User talk:Bradv/Strickland incident

Proofreader remarks

"This draft has considered considerable media attention" KalHolmann (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"claiming I should have know that The Optical Society" KalHolmann (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"that independence sources are not required for WP:PROF." KalHolmann (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free to fix any further embarrassing typos yourself if you're so inclined. In my defense, I got second-degree burns to my left hand the day this news broke, and have had some difficulty typing. Brad v 18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your hand. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. It's not an embarrassing typo, but→

"These discussions happened on my talk page, the talk page of the new article, and various other talk pages related to AfC."

I recommend specifically linking to the lengthy and lively discussion at WikiProject Women in Red, which is easily overlooked among "various other talk pages related to AfC." KalHolmann (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Brad v 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More media coverage

https://observer.com/2018/10/wikipedia-nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland/ Brad v 19:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observer boosts Wikipedia's "Women in Red" project and reports, "Some editors are writing one to three Wikipedia entries for women in science every day." For proof, Observer links to a July 2018 story at The Guardian about physicist Jess Wade who "writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed." No mention by Observer, however, that Women in Red made zero effort to create or promote a BLP for Donna Strickland, and even Strickland's fellow physicist, the indefatigable Dr Wade, failed to include her among Wade's 270 pages. Rather, Observer blames Wikipedia's "continuing bias against women in science." Yep, as usual, it's all down to our malignant misogyny and culture of male privilege. Right. KalHolmann (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, I really wonder if any of these media outlets that are now criticizing Wikipedia ever bothered to write a news article about Strickland themselves. It's easy to criticize from the bleachers. Brad v 20:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the media outlets covering this incident reached out to you for comment? Seems odd that the Observer mentions you by name, and other outlets mention you indirectly, but I haven't seen recent statements. ^Falling_Gravity 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FallingGravity, no, I have not been contacted by any media outlets. Brad v 16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As time progresses, the reporting seems to be getting more accurate, and more focused on broader problems with gender bias in physics, in academia, and in the media in general. Brad v 17:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bradv, sorry to hear about your hand and hope it's healing well. Didn't spot Ed Erhart (4 October 2018). "Why didn't Wikipedia have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize?". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved 8 October 2018. in your essay, and wish I'd read it earlier. It would probably be worthwhile adding it to the article talk page page header in a nice box, don't know how to code that so if any stalkers agree please add it! The list to the header needs updated, so I'm aiming to do that but the formatting looks a hassle so may take some time.
On a minor point, Observer confused me for a minute, you were probably well aware it's The New York Observer and not The Observer which shares the website of The Guardian which annoyingly still doesn't seem to have corrected its article. Anyway, thanks for all the work and hope it works out well, . dave souza, talk 20:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear me what your complaint is, but if you have one send it to guardian.readers@theguardian.com. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot know something that hasn't happened

As a previous Wikipedia contributor, I understand the reason. We are only online collaborators and we make edits and actions based on available information. At that time, nobody knows she will become an award winner. Wikipedia doesn't create news. It's the media and science society's fault that let scientist not being known for such a long time. Wikipedia just reflect what it is but cannot change it. If the society had pay enough attention to those female scientist, Wikipedia will definitely have their pages.

Here is no point to blame Wikipedia or an editor. It is nothing about gender bias. People should understand how Wikipedia works. We cannot predict future and we cannot create coverage. Guoyunhe (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations on their own members - Suggestion

I'm honestly confused by the notion that an organization's own statement of its membership is not a reliable source, regardless of external verification. Indeed, what would that "independent" verifier rely on other than the organization's claim? IOW, an organization is and must be the only authoritative source of its own membership. This might need explicit recognition.

Also, WP:NRV states:

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

Which would seem to pertain in this case.

The ins and outs of Wikipedia's editorial decisions and policies can be confusing to outsiders, but it's not hard to see why people would be skeptical of claims that this case was not at least partially sexist. --Eponymous-Archon (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about both of these things as well. I fully understand why we do not accept self-reporting on issues that might even be slightly subjective. But a major, and established, society, reporting on who is or isn't a member, or a fellow, or an officer, is surely a reliable statement? Even a media report on such membership surely would rely on the society's own statement, seeing that it would be impossible to verify membership, or office-holders, independently of the society itself. Similarly, I do not think it would make sense to, say, not take the Nobel Foundation's official statement of who received a particular Nobel Prize as unreliable. Clearly this is an issue that needs to be discussed, and that goes much further than this single judgement call. Markus Pössel (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this elsewhere in a discussion with Eponymous-Archon, but the relevant policy for this is WP:PRIMARY, and there's the essay WP:INDEPENDENT. ^Falling_Gravity 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academic notability Criterion 6

Hi Bradv, not sure how overwhelmed you are with this matter, but I was wondering why your essay only mentions criterion 3, not criterion 6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") for WP:PROF. By that, I think that her year as president of the OSA should have qualified Strickland as notable, even without the fellowship.

(Disclosure/background: I'm in the process of writing an article about the Strickland issue, but with a focus on the more general expert retention question. I do see the points you make in your essay, and consider some of the media coverage unfair and even hypocritical, the latter where it comes from the same journalists that did not cover Strickland themselves in the past years.) Markus Pössel (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markus, I think we met at Lindau once, did we not? You refer to an essay mentioning various criteria, but I haven't been able to locate it. Can you or anyone else provide a link? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, we did meet at Lindau, and directly afterwards under less pleasant circumstances here on Wikipedia when you protested (successfully) the inclusion in your WP lemma of an image of you I had taken at Lindau. Regarding your question: The notability criteria are part of Wikipedia's official policy; you can find them by following the wikilink I provided, namely this one: WP:PROF. (Those are the notability criteria for biographies of academics; there are other criteria for other categories.) Markus Pössel (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I discreetly refrained from referring to that sequel! My question was not about the notability criteria, but about what essay you were referring to when you said 'the points you made in your essay'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it myself now, it is the user page connected with this one. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your discretion, then! And yes, we are on the talk page of the essay in question, as you say. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've now studied that essay, and the real issue would seem to be the meaning attached to the term 'independent source', as in I took a look at the sources to see if they supported the claims, and if they were reliable and independent of the subject. I don't understand why the Optical Society bio was not considered 'independent of the subject'. Just because she was past president? Surely not! I suppose if the president was a dictator and took over the web pages to make a false claim that she was president? Hold on a moment, that does not make sense! And is it really true, as seems to be suggested, that 'official biographies' are not RS? Where do the rules say that? (update: I see this has already been brought up in the section above) --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Josephson: I am not aware of any consensus that a certain level of reliability of a source negates the need for independence. WP:NRV requires that information such as this be verified by an independent source, and being on the board and a past president is about as far from independent as possible, isn't it?

I will note also that our article on The Optical Society has been tagged with notices of conflict of interest and sourcing issues for about 18 months, meaning that there is precedent for the opinion that the OSA website is not an appropriate RS for OSA-related topics. Brad v 22:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Markus Pössel: You're correct, criteria #6 would also apply, but in this case isn't it completely redundant to criteria #3? Brad v 22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For context, it may be worth noting that Brian Josephson's own BLP, which he actively edits, was created in December 2003 yet did not acquire its first inline citation until September 2007. His page stood for nearly four years before anyone bothered to decorate it with a WP:RS, and it wasn't he who did so. I'm not sure Professor Josephson ought to be considered an authority on Wikipedia bios being "independent of the subject." KalHolmann (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KalHolmann, I was not aware of that, thank you. We have come a long way since 2003, but we clearly have more work to do if people are still attempting to use Wikipedia as a means of self promotion. Brad v 23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest KalHolmann not be considered an authority on WP:CoI and on my credentials as wiki editor, since his CoI notice has been reverted by editor Roxy, who considers that I have been editing my wiki page responsibly.--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I do recommend that people follow the link that KalHolmann recommends, from which they will then see that criticism of my edits is entirely out of place.--Brian Josephson (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv: Not redundant, in the sense that not every OSA fellow is also an OSA president, of course. But in a similar situation when it comes to sources, in that the main source for that is the OSA website. I agree with Brian Josephson though in that it doesn't make much sense to exclude the web publications of established institutions, or societies, when it comes to simple statements of fact concerning those same institutions.

As for WP:NRV, I am unsure about how to read the paragraph on "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It seems to say more than just admonishing editors to look for themselves before rejecting (which given the number of AiC is, in practice, unrealistic anyway). I wonder if it is meant to encapsulate the kind of judgement we are talking about earlier – for instance that an OSA publication is probably reliable in stating the society's own officers, and that more reliable proof of that (presumably in some filing) is sure to exist.

Brian: I think the question is a bit different. This is not about whether or not your edits to your own bio were appropriate, but whether your bio in its original state had enough external, reliable sources to verify its information. Wikipedia, by official policy, does not rely on experts. So in principle, even if you write about your own life, you should give an independent reliable source (such as a newpaper article). The reason Bradv rejected the original Donna Strickland draft was based on this very criterion: it did not cite reliable souces. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that other issue (appropriateness of my edits to my own bio page) was raised as well, to the extent that someone flagged the bio page with a very visible insert at the top. Fortunately an ~~more intelligent~~ editor saw what had happened and reverted it. If you look at the history of my bio page you can see what happened. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it is true. I recognized instantly when he reverted my edit that Roxy the dog is more intelligent than I. But thanks to the esteemed Brian Josephson for pointing it out here. I am doubly humbled by the professor's condescension. Now I shall slink off and nurse my damaged ego beneath a homespun dunce cap. I have been put in my place. KalHolmann (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your situation — you were after all trying to do your best.--Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Josephson, "more intelligent"? Making judgements of that nature about other editors says more about you than it does about them, and is against policy. I would ask you to retract your comment. Brad v 16:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herewith adjusted, see above. Perhaps you will now similarly withdraw your assertion that 'that judgement says more about me than it does about them', which I'm sure is equally against WP policy (and I see that the editor concerned has accepted that judgement, FWIW)? --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now a written a proposal for updating the Wikipedia notability guideline for academics to state that institutions (such as the OSA) should be considered reliable sources for prizes, fellowships etc. they award, as well as for information about who their officers are: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposal_for_addition_to_specific_WP:PROF_notability_criteria. Markus Pössel (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

GreenMeansGo has written a very thoughtful and well-written article about this incident at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed. Brad v 00:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, that's a redlink to me. I'd be interested in reading it. You might be interested in User:Andrewa/if the rocket's gonna crash and User:Andrewa/what use is Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, yes, that was moved when the Signpost was published. The article is now at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Op-ed. Cheers. Brad v 16:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made the Washington Post!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/08/why-nobel-winner-donna-strickland-didnt-have-wikipedia-page/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.42.233 (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very perceptive article, e.g. "What hinders students far more than the technical side is Wikipedia’s editing culture. Many of their contributions got reversed almost immediately, in what is known as a “drive-by deletion" --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Bazely admits via Twitter today that she wrote her widely circulated WaPo op-ed "without having seen" the Wikipedia draft in question. Oh, the hubris of academicians! KalHolmann (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible, I wonder, that your critical comment might have been motivated by your not liking her comments on w'pedia's "editing culture", with which I am all too familiar myself?--Brian Josephson (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Josephson, anyone who just spouts their opinion without even trying to learn anything about what really happened doens't deserve to be listened to. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take the perspective that she is talking about w'pedia in general terms, just using the current fuss as a pretext for doing this. If you don't wish to look at it from that perspective, that's fine, that's your privilege.--Brian Josephson (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Like all these articles, the WP:SUBJECT is (poorly informed) criticism of Wikipedia, she should have checked the facts first. The subject's not Donna Strickland, her article's just what we call a "coatrack" to hang criticisms on. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'coatracks' are pretty regular practice in journalism, so your criticism about this is a bit over the top.
I can't locate your definition of the term. The urban dictionary defines it in these terms: A pejorative term for the boring, preppy mainstream girls who come to hardcore shows and basically just hold their boyfriend's jackets while they're in the pit, but that doesn't sound right either, and neither does A term used to describe a woman with a loose nature, someone who has seem many men's coats hung outside/inside their door. What interesting things one learns from the internet! --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking of WP:COATRACK, so maybe a fair point that we hold WP to higher standards than common journalistic practice. The same journalists who failed to publish any articles about Donna Strickland before this month. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects higher, in others definitely not so high.--Brian Josephson (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a follow-up tweet, Dawn Bazely concedes that Bradv made "the right response" to Campbpt0's draft submission. Something she conveniently failed to note in her WaPo op-ed. KalHolmann (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of thoughts – "Watchful Wikipedian" doesn't seem to know how to check who's an admin, and Dawn Bazely says she's "seen lots of similar pages that were approved for MALE academic biologists whom I know WITHOUT such supporting references that are not flagged." Are there really that many articles on male biologists waved through AfC without references? . . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there are. I'd be surprised if she would have said that if she had not encountered examples of such personally.--Brian Josephson (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave souza: Sorry, my mistake. Bradv has been active on Wikipedia for 10 years, 8 months and 21 days, and has made 21,338 edits. He has extended confirmed user, page mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, and autoconfirmed user rights. He is not an administrator. KalHolmann (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your point as per WP:indentation (see history for detail), but nevertheless a little politeness would not be a bad thing.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Josephson: Politeness? Oh, right. Like recently on this very talk page when you impugned my intelligence. Professor, I am losing patience with your foolishness. Please knock it off. KalHolmann (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your abusive words, I see. But I think it's high time this thread was concluded and we got on with more important things.--Brian Josephson (talk)