Critical appraisal[edit]

I returned information on Knuth from sources. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it again. If you would like to add materials that have already been removed and are clearly contentious, please discuss here *before* reposting the same content.
I am open to discussion on these points - please use as a starting point the reasons I have already provided for deletion. Please provide short, clear and concise explanations of why you believe my reasons for removing said content are not strong enough. Thank you.
For sake of clarity I'll reiterate the 3 contentious issues here:
  1. The reference to the publisher of Entropy journal (MDPI). I removed this to prevent unfair inferences being made relating to Knuth's editorship the journal. Knuth is not accountable for the publisher's historical record pertaining to controversial decisions made before he was editor. The reference is here simply to demonstrate notability - this article is not about Entropy, nor MDPI. Knuth should not be *seen* to be accountable for that over which he has no control.
  2. The reference to the movie criticism. I removed the quote from a film critic about production standards, as this is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Knuth simply appeared in the film which is referenced here as an example of notability. The film was made by an independent production company; Knuth had nothing to do with the film's production.
  3. I removed the quote from Colavito which misrepresented Knuth's comments and, moreover, was added here in the absence of Knuth's original full quotation for reference. The quote was lacking in context and taken from the personal website of someone who wrote critically about Knuth. The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website. The editor who posted that here chose to re-post this misrepresentation, whilst completely omitting to Knuth's original quote for context - which ironically *was* even included on Colavito's website.
Cosmoid (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Knuth is a pretty minor academic who would probably not pass WP:PROF, but the popularity of his WP:FRINGE advocacy may push him over the edge. Luckily there are a few WP:FRIND sources who critically appraise his advocacy, so we can start from there. However, there was a lot of fluff inserted into the article not attested to by outside sources as being relevant or prominently worth discussing in this biography. I have removed a lot of the CV-like aggrandizement. What is left is a truncated biography that does all the work that is possible to do given the sources we have. The job of Wikipedia is to give the information that third-parties have deemed relevant about a person. Right now, this article is pretty thin on that, but I judge that it is just over the WP:GNG line. jps (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that The author of that referenced content had quite blatantly misrepresented the quote of Keven Knuth on his own website. does not, to me, seem to stand up to even the most straightforward of due diligence and scrutiny. Knuth is, whether wittingly or unwittingly, aping the same arguments that have been aped for decades by the ufology community. I understand his stated desire is to "rehabilitate" the topic, but he is not the first person to declaim such a motivation and Colavito is a good source for tying this back to the normal ufology social scene. In short, this is a pretty decent WP:PARITY point here. jps (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you will see on Colavito's web page, Knuth's actual quotation was: "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."
Colavito clearly and deliberately pulls the phrase "all of the data" (and puts in quotation marks), so it appears as if Knuth is stating that he thinks all of the data would be explained as, as Colavito puts it, "spaceships from another world". That quote from Colavito's website has been lifted & put into the WP article to make Knuth's position appear preposterous - and done so without even the context of Knuth's original quotation! Colavito stated:
"He asks us to accept at face value the claim that “all of the data” about UFOs are linked to a singular phenomenon, namely spaceships from another world"
That is quite obviously and evidently not what Knuth is asking anyone to accept. Anyone with any semblance of skill in English comprehension should be able to see that. Knuth stated "ALL of the possible hypotheses, to explain all of the data...". In other words, hypotheses that do NOT argue for an extraterrestrial solution should be considered, just as equally as those that do. At no point does Knuth state that all UFO are a linked to a single phenomenon - let alone are "spaceships from another world". That is simply not what he said. Period.
Using this quote is simply not a factual way of representing who the subject is, nor what he believes - based on Knuth's actual quote and also everything I have seen and heard him say in interviews and writings. Cosmoid (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A parent must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the dog eating all of the cookies from the counter hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out. Is this saying that all of the data are linked to one phenomena, the dog jumping on the counter and eating the cookies?
Isn't criticized Knuth's belief that the U.S. government is covering up encounters with aliens, writing that Knuth "leaned heavily on his credentials as a former NASA employee" but "provided no “insider” knowledge, nor any indication that he had firsthand evidence of a government conspiracy. enough criticism to hang on a source that shouldn't be used in a BLP anyway to satisfy whatever WP:PARITY concerns exist? That seems like a reasonable compromise, as it leaves out the obvious misinterpretation, and provides the bog standard "he doesn't actually have proof UFOs are real" language that we need to tack onto every article about someone who talks about UFOs.
I get that we need to make sure that the non-existent portion of readers who are on the fence about UFOs and would be convinced one way or another by adding just a little bit more criticism sourced to a guy's blog get the right information, but do we really need to quote the plainly wrong interpretation from a source that already shouldn't be used in a BLP to do it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just to make sure we're all on the same page, WP:FRINGEBLP says All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
WP:BLPSPS, the policy that must be complied with, says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just went over the sources, and even judging by just the quote provided here, Colavito's characterization seems fair enough. Knuth claims that a scientist needs to weigh "all of the data", clearly thinks of himself as a scientist, and clearly comes to the conclusion that it's aliens. Colavito isn't misquoting Knuth; he's using the context to accurately characterize Knuth's point.
It's not within our remit to judge individual aspects of a source for their reliability and then only include those we accept. The proper term for that behavior is cherry picking, and it's very much contrary to our policies. If Colavito had claimed Knuth said quite the opposite of what he had actually said, that would be a good reason to re-evaluate Colavito as a source. But this? No, this is not problematic text. Happy (Slap me) 15:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is cherry-picking as contrary to our policies as using a self-published source in a BLP? We're already using a source that is not allowed in a BLP, I don't think looking at the quotes we're using to find a reasonable balance between "this shouldn't be used at all" and "lets provide some criticism and context, despite WP:BLP" is cherry-picking anyway. I don't think if that were being done criticized Knuth's belief that the U.S. government is covering up encounters with aliens, writing that Knuth "leaned heavily on his credentials as a former NASA employee" but "provided no “insider” knowledge, nor any indication that he had firsthand evidence of a government conspiracy. would have been left in the article as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are not claims about Knuth personally, but about his advocacy, as I said in my edit summary. BLP is not a blanket rule that 'overrides' WP:FRINGE, as you have suggested. It applies to different subjects. And WP:FRINGEBLP is quite clear about this. Happy (Slap me) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The Colavito source is allowed in a BLP per WP:PARITY and WP:FRIND as he is as good as it gets when it comes to expert evaluation of fringe ufological claims. The situation is that we can't have it both ways. Either we have established WP:FRINGEBLP worthiness here, in which case proper couching is required, or the fringe claims are irrelevant to the biography in which case we should trash the entire section. Which do you prefer? jps (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGEBLP says Close attention should be paid to the treatment of those who hold fringe viewpoints, since as a rule they are the focus of controversy. All articles concerning these people must also comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP).
WP:BLP says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
So the various guidelines in WP:FRINGE say that the policy, WP:BLP must be followed. I'm not sure where removing a misrepresentation violates anything except for WP:BLP, since it's still coming from a SPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text in question is not about the living person. It is about a publication that the living person wrote. Now, maybe you think that none of the publications deserve inclusion here. Fair enough. But if the publications that Knuth wrote can be talked about here, so can legitimate criticism of the same per WP:FRINGE. In fact, as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned, it is the legitimate criticism that is the only justification for including Knuth's fringe sources in this article. To argue otherwise is to basically to thumb your nose at WP:COAT. jps (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine removing anything without actual secondary coverage in RS. If I hadn't been busy reverting an LTA I would have removed their movie appearance too. What I'm trying to do is compromise and leave the material that want objected to, despite the guideline specifically saying the policy must be followed in the interests of balance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our BLP guidelines are central, and WP:BLPSPS is unambiguous. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that we can't use the blog source. I've trimmed the UFO section down to a dry summary of activities, which at least is not particularly promoting of fringe theories; I then removed the blog source. Comment that media sources are over-impressed with his 4 years as a junior scientist at NASA, and that there's a certain amount of man bites dog in the Guardian article and similar. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at BLPN about situations like this, with regards to PARITY, FRINGEBLP and BLPSPS that is likely of interest to those involved in this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space.com[edit]

Since this source has been introduced [1], the analysis and comment by Robert Sheaffer should definitely be included, per WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Happy (Slap me) 21:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis and commentary on a UAP study funded by NASA that Knuth isn't involved in? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to which you refer is there to factually support the statement that Knuth researches UAP. The statement does not discuss any particular study, hypothesis, or theory. Ergo, including "analysis and comment" by anyone on that point would be inappropriate unless it was intended to provide balance to the assertion that Knuth is involved in UAP research (which would be absurd, being that he clearly is). Cosmoid (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, Knuth expresses his ideas about the NASA UAP investigation, and Sheaffer's comments about the NASA UAP investigation serve as a counterpoint, ergo, they are quite appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is impeached in a major way. An alternative approach would be just to not use it at all. Space.com is sometimes fine, but it often strays into problematic territory when it comes to WP:FRINGE claims as do a lot of popsci websites. jps (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with keeping fringe claims out of the article so there's no need for mainstream context. However, based on the discussions of Wikipedia on UAPx's discord server, I would be very surprised if this BLP didn't become an WP:ADVOCACY WP:COATRACK at some point in the future. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert explanation[edit]

[2] I think the user who instituted the last few edits may not be familiar with how Wikipedia functions. First of all, conference proceedings should not be used to support anything, really, as they are not generally considered reliable. Find peer-reviewed sources for adding content (preferably not primary sources to boot). Finally, tags should not be removed. The two issues were identified during the course of the WP:AfD and continue to be pretty problematic here. Please improve the article before removing the tags. jps (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I disagree. The article was not found to lacking 'notability' following the AfD discussion. If it had been, the article would have been deleted. It was not. Cosmoid (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for the conference proceedings; you are failing to appreciate *what* they were being used to support. If you are accurately representing the current consensus interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines (I really do not have the time to spend investigating volumes of conflicting guidelines and related discussions), then they are quite frankly absurd. Cosmoid (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conference proceedings should not ever be used except to support what the conference proceedings say. And if those are WP:DUE, then they're likely covered by more reliable sources, which should be preferred.
There is no hard rule that any subject spoken about by a particular person at a conference is, in fact, a subject of expertise for that person. Indeed, it's quite common for credentialed individuals to speak on a topic they are relatively new to at a conference, to share a newcomer's perspective on that topic.
Regarding the tags: You've already threatened an edit war, and started to engage in one with multiple reverts. If this persists, you will very likely be blocked over it.
That's not what anyone wants here, so I'd advise you to work with your fellow editors to address those issues, rather than pretending like they don't exist. Happy (Slap me) 13:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmoid, by my count you are at 5RR. So far we have two people in support of the tags, and you against. With all due respect, it might be worth considering that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Other users have also reached 3RR. I have added the Primary source tag myself, as am willing to compromise on that. But the notability tag is not staying up unless I am banned from editing. Period. Cosmoid (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps others have reached 3RR. You have blown right past it. You seem fond of warning others against edit warring while blatantly doing so yourself. I would also respectfully suggest that ultimatums are not particularly conducive to collaborative editing. Dumuzid (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was the first to warn against WP:EW and provided my reasons for removal. Go look at the history. If you were interested in 'collaborative editing', you would have discussed here first as opposed to simply reverting the edit - again. So do not come here playing the "I'm just trying to be constructively collegial card". Thanks. Cosmoid (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my eye, three people are editing in a collegial manner and you are obstructing same with a blatant WP:OWN rationale. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closing comment was, The result was no consensus. Opinion is split, with a slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. The notability of academics is a notoriously contentious topic, and people here don't agree about whether Knuth is notable for his academic work, his UFO-related activity, or both.
Therefore, The two issues were identified during the course of the WP:AfD is correct.
Therefore, The article was not found to lacking 'notability' following the AfD discussion is misleading. You cannot just look at what you said in the AfD and ignore what everybody else including the closer said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious consensus here is that notability continues to be an issue and needs to be resolved before the tags are removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD ended in no consensus. I think that that at least adds up to a consensus that notability is questionable, and the tag is called for. I agree that if the AfD had ended in Keep then the tag should be removed. On the other hand, I do not at this stage see a great need for the Primary Sources tag. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issue does seem to be far less intractable and a lot more debatable. I certainly don't see an issue coming to a consensus on that one. The notability problem on the other hand... Happy (Slap me) 14:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Although my initial gut reaction was the opposite, I am coming around to thinking this is correct. And for what it's worth, I think Cosmoid would be a valuable part of the conversation if we could get past this single-person veto issue. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I think Cosmoid would be a valuable part of the conversation if we could get past this single-person veto issue. Completely agree. The more POVs we have, the better the final result. Hence why I said earlier that sanctions are not what anyone here wants. But the disruption has to stop. Happy (Slap me) 15:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says:

Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".

Template:Notability says:

Do not place this message on an article that has already survived a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion as "keep". This is not a badge of shame to show your disagreement with the AFD outcome.

Therefore, the notability tag is not warranted. 5Q5|✉ 10:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "no consensus" does not result in deletion of the article, but is also well short of a keep. Past usage that I have seen has often resulted in replacing of a tag at a no-consensus article. Indeed, this replacement may be useful for future editors: no consensus articles are good candidates for renomination. I agree that this situation is not well addressed by guidelines, and suggest that we open a larger conversation elsewhere. Is there a better place than Template talk:Notability? Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish: for suggestions as an experienced and fairly neutral editor, familiar with this article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the AfD closed as no consensus I don't see an issue including the tag, at least until there are some more sources to convince more people of notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As far as I can tell, this situation is, indeed, well covered by policy. WP:CONSENSUS being the relevant one. Happy (Slap me) 12:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions for the template also say that we should not edit war over its removal. I do think that there is a consensus for including the template, however, which among other things serves as a hint that a future editor may want to consider nominating for AfD. I am of the opinion that right after an AfD that ended in no consensus is a great time to include the template. It is not appropriate to immediately renominate, but notability is uncertain (otherwise, the discussion would have ended in a keep). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that another AfD lies in this article's future, especially if people continue to argue about the tags instead of working on the issues they call out. Happy (Slap me) 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion about retagging can be found at Template_talk:Notability#Notability tag after no consensus AfD close 5Q5|✉ 13:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the cn tags...[edit]

Regarding the 'citation needed' tags, other than Knuth's own faculty page at SUNY Albany (article reference 1) I have been unable to find any reliable, non-Knuth-derived sources that support the content that Knuth worked as a researcher at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research and at NASA's Ames Research Center. Additionally, and independently of this apparent lack of sources, those jobs were from 20 years ago (or more) and do not seem particularly notable. I assume he actually did work at those places, but per WP:NOTCV I am uncertain this content should be retained. Thoughts? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had found some sources that provided a less detailed work history, researcher for NASA for instance. Unfortunately I don't have access to them right now, but I'd rather see it sources and less detailed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's not unduly self-serving, I think sourcing to the self-published source of his faculty profile page (which indeed even has some limited university oversight) is fine, per WP:SPS. The NASA job could also be sourced to, say, the piece in The Guardian (but I think it is actually better to use the profile page here). Inspired by ScottishFinnishRadish, I looked a little more, and found this [3], which you might like better; or the biography of this paper [4] (which I believe to be secondary for the purpose of his affiliation). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The IEEE and paper biographies are essentially cut-and-paste replicates of Knuth's faculty page (certainly the second of those will have been provided by Knuth himself, and thus the source is really not secondary). And regarding that faculty page, I would suspect that if SUNY Albany is like pretty much every other university, it's oversight of faculty webpages is probably better described as "near-zero" than "limited," at least with respect to such pages' factual content - they are far more concerned with issues of formatting, color choice, photo quality, etc. If SFR can find reliable, secondary sources to support the information, that would be terrific! But are those positions really so notable that they do not collide with WP:NOTCV? Many, many people have held similar jobs at those places. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Northeast Public Radio Dr. Knuth has published over 100 peer-reviewed publications and has been invited to give over 80 presentations in 14 countries.
IGN (for some reason?) Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center, is teaming up with Ailleris to employ satellite imagery to detect and monitor UAPs.
Vice Motherboard Leading the team of scientists is Dr. Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA’s Ames Research Center, now an associate professor of physics at the University of Albany. Knuth specializes in machine learning and the study of exoplanets.
Times Union Knuth has a doctorate in physics and a minor in mathematics and has worked at the NASA Ames Research Center and been a Cornell University instructor for the medical college's Department of Physiology and Biophysics.He's worked on research in the fields of cyberphysics and robotics and foundations of quantum theory. One of his current projects is studying planets orbiting stars that are too far away for data about their atmospheres to be gathered so "it's not possible to know if there is life on them."
Livescience Working with Ailleris to employ satellite imagery to detect and monitor UAPs is Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley. He is now an associate professor of physics at the University at Albany in New York.
Bisnis, Indonesian source Kevin Knuth, a former scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, said he and Ailleris would use satellites to monitor the ocean area south of Catalina Island
Looks like NASA's Ames Research Center, Cornell, and associate professor all have secondary sourcing available. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SFR. So there we have it, several sort-of secondary sources. I wrote "sort-of" because the precise phrase a former scientist with NASA's Ames Research Center seems curiously parroted a few times, suggesting that this particular biographical information was derived directly from a single source, Knuth's faculty page. That is, from Knuth himself. I recognize that boilerplate biographical information of this type can be neatly written in only so many ways, that old jobs listed on a cv/resume are usually uncontroversial, that it might be downright churlish of me to question if any of those outlets actually verified those job claims (after all, why would they?), and that I should perhaps ignore that the Cornell position is mentioned only once in that list of sources. Just so we're clear, I am not claiming that Knuth did not have any of these long-ago jobs. This isn't about The Truth. But are those jobs rendered notable because some secondary sources parrot a cv? Perhaps they are. I do note, however, that published papers, invited talks, society/organization memberships, and other professional activities can all be verified independently of what a subject includes on their faculty web page or cv, or what they say during an interview. Not so, apparently, these jobs. Does that not make them problematic per WP:NOTCV? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that NOTCV applies to editor user pages, not biographical detail for article subjects. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a bit of an example, I wrote Rosetta Lawson and Jesse Lawson, both of which have significant detail on employment, and it seemed like relevant detail when writing. Also, in my experience a "Career" heading is pretty common in biographies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, perhaps my understanding of WP:NOTCV is such that I should have instead referred to either the overarching policy WP:NOT, or perhaps the third sentence of section 5 of WP:PROMO. That's on me. My understanding, however, is that being encyclopedic, WP pages (including BLPs) should not simply replicate every item from cv's/resumes. Are we to include on BLPs every single cv-based meeting abstract, publication, external talk, class taught, and (more apropos this discussion) previous job? Where does it end? The point I was/am trying to make, quite poorly it seems, is that items derived ultimately/solely from a subject's cv/webpage can be problematic, and should probably not be included if they are not independently verifiable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if secondary sources are covering it, it's noteworthy. That's my general bar for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. On that basis I think the multiple mentions (as opposed to "cover[age]", because those jobs weren't really covered in the listed sources) of Ames justify its inclusion here. But not so the Cornell job, which seems to have been mentioned in only one source, and in passing. I'll try to make the corresponding edits today, although it's so nice outside I might have a tough time sitting in front of a computer screen today. The Call of the Wild, and all that. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MDPI[edit]

This edit was reverted here with the claim that I think it's WP:UNDUE to include this material here. Unsurprisingly I do not agree, as there seems nothing undue about the inclusion of reliably sourced, factual, and notable information about the publisher of the journal for which the article subject serves as editor-in-chief. If the subject's editorial position is to be included in the article, it seems appropriate for the publisher's standing in the scientific community to also be (briefly) included. What specifically is undue about the inclusion of that content? Additional opinions please. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the reverter. I don't disagree about MDPI being a bit problematic, but I don't think that every mention of MDPI on Wikipedia should be accompanied by text about its uneven standards. Material can be reliably sourced and still not be appropriate to include in the article, particularly in a WP:BLP. A source that specifically mentioned Knuth or Entropy would likely be worthwhile to include. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nature of the journal should be outlined, but perhaps a change of wording is in order. How about:
Since 2012 Knuth has been editor-in-chief of the journal Entropy,[ref 1][ref 2] a journal published by the controversial MDPI.[ref 3]
Happy (Slap me) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think guilt by association is necessary, unless there is some indication that Entropy is one journals that had been discussed by sources discussing MDPI issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issues highlighted with MDPI aren't really on a journal-by-journal basis.
And there's no guilt-by-association going on here. We're characterizing MDPI, not suggesting that Knuth is wrong to have worked for them. The guilt-by-association seem to be happening internally, when you read that part. I can tell you that I don't see it that way, though I can understand how someone else could.
This is another situation where I feel like emergent judgements are overriding fundamental facts. Does critical information about MDPI reflect poorly upon Knuth? Well, that really depends, but generally speaking, yeah. So what should we (an encyclopedia) do about that? Do we omit relevant, accurate information in order to change this perception? Or do we shrug our shoulders and report the facts, regardless of the impression they make?
It seems to me like the latter is the better path. Happy (Slap me) 18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the sources covering Knuth within the context of MDPI? Or are these sources just covering MDPI generally? Because if it is the latter, it is questionable to include here. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If sources were covering MDPI's credibility with a focus on Knuth, then they would, by necessity, be sources covering Knuth's credibility, which we're not discussing here. We don't need sources describing Knuth's credibility to make a statement about MDPI's credibility, even in an article about Knuth. In fact, doing so would be a gross violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:V.
As I said above, the emergent judgements one draws from the facts is not the concern of an encyclopedia, only that the facts given are both relevant and accurate. Happy (Slap me) 22:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how not including information would violate SYNTH, and V doesn't require we include everything verifiable, just that what is included must be verifiable. I think we should be checking for WP:DUEWEIGHT, so we look at the topic, Knuth, the number of sources discussing his involvement with MDPI controversies, zero, and assign weight based on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how not including information would violate SYNTH You've misunderstood what I said. I said that using sources talking about Knuth's credibility to make statements about MDPI's credibility would be synth, not that removing information would be synth.
I think we should be checking for WP:DUEWEIGHT, so we look at the topic, Knuth, the number of sources discussing his involvement with MDPI controversies, zero, and assign weight based on that. You're arguing here that we should decide whether or not some clearly relevant information about MDPI's credibility is due based on the number of sources we have about Knuth's credibility, and that's simply not an intellectually honest approach. Happy (Slap me) 12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that including information on the controversies of a publisher of hundreds of journals isn't due in an article on a topic that sources haven't connected to the controversies. We generally don't include unrelated information about a subject's employer unless there is some link found in sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The controversies are integral to MDPI's nature. Knuth is directly connected to MDPI. To say that there's no connection there is disingenuous.
If you need concrete evidence of this, then you should be aware that he was editor in chief of Entropy when that journal published an article full of pseudoscience, written by an anti-vaxxer with no relevant qualifications whatsoever. And it's not like Entropy is any stranger to publishing antivaxx nonsense, in any event. I can't tell if Knuth oversaw that second one, but it remains a possibility. He was established as editor-in-chief when the first was published, however, which puts that squarely within his watch.
I'm not suggesting using either link as a source in this article, by the way. Simply showing you that your assertion that Knuth and MDPI's reputation for lax standards aren't nearly as disconnected as you have insisted they are. Happy (Slap me) 14:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as as compromise: using HMS's suggested text above, retaining the two RS, but removing the phrase "the controversial"? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "the controversial" is important to characterizing the publisher, and a fair compromise on its own, versus the accurate and relevant text you had previously added. Without it, my proposed wording is functionally no different to what is there, now. Happy (Slap me) 14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point we should wait on some more input and see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should insert references that have little to do with Knuth. So I went looking for better referencing. The Entropy (journal) article discusses a case that happened under Knuth's editorship. It was covered by Discover (magazine), but this piece does not directly mention Knuth or Entropy. The Reuters piece that it is response to mentions the journal (although the link may be weakly WP:SYNTH), and Beal's List (possibly not useable per WP:BLPSPS) also covered the case. Overall, I think this still falls a bit short of what we can include in a BLP, but it's possible that there's better sourcing elsewhere. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's synthesis just like you (Jojo) tried to do here.[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts your comment connecting JoJo to synthesis in an unrelated discussion that took place in September 2020 could be construed as a personal attack. See WP:NPA. Also, bringing that discussion into this discussion is off topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM where it says, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and [you] should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages..." I recommend you remove this comment and link. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not intended as a personal attack. It's a reminder that this type of synthesis is inappropriate based on an example that Jojo is previously familiar with. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories