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 sourcedmust 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 was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
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 within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Both of you guys are misbehaving. The research fraud definitely belongs in the WP article, but it should be rewritten to be more neutral. Stop the revert wars and rewrite the darn thing. 98.166.163.235 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The key results in S3&4 were (barely) statistically sig due to research practices I now identify as p-hacking (here: dropping data w/ unclear exclusion rules)"
- "To end: I am ashamed of helping publish this paper & how long it took to identify its issues. I am not the same scientist I was 10 years ago. I hold myself accountable for correcting any inaccurate prior research findings and for updating my research practices to do better."
There are no primary sources at all. Most of it comes from The Atlantic. The rest of the cites are all to scholarly journals. If this is your only concern, then let's consider it resolved and I will restore the section. Verklempt (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this passage: "Nick Brown, a scientific-integrity researcher affiliated with Linnaeus University in Sweden, said he is "100 percent" certain that the data were tampered with: “In my view, there is no innocent explanation in a universe where fairies don’t exist.”" The logic of including it here would be that Schroeder is the one who did the tampering. What's the support available for being certain about that?
Then in the subsequent paragraph: "Schroder agreed the data were tampered with: 'I think it’s very likely that they were.' The authors requested retraction. The journal's retraction notice alleged that Schroeder had participated in some of the data tampering." What's the support in the retraction notice for the idea that "Schroeder had participated in some of the data tampering"?
That is all taken directly from the cited sources. Brown's opinion is in the Atlantic. It is relevant because it shows that experts do not trust the published work and suspect tampering. Schroeder's mea culpa is in the Atlantic article.
Re your final concern, the original sentence is concise and communicates the gist accurately, but if you don't like it we can rephrase it to provide more detail. I propose: "The retraction notice states that Schroeder recruited the participants for two separate studies. Datapoints for certain participants in both studies were 'dropped prior to analysis but their removal was not reported' in the published article. Schroeder and her coauthors claimed that their 'decisions to drop data were based on their research assistants' written notes'. Reanalysis showed that the reported effects became non-significant once the dropped participants were included."
In other words, Schroeder and her coauthors acknowledge that the data were tampered with, and that they made the decision to do so. Ergo, "Schroeder participated". The original sentence seems more concise and better-written.
"In other words"... "the gist..." !! You've been here a very long time; you know exactly what a talk-page post of this sort amounts to.
I'll take it as confirmation that the sources provided are not adequate in connection with the passages that were added. I'm happy to work towards an agreed version that does have adequate support. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow your reasoning. What is your specific objection to either of the versions?
May I suggest that you read the cited sources so that you can give an informed critique? Right now you're just throwing up roadblocks and not contributing anything at all productive.Verklempt (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this remotely constructive? You are not engaging in good faith collaboration. Be specific about your objections. Offer alternative language. Or get out of the way.Verklempt (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being specific. I don't think the cited sources support the proposed content. That's my objection. I'm expressing it clearly. To recap what I've already written: both of the passages I'm disputing involve the idea that Schroeder participated in "tampering". That word doesn't even appear in one of the sources you've proposed [1]. I've pointed this out. I averred to policies which I am confident you know about -- but in case your level of knowledge isn't as high as I imagined it was, please do see WP:OR. I'm not being unconstructive; I'm just disagreeing with you, and your responses haven't persuaded me not to. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't like one word? Then advocate for a replacement word. That is what an honest, constructive editor would do. People like you are why WP sucks and why serious people rarely edit it. You're trolling for attention rather than collaborating.Verklempt (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
