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain
--I've removed the blog list. I'll take it somewhere else to edit and polish before trying to find a place for it on the Sb site.
Hey what about a list of 5 or 10 all-time most popular blog posts? not by traffic, because that is proprietary, but perhaps those that were digg-ed, fark-ed, etc. RosyGlow19 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny
ScienceBlogs is currently described as a "blog website". Could it perhaps be more accurate to call it a virtual community, or a blog hosting provider? Fatalis talk 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Virtual Science Community perhaps? I think there are plans to expand beyond just blogs maybe? Omnibrain talk 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've always referred to it as a "blog network." -Katherine
The following are links to media/blog mentions of the ScienceBlogs network or individual ScienceBloggers, in chronological order.
RosyGlow19 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny
I was trying to find out which were the original blogs hosted in SB and the dates that other blogs joined. So how about list, in chronological order, of all the blogs in SB with their respective join date? I'll see what info I can find. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm too involved to edit this page, but this page is rather out of date. Anyone wanna volunteer to update things? PalMD ( talk) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Pepsi needs mention in this article. The scandal belongs, but not the name of the corporation. As Bora Zivkovic points out in his long farewell article, the crux of the matter is not which huge corp bought its way onto ScienceBlogs, but that Seed Media Group sold out. When you've sold your reputation you don't have one anymore, as a commenter at the Guardian put it. - Hordaland ( talk) 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The see also links seem completely irrelevant to the article at hand and should be removed - yes/no? Voomoo ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ScienceBlogs. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
They've started posting again on Facebook.
There doesn't seem to be anything on their website explaining things.
2606:6000:FECD:1400:35F0:4906:153C:2132 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Helloooo Talk page!
There a number of things the entry still needs. For example a controversy section. ScienceBlogs has generated a lot of controversy among religious groups, holocaust denialists, scientologists (anti-psychiatry), anti-vacc. people. It might be a great section to highlight some of the groups Sb has pissed off and what posts did it.
There might also be a use of a more complete listing of the blogs.
Any other ideas? Omnibrain 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain
I added the 5ish most popular blogs since the beginning of 2006 so that should take care of a decent list. As for a third party reporting... hmm...I can't think of any besides the actual primary sources of the controversy (Discovery Institute, etc.) Omnibrain 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Omnibrain
--I've removed the blog list. I'll take it somewhere else to edit and polish before trying to find a place for it on the Sb site.
Hey what about a list of 5 or 10 all-time most popular blog posts? not by traffic, because that is proprietary, but perhaps those that were digg-ed, fark-ed, etc. RosyGlow19 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny
ScienceBlogs is currently described as a "blog website". Could it perhaps be more accurate to call it a virtual community, or a blog hosting provider? Fatalis talk 09:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Virtual Science Community perhaps? I think there are plans to expand beyond just blogs maybe? Omnibrain talk 14:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've always referred to it as a "blog network." -Katherine
The following are links to media/blog mentions of the ScienceBlogs network or individual ScienceBloggers, in chronological order.
RosyGlow19 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Ginny
I was trying to find out which were the original blogs hosted in SB and the dates that other blogs joined. So how about list, in chronological order, of all the blogs in SB with their respective join date? I'll see what info I can find. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm too involved to edit this page, but this page is rather out of date. Anyone wanna volunteer to update things? PalMD ( talk) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Pepsi needs mention in this article. The scandal belongs, but not the name of the corporation. As Bora Zivkovic points out in his long farewell article, the crux of the matter is not which huge corp bought its way onto ScienceBlogs, but that Seed Media Group sold out. When you've sold your reputation you don't have one anymore, as a commenter at the Guardian put it. - Hordaland ( talk) 08:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The see also links seem completely irrelevant to the article at hand and should be removed - yes/no? Voomoo ( talk) 18:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
ScienceBlogs. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
They've started posting again on Facebook.
There doesn't seem to be anything on their website explaining things.
2606:6000:FECD:1400:35F0:4906:153C:2132 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)