Talk:Scientific misconduct: Difference between revisions
→Unusual edit: new section; archive Tag: Replaced |
→Motivations: new section |
||
(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Science |
{{WikiProject Science|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|logic=yes|ethics=yes|science=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject Skepticism |
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Open |
{{WikiProject Open |importance=high }} |
||
}}{{Notice|{{find}} |
}} |
||
{{Notice|{{find}} |
|||
*{{find|scientific fraud}}}} |
*{{find|scientific fraud}}}} |
||
{{Image requested}} |
|||
{{archives}} |
{{archives}} |
||
Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
Someone please review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elisabeth_Bik&diff=928046515&oldid=928018767] and tell me if you think it looks like a oblique threat or not, please. "学問ポリス" means "academic police." Ping me back, please. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 01:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
Someone please review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elisabeth_Bik&diff=928046515&oldid=928018767] and tell me if you think it looks like a oblique threat or not, please. "学問ポリス" means "academic police." Ping me back, please. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 01:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
:I am "学問ポリス." I thought it is appropriate to recognize the evolution of fraud-busters in the "See also" section of Bik, who may be the best and ultimate fraud-buster on the earth. I picked up the best historical fraud-busters before Bik. Thanks. --[[User:学問ポリス|学問ポリス]] ([[User talk:学問ポリス|talk]]) 16:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you for the explanation. I was concerned that you were trying to imply such people get sued often, which I am sure is true but I couldn't discern the nuance and motivation. Those narratives would be more appropriate in [[Scientific misconduct incidents]]. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 02:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Motivations == |
|||
The way the "Motivations" section is worded, it sounds like monetary gain is one of three factors identified by Goodstein, but that article actually states the opposite: |
|||
"Simple monetary gain is seldom, if ever, a factor in scientific fraud". In fact it seems to me the monetary gain bit of the section is unsourced. [[User:PointlessUsername|PointlessUsername]] ([[User talk:PointlessUsername|talk]]) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 23:53, 21 November 2024
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Scientific misconduct be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
|
|
Ten Simple Rules for Scientific Fraud & Misconduct
[edit]I've written a (provocative) article about scientific fraud & misconduct (see https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01562601/document). It is a collection of the most common forms of fraud and misconduct (with references to specific cases). Since I'm the author, I cannot add it to the references but I think it might be worth a look by some wikipedians to see if it relevant or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas P. Rougier (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Unusual edit
[edit]Someone please review [1] and tell me if you think it looks like a oblique threat or not, please. "学問ポリス" means "academic police." Ping me back, please. EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am "学問ポリス." I thought it is appropriate to recognize the evolution of fraud-busters in the "See also" section of Bik, who may be the best and ultimate fraud-buster on the earth. I picked up the best historical fraud-busters before Bik. Thanks. --学問ポリス (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I was concerned that you were trying to imply such people get sued often, which I am sure is true but I couldn't discern the nuance and motivation. Those narratives would be more appropriate in Scientific misconduct incidents. EllenCT (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Motivations
[edit]The way the "Motivations" section is worded, it sounds like monetary gain is one of three factors identified by Goodstein, but that article actually states the opposite: "Simple monetary gain is seldom, if ever, a factor in scientific fraud". In fact it seems to me the monetary gain bit of the section is unsourced. PointlessUsername (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class science articles
- Mid-importance science articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- C-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- C-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia requested images