Over recent months it has come to my attention that an ostensibly anonymous blog, @palaoeblr-answered , has been substituting themself to knowledgeable members of #palaeoblr in replying to questions submitted to ask-palaeoblr, with a decidedly questionable approach.
Case in point, see this side-by-side comparison of their reply on a question regarding sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs and the relevant Wikipedia article.
It’s clear that palaoeblr-answered's reply quotes the Wiki article word for word, save the caveat at the top because, apparently, uncertainty is a bummer. Even the top-cited reference for the article, a 2014 dissertation by Holly Barden, points out repeatedly that a salient issue with studies claiming evidence for sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs is that their samples aren't statistically significant. See Maiorino et al. (2015), Mallon (2017) and Hone & Mallon (2017) for relevant discussion in the peer-reviewed literature. What we have now are at most enticing inklings that may not necessarily be the case.
From pages 2 and 4-5 of Barden, Holly. (2014) "Sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs: a review of the evidence and approaches". APS 402 Dissertation. Red highlights for clarity.
But then we come to what is to me the clincher in lack of academic aplomb and general courtesy: using Creative Commons illustrations without crediting their authors. In this reply to a question about gregariousness in ceratopsids, we can see work by Tom Parker (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike), Fred Wierum (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike), Mariana Ruiz Villarreal aka. LadyofHats (Public Domain), and a collage by English Wikipedia user Sainsf (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike), all unattributed to their authors.
I get trying to be helpfully informative, I'd even wish more people were so, but this is not how you do it. Please do better than this. Both palaoeblr-answered and everyone else reading this. All have a place at the table of scientific discourse as long as they display reasonably proper behavior.