Let me clarify my position... while it may be a debatable point whether an Amazon review or a blog thread is a "reliable source" to use at Wikipedia (I personally think it is given a supporting piece of evidence, e.g. CALLING THE PERSON HERSELF OR THE OWNER OF THE BLOG PERSONALLY), you are completely, 100% wrong if you think she is actually NOT a dissident or that the review and blog postings attributed to her are not 100% hers:

Um, Tara can you double check with PZ that that post was actually from her? Look at the wording/syntax thats not how scientists write. That looks like lincoln with gel in his hair.

PZ's not raised any red flags, and the second quote was from the live chat. The visit was to promote this new venture of hers. Unfortunately, I have no doubt it's her.

Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 13, 2007 05:49 PM

Yeah, I'll confirm it: that was Lynn Margulis on the site and in the chatroom. .

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 14, 2007 08:51 PM

That sigh was because I thought highly of Margulis; she has done some excellent work, and is always a source for original ideas. Unfortunately, the HIV denialist comments were all ignorant crap that only a deluded fool would find convincing. So that was a sigh of disappointment.

Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2007 09:16 AM

Furthermore, I know form personal communication with Harvey Bialy that Lynn Margulis did communicate to him personally her positive review of the book. So, while the question of what's a "reliable source" may be some issue, I just want you to know if happen to have any doubts, that you ARE 100% completely factually wrong if you claim (a) her statements and viewpoints attributed to her are not hers, and (b) she is not a dissident. Unless you really believe that a mainstream biology professor is (without any motivation) committing some kind of hoax, or is himself being impersonated by someone. That's what I was referring to when I said you were "beyond hopeless".