Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Brian Martin (social scientist) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Australia: Education Low‑importance

	Australia portal Brian Martin (social scientist) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Martin, Brian (June 21, 2017). "Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses". Social Science Computer Review.

Article biases

In my view this article is structured and framed to amplify negative coverage, and paint a subtly misleading picture. When nearly half of the body of text is under a non-neutral section heading of Controversies, this becomes a magnet for controversial content, no matter how relevant. WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION and the essay WP:CRITS are germane to the discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be subtle editorial biases, perhaps unconscious, in the presentation of facts: phrases like "he has been criticized for..." often link to articles that merely state that people refuted or disagreed with him, or that he supported a student, or are criticisms of Wilyman, without explicitly mentioning criticism of Martin. This turns a neutral into a negative. I see no explicit criticism of Martin himself in purported sources like The Australian and New Matilda. Another Australian piece mentions critics of Wilyman's thesis who question whether Martin "had the necessary knowledge to assess it", but this can be simply stated rather than given a editorial nudge towards criticism. I do see criticism in an opinion piece by an unnamed author in The Australian, and possibly reasonable criticism in Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology, but again, framing matters, and the article should be scrutinized for presence of bias in the presentation and compilation of facts. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. This BLP has long been a matter of contention and needs serious revision. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Similarly I agree. At various points the article, in my opinion, comes close to being defamatory in nature. Perhaps the worst aspect of the editing of this article is that any Editor who dares to suggest the need for revision is likely to be the subject of personal abuse. Let's hope that this has changed. Research17 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi

https://thomashgreco.medium.com/artificial-intelligence-bots-and-censorship-why-wikipedia-can-no-longer-be-trusted-ded395123ba9

See comments from Brian here, and link to the article he wrote.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]