ScienceBlogs

ScienceBlogs

(not part of original row)
source type	foobar (not part of original row)
publisher	Fooland (state-funded media) (not part of original row)
classification	No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply

ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a self-published source it should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.

Prior discussions

Please add links to other significant discussions. When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.

• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Guardian blog articles
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#Scienceblogs.com/Deltoid AKA timlambert.org is not a Reliable Source
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Deep Sea News
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Journal of Cosmology
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 113#Few body systems
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117#Blog posts and personal websites in the AAH article
• WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 133#PZ Myers on Stuart Pivar's Lifecode

• Talk:Energy Catalyzer/Archive 10#'ScienceBlogs' article on the E-Cat
• Simple summary of prior discussions: TBD

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources

Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
		List	Last	Summary
ScienceBlogs		1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A	2012	ScienceBlogs is an invitation-only network of blogs. There is no consensus on the reliability of ScienceBlogs articles in general. Most editors consider ScienceBlogs articles written by subject-matter experts reliable, though articles outside the writer's relevant field are not. As a self-published source it should not be used as a source of information on other living persons. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant.	1