EvoWiki should be the kind of resource that the following sorts of people would feel comfortable reading, or contributing to:

  • Students who would like to cite something like wikipedia, but are responsible enough to prefer citing an article with authors and some level of quality control.
  • Teachers who would like good information about evolution and against (e.g.) creationist arguments, but who would find it politically or personally difficult to find, or read, a blogpost or forum discussion where useful information is immersed in a sea of inside baseball, back-and-forth insults, clueless antievolutionist ranting, political or religious wars, etc.
  • Researchers (professors, grad students) who would like to gradually and collaboratively build articles, datasets, and tables, possibly for eventual republication in more formal settings. I.e., it is silly to expect that people will give their time to building up scientific resources, if they do not convey some opportunity for publication and academic advancement in the future. Note that authorship questions should also be dealt with carefully -- the permission of all coauthors should be obtained if something is to be republished, and pages which are the special projects of a limited number of authors should be protected to stop others from editing. This is part of why signing articles is important.
  • In other words, EvoWiki should aim for a similar style and tone, and authorship/readership of

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.