Yasseri, Spoerri, Graham and Kertèsz [1] have analysed page edits of Wikipedia entries to find the most controversial entries. Many entries in the open encyclopedia are only locally debated, for example in Romania the Universit­atea Craiova football team is a hot topic!

The researchers concentrated on finding the entries which editors scrapped about in order to find controversial subjects. This is believed to be more reliable than simply concentrating on those that have changed a lot

There are of course things that are more universally controversial and receive lots of edits. The top 10 “touchy” subjects according to the research are;

1. George W Bush
2. Anarchism
3. The Prophet Muhammad
4. World Wrestling Entertainment employees
5. Global warming
6. Circumcision
7. The United States
8. Jesus
9. Race and intelligence
10. Christianity

The most controversial
Millions of articles from 10 different language versions of Wikipedia were analysed. English, Spanish, Persian, Arabic and Czech editions were among those studied. Across all the languages the most controversial entries were found to be;

1. Israel
2. Adolf Hitler
3. The Holocaust
4. God

I would say no real surprises here.

Reference
[1]Yasseri T., Spoerri A., Graham M., and Kertèsz J., The most controversial topics in Wikipedia: A multilingual and geographical analysis. In: Fichman P., Hara N., editors, Global Wikipedia:International and cross-cultural issues in online collaboration. Scarecrow Press (2014). (arXiv:1305.5566v2 [physics.soc-ph] )

George Gideon Oliver Osborne MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom

On the 26th of July the Chancellor George Osborne announced in his spending review for 2015-2016 that public funding of science would remain flat at about £4.6bn per year. This figure has been held flat since 2011.

Scientific discovery is first and foremost an expression of the relentless human search to know more about our world, but it’s also an enormous strength for a modern economy,

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer

The science minister said the following;

This settlement reflects the vital contribution that science, innovation and higher education make to the UK economy. Increasing capital funding for science and universities will underpin our ambitious industrial strategy, ensure our brightest minds can commercialise their ideas and support the knowledge that drives growth.

The science minister David Willetts

At a glance

• Day-to-day science spend to remain at £4.6bn
• Capital investment to rise from £0.6bn to £1.1bn
• Capital increase to rise with inflation to 2020-21
• Additional £185m for Technology Strategy Board
• £100m/yr available to partner with private industry
• £100m/yr to support innovative UK businesses

Some responses

The announcement that the current science budget will be maintained at £4.6 billion is a welcome recognition of the importance of science as an engine for future growth, but it needs to be noted that inflation has already substantially eroded the value of funding for science in the UK, by 2-3% per annum since 2010’s flat cash settlement.

Professor Sir Peter Knight, President IOP

You can read the full response from the Institute of Physics by following the link below.

In recent years science has suffered, as maintaining investment means a real terms cut due to inflation, but in the context of cuts elsewhere, science has been relatively protected Today’s announcement should be seen as a foundation for a long term strategy of increased investment. At present our economic competitors are outspending us in science but are not outperforming us.

Prof. Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society

You can read the full response from the Royal Society by following the link below.

Links
UK science spending to remain ‘flat’, BBC NEWS

Response to Spending Round 2015-16, The Institute of Physics

Chancellor champions science The Royal Society

Katarzyna Trzonek, a masters student at Łódź university under the supervision of prof. Anna Matuchniak-Krasuska is working on a thesis comparing the image of scientists as portrayed on television with real scientists. She has decided to look at the sitcom “The Big Bang Theory” and see how the portrayal of scientist there compares with reality.

Are we all just like Sheldon Cooper?

Portrayal
Many of the images created by the general media of scientists is not very flattering. In films for example, scientists are usually presented as “nerds” and socially inept or even worse they are the evil antagonist!

In part this must be due to the public awareness of science and indeed scientists. Science drives the technological advances of our modern world, but also it shapes our culture via the wider understanding of the Universe science creates. Science research is of social and cultural importance.

If the general public is not aware of the role of science and scientists in our modern world then how can we blame them for not recognising the largely false image in the media?

The Survey
Trzonek is conducting an online survey aimed at American scientists focusing on the lifestyles, as this appears to be the most difficult information to find. If you qualify, then please take the survey by following the link below.

Please note that the survey is confidential and should not take more than 15mins or so to complete.

If you have any further questions then they should be directed to Trzonek (tbbt.thesis@gmail.com) rather than me.

Dissemination
Trzonek’s thesis should be interesting. The images of scientists that I see on television are not usually accurate, but I see some familiarity with my own environment. A such I await her analysis and will post here about it in due course.

Link
The lifestyle of scientists