Talk:Judith Wilyman/PhD controversy

Special pleading in lede

Martin may indeed assert that criticism of the PhD amounts to "biased attacks", but since the bias is in favour of factual accuracy and the attacks are founded in obvious fact, such as the lack of evidence provided for the claimed conspiracy, the failure to check the literature and account for pre-existing refutations of the claims made in the thesis, and the obvious lack of relevant expertise of the supervisor and reviewers, this is not bias in any reasonable sense. Martin and the University's defence of this indefensible award should not be given the last word, that should go to the independent reliable sources which are pretty much unanimous in accounting this PhD as a crock. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if Martin's explanation is correct or not - as the core figure in the controversy, we need to make mention of his, Wilyman's and the university's response. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does matter. This is not a legal case where the defence gets the last word, it's Wikipedia, where facts get the last word. The article makes it very clear that Martin is wrong, and that opposition to this PhD has nothing whatsoever to do with his conspiracist ideation and everything to do with the fact that it is a social science essay pretending to be a scientific treatise on vaccine safety. Wilyman is completely open about having set out to write a PhD to support her anti-vaccine activism. She routinely cites it in her activism, as if her claims have been peer reviewed and found to eb correct. They have not. Her entire thesis is written in studied ignorance of the wider literature, as the article makes clear.

We don't give defenders of climate change denial the last word when discussing their climate change denialism, and we must not give apologists for conspiracist anti-vaccine propaganda the last word when discussing said propaganda. That is an abrogation of our mission. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult topic, not helped by extremists on both sides. But I don't see this as being about vaccinations, so much as being about expected standards in doctoral research. One side claims that those standards were not met with this thesis, and the university, examiners and supervisor disagree. If the article was about vaccinations then yes, I would expect us to keep the anti-vaxxers on the outskirts. But in a debate about doctoral standards, the views of the university and supervisor are not fringe, as they are core perspectives.

That said, the current order makes sense to me - spell out the argument against the thesis, then mention the response. I'm not sure how that could be reordered, but I have no in-principal problem with covering that in a different way. - Bilby (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not awar of any extremists on the pro-science side. Antivaxers are vicious, pro-science people use factual critique and mockery, not threats of harm. Many of the reality-based community engaging with Wilyman are credentialled academics, after all. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, my experience of the pro-vaccine side has been very different from yours. Which is doubly disappointing, on the grounds that I'm pro-vaccine. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post evidence of that. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of editing here, along with various threats to contact my employer, someone created a fake Twitter account under my name, using my photo, with a description lifted from my existing Twitter account, which they used to post vile anti-vaccination rubbish, presumably to point to when they contacted my employer and claimed that I was an evil anti-vaxer. In addition, they used my photo and name to post anti-vax rubbish in comments on other websites. So no, my experience of "pro-vaccination" extremists hasn't been positive. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is very bizarre. I follow a lot of people engaged int he vaccination "debate" in Australia, including the NRVS, Dr. Rachie, Friends of Science in medicine and so on. I have seen many vicious attacks levelled at science advocates but yours is the first instance I can ever recall where anybody has been attacked by a pro-vaxer. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously affecting your editorial decisions on Wikipedia. Bilby, your anger against pro-vax and pro-sciencers is noted as well as your obviously telling use of phrase "pro-vaccination" extremists" (your words). To most, is seems your position is obviously slanted due to your experiences and thus rightly excuses you from contributing further as a semblance of a balanced editor of this article. I think senior editors such as guy/jzg and similar editors have proven abilities to deal with this topic without such baggage as you bring to it and they would be better placed to overseeing the editing of this article compared to someone as yourself. No offence intended. 1.126.48.253 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why is this article blocked to new users - wiki censorship?

Would like to add the relevations from article but administration dictators on Wikipedia are censoring free speech and discussing the doctors actions in http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uow-suppressing-my-antivaccination-work-says-judy-wilyman/news-story/35eeef7baac1368b49d875639f94eb67?nk=56fd9cd1173b3bf3281eee16a0f0c7a2-1469555973 Shame on Wikipedia for censorship and gagging the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, it's attitudes like this that demonstrate why this article is semi-protected! But, raging emotion aside, the IP was trying to link to a relevant new source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/uow-suppressing-my-antivaccination-work-says-judy-wilyman/news-story/35eeef7baac1368b49d875639f94eb67?nk=56fd9cd1173b3bf3281eee16a0f0c7a2-1469555973

Unfortunately there are subscription wall problems but, despite that and despite the confrontational manner in which the link was put on this talk page, I think the difficult task of referring to a complaint about both this Wikipedia article and a member of the UoW medical faculty made by the subject of the article could be worthwhile. 86.163.65.36 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? God? Me standing up for freedom of access here id not confrontational, its proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked due to repeated violations of the WP:BLP policy. If you want to edit it, you can simply create an account, make 10 edits, and wait four days. Otherwise, you'll have to make edit requests. clpo13_(talk) 22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information, and also not calling me names like the other person did. It's not happy here 😊 but the news article is exposing of university and student comflict and I am stopped from mentioning it in article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make false claims of ad hominem attacks. Your behaviour and attitude have been rightly criticised, not you personally. And you may also want to refrain from snide comments about the person who took the time to fish your original request out of the dustbin where it had been put. 86.163.65.36 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I see a swift edit has been made reporting on this new development. I've got some copyediting suggestions, the current text is wordy/passively voiced in my view (e.g. "requested that the university should intervene"). Also. I'm seeking to add what I think is an important aspect of her demands: continued allegations of suppression by anyone (not only Alison Jones, but several other named individuals) who criticises her research. These have been hallmarks of her response to any and all criticism and have been noted in at least some reports on the controversy. I've indicated precisely where in the two references I took the wording to help assess this edit request.

Change: "In the letter Wilyman requested that the university should intervene to correct the Wikipedia on the controversy, which she alleged contained incorrect information. She also criticised Wollongong academic, Alison Jones, for using the university's website to publicise "personal opinions of vaccination".".

To: "In the letter, Wilyman criticised the university for not actively supporting her research, suggesting this was due to financial motivations.[refs:penultimate para of W's letter, 6th para of TheAus report] She asked the university to correct alleged inaccuracies in the Wikipedia article about her research, saying that criticism of her thesis in the media and by individual scientists was a supression of scientific debate.[refs:2nd para of W's letter, 2nd para of TheAus report]"

Then, I think the focus of the following sentence should be reversed. The main point (as indicated in TheAus report) is the attack on her university, not on Wikipedia.

Change: "The university responded by saying that they do not curate Wikipedia, and that they do not endorse or otherwise the views of students or academic staff."

To: "The university responded by saying that they do not endorse or otherwise the views of students or academic staff, and do not curate Wikipedia."

As a variation, I think it's reasonable to omit all reference to Wikipedia and focus entirely on the fact that she's attacking her university. ie

"In the letter, Wilyman criticised the university for not actively supporting her research, suggesting this was due to financial motivations. She said that criticism of her thesis in the media and by individual scientists was a supression of scientific debate. The university responded by saying that they do not endorse or otherwise the views of students or academic staff."

However, the decision over whether to omit the mention of Wikipedia should perhaps best be left to regular contributors to this article after making the full edit. I'm only mentioning this alternative version as an idea for future discussion/bold edits. Another point to consider is whether this material is best placed in this "after graduation" section, which all feels like a bit of an afterthought. 86.163.65.36 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm sure there must also be an existing source responding to her ongoing allegations that "criticism=supression of debate" which could also be appended to this addition. I think it's important to do this as claims of suppression are a common theme anti-vax conspiracies. I don't have any specific suggestions for this and leave it as a suggestion for future improvements. 86.163.65.36 (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the difficulty is that The Australian needs to be viewed as a hostile source. In reading the letter, it is not predominately an attack on the university, but a request to the university for support [1]. There is criticism of the university, and criticism of universities in general when discussing funding, but it isn't as The Australian describes. So I'm not completely comfortable with the first line of your proposed change. That said, I'm happy with the rest, although as her letter focuses on Wikipedia I think we should retain that focus here. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight correction to a bias statement - '"The Australian needs to be viewed as a hostile source" in professor eBilby's and Dr Wilyman's distorrted view opinion, but most others in the science community subscribe to The Australian above eBilby's opinion'. Please leave your and your IP puppets personal distortions out of the debate please. Your lecturer bias is not proper and not needed here. You are in the University and public minority opinion with your comments, just like the Dr. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.28.185 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to have fallen into thinking this is a quasi-legal process with "hostile witnesses" and so on. Any reality-based source will be acutely critical of Wilyman's work. It is, after all, dangerous nonsense. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about hostile witnesses or quasi-legal processes. the problem is that The Australian has been running a long-term campaign against Wilyman. While I, in general, agree with the intent of the campaign, they have taken to editorialising and interpretations which are not always supported by the sources they are drawing on. This warrants care - not a refusal to use The Australian, nor a belief that they aren't generally reliable, but a need to be cautions of the distinction between editorialising and what is fully supported. When you raised Wilyman's letter, you accurately described it as lobbying to the university. It was, and it was never going to work. When The Australian reported on the same letter, it changed from lobbying to an unprecedented attack on the university. That's where the risk with The Australian's interpretations come into play. - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as if when a RS is an RS Bilby you are picking to reject the RS if it isn't to your liking. You do not have the right to pick and choose in such a way to imbalance the article to suit any bias. 1.126.48.253 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian is not running a campaign against Wilyman, it is supporting good science in an area of vital interest to public health. There are many other examples where it has criticised anti-vaccination bullshit, e.g. [2], [3]. They are, of course, engaging in some investigative journalism, such as digging into the reasons why the final reviewers did not include anybody with a medical science background. There's nothing wrong with that. Fans of Andy Wakefield weren't very happy about the role of the press in digging up his malfeasance, that does not make the press any less reliable. The core fact that cannot be ignored here is that Wilyman is an antivaxer who chose a supervisor with sympathy to conspiracy theories in a faculty with no expertise in medical science, in order to write a PhD specifically for the purpose of providing a veneer of authority to her anti-vaccination activism - and that is precisley how she has used this PhD since it was awarded. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Temporal Sunshine Paine 18:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016

This edit request to Judith Wilyman PhD controversy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Following the text "In what text was left unredacted, it showed that, according to the initial investigator, there was "sufficient evidence that academic misconduct may have occurred" and the complaint was referred to a high-level conduct committee." a picture of the document attached may be inserted as a reference, taken from the investigation.

Extract from UoW investigation

Jcbigears (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MediaKill13 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pending independent source

Wilyman, Martin and the Faculty were jointly awarded the Bent Spoon Award this year. I will add it as soon as third-party RS coverage is available. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article (24 May 2017) on Wilyman using her PhD credential to push her views, according to The Australian: [4] – in case anyone wants to make use of it. :) EdChem (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Wilyman PhD controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161129082741/http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/News/Skeptics-name-winners-of-Bent-Spoon-award to http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/News/Skeptics-name-winners-of-Bent-Spoon-award

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New source

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18316955 Guy (Help!) 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's very damning, and echoes points JzG made on this page three years ago. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article by Wily et alia is a welcome scholarly reference point. Mind you, the criticism which this scholarly article presents is more focussed and nuanced than much of the criticism in the blogs and tabloid media thus far referenced. I think this WP article could be improved by ditching some of the material referenced from blogs and tabloid media, and concentrating upon what this particular article has to say. It would make this article more focussed. Research17 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. A much more reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Some worthy statements by The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) at newsGP https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/professional/immunisation-researchers-re-open-anti-vaccination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2640:A01:81DB:339F:F12E:A66C (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]