This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Francesca Gino article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Note that the plagiarism section is being supported with just a single Substack blog which clearly violates WP:BLPSPS, as it prevents a self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons. I have not deleted it but added a citations needed tag so more reliable sources can be added to verify these claims. Diederika ( talk) 08:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Earlier today, I marked this sentence as POV and without a source:
"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on data falsified by another researcher."
I pointed out that the sentence had no citation and contained a POV (that someone else fabricated the data), which was attributed to no source.
User Abecedare reverted the changes and said the "Scince" [sic] article supported the statement. I believe it was reference #8 (doi:10.1126/science.adj3539) to which Abecedare referred. I checked the reference and did not see anywhere that it says someone else falsified the data. The closest it comes to saying anything like that is that it reports The Chronicle of Higher Education: "notes that Gino had told a co-author that a lab manager had collected the data." In other words, no independent source says that someone else fabricated the data. Additionally, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Gino did not explicitly deny it either—only reportedly told a co-author someone else collected the data. I am altering the sentence to more accurately reflect what the reference says, and I am including the citation.
"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on falsified data; however, she reported that a lab manager collected the data."
笔名 ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Gino is currently under investigation by Harvard (and on "administrative leave") after apparent evidence of fraud in a number of her publications
came to light.
2A00:23C5:6D1A:9501:55D:6641:8CDF:B5F7 (
talk)
14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities are individuals who always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)Only one of the blog authors ( Uri Simonsohn) is wikipedia-notable, although it could be argued that the blog's authors are considered "recognized authorities" in this field as evidenced by the use of their research to drive the investigation and media coverage. However, right now, coverage of their assertions (in reliable sources) is scant and rightfully so as other experts in the field need to investigate and validate their findings. Personally, I think we should wait until this all plays out.I don't know that many editors are watching this article, but you're welcome to raise the issue of linking to Data Colada as an external link at the BLP noticeboard to get a wider range of opinions on it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I submit that on account of the authors' professional background, the Data Colada website (whose playful name admittedly does not help) should be accepted as at least equivalent to a newspaper blog hosting third-party works. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to have been edited by what appears to be the subject's spouse User:Gregburd. They edited here, e.g. removing template adding Greg Scott Burd as spouse. Of course this could also be hoax/vandalism but that would be a rather odd way to vandalize. Would be good to check what they added, I haven't had the time. AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.
I think this is worth including, but maybe not: Ms. Gino filed a law suit against Data and Harvard: https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholar-accused-of-research-fraud-sues-harvard-and-data-sleuths-alleging-a-smear-campaign?cid=at&sra=true Kdammers ( talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The full unsealed (slightly redacted) report can be found at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.20.5_1.pdf. Not sure if this should be included in the article as an external link or reference... skeptical scientist ( talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Francesca Gino article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Note that the plagiarism section is being supported with just a single Substack blog which clearly violates WP:BLPSPS, as it prevents a self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons. I have not deleted it but added a citations needed tag so more reliable sources can be added to verify these claims. Diederika ( talk) 08:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Earlier today, I marked this sentence as POV and without a source:
"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on data falsified by another researcher."
I pointed out that the sentence had no citation and contained a POV (that someone else fabricated the data), which was attributed to no source.
User Abecedare reverted the changes and said the "Scince" [sic] article supported the statement. I believe it was reference #8 (doi:10.1126/science.adj3539) to which Abecedare referred. I checked the reference and did not see anywhere that it says someone else falsified the data. The closest it comes to saying anything like that is that it reports The Chronicle of Higher Education: "notes that Gino had told a co-author that a lab manager had collected the data." In other words, no independent source says that someone else fabricated the data. Additionally, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Gino did not explicitly deny it either—only reportedly told a co-author someone else collected the data. I am altering the sentence to more accurately reflect what the reference says, and I am including the citation.
"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on falsified data; however, she reported that a lab manager collected the data."
笔名 ( talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Gino is currently under investigation by Harvard (and on "administrative leave") after apparent evidence of fraud in a number of her publications
came to light.
2A00:23C5:6D1A:9501:55D:6641:8CDF:B5F7 (
talk)
14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities are individuals who always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)Only one of the blog authors ( Uri Simonsohn) is wikipedia-notable, although it could be argued that the blog's authors are considered "recognized authorities" in this field as evidenced by the use of their research to drive the investigation and media coverage. However, right now, coverage of their assertions (in reliable sources) is scant and rightfully so as other experts in the field need to investigate and validate their findings. Personally, I think we should wait until this all plays out.I don't know that many editors are watching this article, but you're welcome to raise the issue of linking to Data Colada as an external link at the BLP noticeboard to get a wider range of opinions on it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I submit that on account of the authors' professional background, the Data Colada website (whose playful name admittedly does not help) should be accepted as at least equivalent to a newspaper blog hosting third-party works. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to have been edited by what appears to be the subject's spouse User:Gregburd. They edited here, e.g. removing template adding Greg Scott Burd as spouse. Of course this could also be hoax/vandalism but that would be a rather odd way to vandalize. Would be good to check what they added, I haven't had the time. AncientWalrus ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.
I think this is worth including, but maybe not: Ms. Gino filed a law suit against Data and Harvard: https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholar-accused-of-research-fraud-sues-harvard-and-data-sleuths-alleging-a-smear-campaign?cid=at&sra=true Kdammers ( talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The full unsealed (slightly redacted) report can be found at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.20.5_1.pdf. Not sure if this should be included in the article as an external link or reference... skeptical scientist ( talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)