Always wanted to fight actual hordes of locusts and see what that whole Sodom place was all about?
It only takes a look at the Science 2.0 entry on Wikipedia to know their system is flawed (1) - anyone can create an entry but in order to edit it, like what Science 2.0 is, you have to document for some stranger on Wikipedia that you know what you are talking about, even if you're one of few people who knows what the topic is about.
Dr. Phil Plait of
Bad Astronomy fame has been a Science 2.0 favorite since the moment we came online and for almost a decade prior to that. He combines wit and no-nonsense skepticism with the kind of creative reflex that makes fundamental science concepts understandable by virtually everyone who doesn't hate getting a little smarter.
It's been a strange summer for online content and Simon Owens at The Next Web asks an obvious question -
should bloggers have control over ads or not?
It's a non-issue here, of course - every writer on Science 2.0 can simply choose not to carry ads on their work and no ads are shown and no money is paid in that case. Otherwise, the bulk of the revenue is paid out to writers based on traffic.
A few weeks ago, an event occurred that added another layer of drama to one of the biggest controversies in video gaming history - namely, who is the King of Kong. Donkey Kong, that is.
If you've never seen "The King of Kong", a documentary about the Donkey Kong controversy, you won't be aware of the fuzzy favoritism of the 'official' record keepers for retro video game scores, Twin Galaxies, who happen to be close friends and business associates of the record holder since the early 1980s, Billy Mitchell.
One thing I see a lot of, given the kind of community we are and so the kinds of people I read to see what's happening in the rest of the world, is how things have to
change. I wrote a piece earlier on
Open science and the march of history where I discuss the efforts of companies like Mendeley to shift the thinking of researchers toward open access and open science.