Talk:Carlos Gershenson

Head of 'Department'

After reading this page and talk page I dug a bit further into one of the many things Carlos advertizes including his appointment as Head of Deparment. I found that, unlike most universities in the world that only have a single department per area, UNAM has several 'departments' of computer science (I could count at least 4), of which Carlos' one is among the smallest if not the smallest, and is not at the School of Science of his university (which would traditionally be The department), it is thus only a group that Carlos headed. Looking further into it, it actually looks like a small group, with only 3 or 4 full professors, about 7 lower ranks and 2 postdocs, this would be a small group anywhere in the world. Carlos appointment to Head of 'Department' at his institution is another of his exxagerations on purpose or not, taking advantage of another lousy term translated from Spanish to English. I hope this clarifies it. I have added a clarification in the main text.

Let alone that, Gershenson and his colleague Froese also introduce themselves as leaders of 2 labs. It turns out that there are about 5 labs in his small ‘department’ (as you say, rather a small group), so 5 labs share 12 staff members + 2 postdocs. In Carlos ‘lab’, for example, Froese is a member and in Froese’s ‘lab’ Carlos is a member. They are pretty much leaders of a 2-person lab with each of them in each other’s lab (they may grow in the future but this is the reality today in disproportion to their claims today). They are like 1-person bands in the academic world. Isn’t that quite something? It is therefore, understandable why their colleagues have had enough with their parallel reality. The problem is that the appointment of Gershenson as ‘Head of Department’ gives the wrong impression that he was appointed so because of some academic achievement as if he has reached academic stardom at the pinnacle point of a scientist, but on top of your correction that anywhere in the world his ‘department’ would be regarded as a small group, the role of Head is simply rotated among the members of the group (and more senior researchers actually avoid it because of what it implies, a lot of extra paperwork) and it is therefore not any sign of any academic achievement. In fact, as you say, Gershenson has the lowest ranking among tenured positions and thus would be very odd to think or advertise his appointment in the way he does as if it were an indication of his stature, without any context (he could easily just say that he was head of a group), e.g. that indeed there are several departments of computer science, and his is only one small one. Some researchers, even colleagues of Gershenson, have bought all the b.s. generated by Gershenson as he says that (1) he is a (Research) Professor, but clearly he is not; (2) he says he was Head of Department of Computer Science, but clearly rather of a small group that rotates its head, and (3) that he is the leader of a lab, which is, again, almost a 2-person lab. So truly there is a lot of b.s. coming from these researchers, yet they sometimes convince people of their notability. So I think your precision about his 'Head of Department' entry is very welcome. 80.233.239.118 (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Gershenson is not a member of Froese's lab, but Froese's lab is, as you say, almost a 2-people lab, literally, with only 1 postdoc as member other than Froese, and the rest only students. Froese, in turn, is a member of Gershenson's group, they call all themselves professors and they are 4 in total, out of the 12 members of the 'department' of computer science, so basically a 3rd. of the department is in Gershenson's group =) You couldn't put it better, it is a dodgy matter 199.71.233.34 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Translation of citations, no BLP issues

For those non-native Spanish speakers that may wonder about User:CGershen claims about dubious citations on his ALIFE 16 section, here are verbatim excerpts of this two National newspaper interviews followed by a Google translation (which is far from perfect but at least reproducible by everybody, as a Spanish native speaker I can vouch for the accuracy of the sense of the Google translations): Source: Cronica (National distribution newspaper in Mexico):
Original text (actually the article title): "México encabeza en AL investigación en vida artificial, señala Carlos Gershenson"
Google translation: "Mexico leads in research in artificial life, says Carlos Gershenson"
The claim was seconded by another newspaper, one of the oldest in Mexico and also of National distribution, El Universal: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/cultura/patrimonio/2016/07/5/vida-artificial-la-vida-como-podria-ser
Second source: again El Universal: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2016/07/5/pocos-mexicanos-en-alife-2016
Original text (the article title and subtitle): "Pocos Mexicanos en ALife. La mayoría de sus ponentes y visitantes son extranjeros de habla inglesa."
Google translation: "Few Mexicans [in ALife]. Most of its speakers and visitors are English-speaking foreigners.." Parenthesis added as Google translate translates the conference name "ALife" as alife, also the second bottom suggested translation is the correct one, otherwise its translates 'ponentes' as 'patients' which is wrong. Same source, verbatim 3rd. paragraph: "'En la convocatoria recibimos muchas ponencias de mexicanos, pero como existe un proceso muy estricto de selección para charlas, los trabajos no cumplieron con la calidad que se requiere', expresó Gershenson."
Google translation: "'The call received many Mexican papers, but as there is a very strict selection process for lectures, the work did not meet the required quality', said Gershenson."
All the above has prompted quite a controversy in Mexico and it is legitimate to be mentioned in this article, together with other issues raised by other readers and editors about the behavior of this researcher. I hope this clarifies that there is no BLP issue or vandalism, these are documented sources, no weasel, and highly informative. Also, User:CGershen disputes the figure of the cost of the conference he organized (and likely one of the main factors contributing to the low to nonexistent participation of Mexicans), I invite him to correct the figure, he should not continue editing his own page but I do volunteer to rectify any wrong figure. I tried to verify the figure but the conference registration web page has been (maliciously?) deleted or blocked, unlike the rest of the conference website. 148.240.236.172 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I also tried but did not find any source for the conference fees. The conference fee, however, was around 500 USD, plus lodging, near 1K USD which is consistent with the claim that the conference fee was between 90 to 120 times the Mexican daily wage if not more! then Gershenson claimed that Mexicans did not attend because they did not pass the quality filter... outrageous, as usual with Gershenson. Obviously, it did not turn out as he had wished by calling all the attention of the media to his personal event. It seems Gershenson is deleting all evidence of his stratospheric conference fees because there are suspicions at his home institution of resources misuse but that cannot (yet) been proven and cannot be added as a fact, but the high conference fee is evident for a conference in a prime international destination like Cancun, for no less than 1K USD for an entire week including lodging and conference fee. It is indeed a good idea to invite Gershenson *who is so actively involved in his Wikipedia article* to ask us to rectify and reveal the deleted conference fees. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what the Ox, Caroline, and the Wolf would think about your behavior... wouldn't your time be more usefully spent exploring the computational universe?

Your interpretation of the articles is interesting. There has been no controversy about the conference in Mexico, it was a success. You selectively omitted parts of the newspaper interview, where I say that it has been the conference with most Mexicans up to date. Cost of the conference is actually lower to similar conferences (we included meals, a reception, and two dinners). We provided conference waivers to more than thirty students, mostly Mexicans, so we had plenty of national participation, even from one of the local universities. The conference is of the International Society of Artificial Life, so I wouldn't call it personal. You have only a general idea about the cost and organization of the conference, why do you make then accusations based on your emotions? Since we received federal funds for the conference, all expenses are audited, so you can stop worrying about resource misuse (how can you say that there are suspicions at my home institution? You are just making things up. Do you do research with the same wild guess method?). For the record, conference fees were between $400 and $800 (different categories, earlybird discounts, etc.), which were very similar to other conferences in the field. The registration links are broken because we used an external site for it, doesn't depend on us.

btw, we did have Antonio Lazcano (Mexican) as a keynote speaker, but he had to cancel. Cgershen (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

If Gershenson is suggesting a specific rewording for the paragraphs on ALIFE that he marked as dubious I think 2 people, including myself, have already volunteered to do so. I see the conference fee that had no source and was marked as dubious corresponds to the article claim as inserted by User:148.240.236.172 Does not the title of the interview points out the low Mexican participation? How can it then be explained the answer to what was inserted regarding the causes of the low Mexican participation and to be that called a success what a National newspaper saw as an anomaly? 199.71.233.34 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Gershenson has introduced a "However, by far this was the ALife conference with most Mexican contributions." sentence as a fact with no source when he asks sources for the other claims, I am ascribing such a claim in a more moderate version to his own interview. For the record, I can suppose indeed that any conference in a prime touristic destination costs about the same, the previous version never suggested otherwise. As for the keynote lineup, that is also a fact well sourced on the ALIFE website that Gershenson has deleted. For others to determine if it should be incorporated back as this was a great lost opportunity for the conference to promote Mexican research but it did not. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I attended Alife in Cancíún as a foreign student that had already spent time in Mexico (coernavaca) and I could not find Mexican people other than a few, I think the whole conference had only 1 or 2 talkers other than the organizers themselves (who gave several talks) and there was no Mexican keynote talker, I cannot see how Antonio Lazcano, if he had came, could be counted as a Mexican researcher in Alife but rather as an insertion trying to cover a 'quota' for what would be seen as politically incorrect as it did from the newspaper note, the fact that there were no participants from the organizers own institutions was noticed, people, looking at the organizers institutions people like Aldana, Miramontes, or other younger people in their institutions, etc. I can also tell that among the 30 or so people that it is said that were given scholarships, very few were Mexicans. I myself had limited financial support and it was very hard to attend, everybody knows Cancun is a destination for foreigners with foreigners prices, so it was not thought for locals, nationals or students but for showing off, I don't think foreigners are stupid and they sertainly saw the MExican reality in the town of Cancun and elsewhere, which is a pain. I can also tell people are still surprised about the fuzz about the conference but at the same time the fact that no other Mexican researchers were invited other than the organizers small group 46.108.156.133 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, there were a bit more than 1 or 2 Mexican speakers (none keynote, it is true), simply look at how many talks Tom Froese gave, about 5 talks! Sure, he was a co-organizer and a protegé of Carlos Gershenson =) (count how many times Tom Froese cites Carlos Gershenson in his articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.59.17.16 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I also attended ALIFE in cancun from Catalunya (greatings!). I agree with the organizer that the conference was a sucess!!! but I think the question from the interview and what others are questionning is whether it was a sucess for the purposes of organizing in a conference in a country like Mexico! Did I get to know what Mexico is doing in artificial life? Not at all, other than a couple of disconnected attempts and the motivated efforts of the organizers. I wished I could know if other mexicans are doing something interesting, I have friends that do research in the neighborhood of artificial life in Mexico but I was surprised none came to the conference!! Cancun felt disconnected from reality but it was a great holidays experience. Reading the organizer interview makes me feel he thinks research in Mexico is of low quality, I dont know what to think 181.174.184.50 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Gershenson added a subjective 'a posteriori' comment to his claim that Mexico is a/the leader in Latin America, asserting that because "it was the first time that the conference took place in the region and the majority of Latin American presenters were Mexican". While it seems it was the first time in Latin America, organizing a conference cannot make a country a leader in a scientific field, nor it is consistent with the next National newspaper article mentioning the little participation of Mexicans and his claim that most Mexicans did not pass a quality filter, the fact that there were no Mexican keynote speakers, and little to none local oral presenters as claimed by the cited National newspaper (and Gershenson himself telling most of them were accepted for posters). Thus proceeded to delete non-sourced claims. I think people explaining and discussing changes here have been very civilized. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I have known Carlos for about 8 years since he got back to UNAM, he has always made bold statements and has been very keen to advance almost anything to the media to the point of getting associated with highly dubious kind of pseudoscientific tabloids such as Muy Interesante with even ads on the door of his institute about interviews to these kind of media. He advances grandiose claims that are later debunked, sometimes by his own comments, it seems this is another instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.59.17.16 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have known Gershenson for about the same time, he has always conducted himself in such a way. He used to come to the C3 meetings at the beginning, showing a lot of enthusiasm to get inserted as he was a theme coordinator (with him making claims that he was going to solve the problem of the internal university bus system called PumaBus, and others buying it!, and that he had no time to fix Brussels’ traffic jams because he had to go abroad). He has hardly step in the new building (perhaps he has come once or twice!) and does not longer participate in any meetings (way before his recent sabbatical) yet he always introduces himself as associated to the C3 as if he had any active role when in reality he has nothing to do with the C3 these days. The very existence of this Wikipedia article illustrates Gershenson's approach to science, firmly believing that he is already academically notable enough to have an encyclopedic entry. Yet he gets mad when he exposes himself to the media and others try to counteract his delusional and bold claims about himself and what he does. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

unfortunately, it seems this Gershenson is 99% marketing and 1% real science, not uncommon. No wonder why he got his most precious tenure from a worldwide most-irrelevant department. 89.187.150.32 (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

To User 89.187.150.32: Even if perhaps partially true (although not in those extreme percentages), this is not the way to discuss the topic, and not exactly relevant to the article in such a derogatory way, let's refrain from such accusations that Gershenson may, legitimately, find exaggerated. More balanced views have already voiced their concerns, including mine, and the page is mildly reflecting those concerns, even if manipulated partially by Gershenson. Again, despite the possible believe by Gershenson that he is being trolled, this is not the intention of this discussion. It is about finding a balance between his highly mediatic character and what many of us see as unfounded claims and actions by Gershenson in this Wikipedia article. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

YET another unfortunate comment above from Mr. Gershenson regarding the kindness of the conference organization "providing meals, reception and dinners" at a 'reasonable' cost (so he says) of 500 to 1K USD for an academic conference! when clearly what was needed for the locals participation was a cheaper down-to-earth option even if it had not the spa-style Mr. Gershenson wanted to display for the delight of the foreign researchers with total dismiss for the researchers and students from his own country The attention of the media was also disproportionate, nothing I had seen before for a conference anywhere else including countries similar to Mexico, perhaps only matched by the G-20! (healthy sarcasm here) and it seems that when a journal finally got to the bottom of the mounted show (the title of the article as translated by Google is self-explanatory) in contradiction to his very own grandiose previous claims (that Mexico is a power in artificial life...), he does not know how to face it. Local researchers and students had a very hard time paying their way into the conference, period! and MOST could not make it, that is the reason of the lack of Mexican participants. As for also the lack of Mexican invited or keynote speakers, it is clear Mr. Gershenson is in love only with himself and would not let anyone get in the way to stardom in Mexico no matter what when he can have all the self-mounted spotlights for himself. This is relevant to put in context because he then comes here to this article and keeps shaping the way in which things are said in its favor, which obviously is a conflict of interest as many others have pointed out before, but it is also dishonest at the root. 181.174.184.50 (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. I am not even challenging anymore his new claims here that "he gave a lot of scolarships", well, maybe, but on what basis as there was no indication of any financial help or waiver in the pages of his conference, or the FAQs page or the registration, and his claims here are in clear contradiction with what a National newspaper is reporting, that there were almost no Mexicans in the conference. He also says that "there is no controversy in Mexico about the conference, it was a success". So a Mexican national newspaper publishes an article with title "Pocos Mexicanos en ALife. La mayoría de sus ponentes y visitantes son extranjeros de habla inglesa", meaning (Google translation): "Few Mexicans [in ALife]. Most of its speakers and visitors are English-speaking foreigners." it does not count as controversy or Mexican or both?? Moreover, on the hallways of our department and faculty people keep commenting not only on his many issues regarding the non-awarded titles he, Froese and others in his group use, but also how come that the ALife conference was not taken as an opportunity to showcase Mexican research on ALife and related topics with not a single Mexican keynote fspeaker and no other role for Mexican researchers in the conference other than for his closest (and of rather low profile) friends, some of which presented up to 4, 5 or more works!! (either as main or as co-author). So it is clear that he does not mind the little conflict in interest at editing his Wikipedia page if he does not find any conflict of interest dominating with friends dominating the conference agenda! Yet, Gershenson answer here is, again, that he tried very hard to bring a 70-year-old biologist who, disregarding his well-deserved reputation, he is pretty much strange to ALife or any related subfield other than remotely and conveniently for Gershenson research on the origins of life undertaken decades ago, and who anyway also ended up cancelling any participation in Gershenson's conference. Furthermore, this contrasts with Gershenson's previous claim that Mexico is a leader in ALife, so where are the Mexican keynotes? Pure and utterly nonsense both on the first and second claims, not even consistent among them, as it is usual from Gershenson. Can Gershenson then confirm that no other Mexican researcher in ALife is worth his attention? And on the basis of all that, and with that flawed rationale, he keeps telling and 'tweaking' his (this) Wikipedia page, negotiating as if he had any point to defend, trying to keep his skeletons under the carpet thinking he is a victim as if people here were doing something wrong at speaking up. I leave it there, discussing with Gershenson is fruitless, and I have not even done so, people are only trying to keep this article truthful and balanced. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gershenson is now a part-time organizer/monetizer of resort-style flashy conferences in Cancun. Only good thing this time is that either he now learned the lesson after a national newspaper sharply pointing out Gershenson's mishandlings organizing a Mexican conference with (almost) no Mexicans! or he was forced by his co-chair to have some common sense, but he is now lining up many more Mexicans some that are not even his closest friends! Pity that his style is still more of a politician in a campaign, even using fake titles to seek for attention as reported in https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/ 199.71.233.34 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User CGershen intervening in his own Wikipedia page

Obviously, user CGershen does not like the citations and references to a documented issue in the use of titles and 2 interviews he has given in National newspapers, I think these references are fair. CGershen should refrain from shaping his own page and cherry-picking what he likes and what he does not like.

WP:COI, User CGershen continues cherry-picking what he likes about his own Wikipedia article despite well-documented issues that this article succeeds reporting for the sake of the scientific community. 148.240.236.172 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Section on ALIFE 16 has been rephrased to make it more neutral. CGershen should either stop editing his own Wikipedia page or explain why these sources (his own interviews) or claimed 'interpretations' are wrong, the current paragraph only mentions facts and when there is a subjective claim it is backed with his own words from the National newspaper interviews he himself has given. 148.240.236.172 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

CGershen has marked some hard facts as 'dubious', e.g. that there were not Mexicans in the lineup of the Mexican conference, something even picked up by the media and documented both in his ALIFE conference website and the cited National newspaper. He also tagged as dubious the conference fee and his explicit explanation of the poor participation of Mexicans as not passing the high-quality filter of his conference. I will leave some of the tags in the spirit of conciliation to avoid further edition, but I will revert the ones that have no basis to be marked as such, including the fact that an open letter to the MIT press has been made public related to his use of titles together with his colleagues that have already accepted the misuse of such titles in the same source thus legitimizing the source itself. 148.240.236.172 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes. That is the typical practice of Gershenson and his manipulation of his self-created image as I have reported before (see below in other discussions). I do think that most, if not all, the claims on ALIFE 16 are well-documented. And indeed, his colleague Tom Froese acknowledgment of the controversial issue of usurpation of titles in the source concerning the letter to the MIT Press is definitely not dubious at all. Gershenson is now playing the card of Weasel words, indicating the use of some biased words, however, they accurately represent the opinions of the source themselves, e.g. Gershenson asserting that Mexico is a leader in AI (the title of his interview!) only to later be questioned of the low participation of Mexicans (again closely accurate with the report of ALIFE 16 in this article), obviously Gershenson will try his best to deny it, but it is clearly a COI on his part, as he should not conceal the many controversial issues of his official actions both purporting fakes titles and providing clearly contradictory statements to the media. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

More on the removal of weasel tags that I support that were introduced all over by Gershenson for obvious reasons: While the content of Wikipedia should be encyclopedic, it should also be informative. People and particularly scientists and other researchers deserve to know if other scientists have incurred in misconduct or are suspected of dishonesty when there are verifiable grounds. It is not uncommon to report such behavior even for living persons, to mention just one example there is the case of John Casti and the accusation of plagiarism. The reports of dishonesty by John Casti started collectively and anonymously, and that does not make it untrue, it is known the kind of academic retaliation that a hurt researcher can infringe on colleagues and so it is understandable to protect the reporters identity. In brief, the content of the dishonesty and contradictory behavior of this researcher in this article is well-documented and supported, the reader can verify the claims and facts mentioned, and it is of encyclopedic and informative value for the readers of Wikipedia, otherwise it would be misleading, especially in the state in which Gershenson wants his Wikipedia article to look as if it were about a notable scientist when he does not stand out beyond any other scientist of his age and career in Mexico and elsewhere. He used to strongly support having a Wikipedia article, not that it seems not to serve his self-promotion purposes he is regretting exposing himself in such a fashion. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Of notice is how penalized it is self-editing that even Jimmy Wales has a special entry in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Jimmy_Wales for editing 19 times his own Wikipedia article regarding allegations of pornography in a former company. Gershenson has already gone beyond 19 times and has shaped his own Wikipedia article at large, as it can be seen each time he reintroduces his minor awards and keep any controversies on his persona out of this Wikipedia article. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. 148.240.236.172 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability

(comments made by the author of the Wikipedia article have been moved to the end of the discussion as they should be, rather than the top)

Previous notability concerns were raised but not placed in context of academics. The author has overinflated his Google scholar H-index by citing himself a high number of times on every of his publications and falling into unfortunate practices of cross-citation with some of his subordinates. Also notice that if you look for books he is editor of several volumes, just as most academics and this should not lead to a favorable case of academic notability. The only book he is actual an author is a book published by a small printed-on-demand publishing company that publishes PhD thesis by invitation or request by the defendant. The decision should also take into consideration the concerns expressed here and elsewhere in connection to the systematic neglect of this author to mention any other research in exactly his own field in order to mislead people on the originality value of his ideas in connection to the many researchers in the same field doing similar, if not exactly, the same kind of proposals and even same kind, if not the same, simulations related to agent-based traffic modeling and self-organization that are never mentioned by the author in his paper or on this Wikipedia article he clearly wrote for himself. The criteria for notability according to the Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)) are:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have worked with Carlos at UNAM and I think some of the comments in this Talk page are too harsh. Unfortunately, I do think he has overstated his accomplishments and has managed to make others buy them too. Before the apparent recent additions to this article, it definitely read as an autobiography. As far as I know, Carlos is a SNI I researcher and that means a young, postdoc or at most assistant professor level researcher in his home country. His claim that he is a Research Professor is misguided, specially outside Mexico where such a title has much more weight and he knows it. He has also been very active in Mexico and was able to be appointed Head of his academic department but not because of academic merits, this is a rotating admin position that more senior researchers or more senior professors would actually try to avoid at all costs, not for Carlos that took it as a promoting platform. It has also been said he has been editor of several volumes and of a popular emailing list in his field, but he is only author only of a single book---his thesis---published by a thesis on-demand publishing company, editor of some volumes or an emailing list should not grant notability as this is common practice in academia. His prizes are of, I am afraid to say, rather low caliber, as part of a team of general contests that are of easy reach. His citations in PubMed or SCI are also very scarce because they do not count self-citations even if they take cross self citations with people Carlos has teamed up highly citing each other between colleagues that he himself seems to have hired in his home institution in Mexico, yet his SCI H index is relatively low, and extremely low compared to what one would consider a notable academic for Wikipedia standards. In brief, Carlos has no more or less merit than any other SNI I researcher in Mexico of which there are thousands even if it is a prestigious position and thus it is strange to see him have a Wikipedia article about him and not of every other SNI I (which were awarded that level because of similar merits according to the Mexican National science council Conacyt), let alone SNI II or SNI III, these latter deserving a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia guidelines work in one direction, one cannot claim that someone is more important than the highest distinction given in his home country or working institution, he has certainly not accomplished anything of the sort to have academic notability to be of encyclopedic value but let's hope he one day does if he stops worrying so much about his looks and self promotion and starts worrying more about science for the mathematical institution he works for. Let's hope he comes about being honest on his own research, starting by citing the work of many others in his area instead of ignoring them to appear as if no one else had done similar research, if not exactly the same. His contributions to his area and community have been marginal in the light of all the research in traffic self-organization or self-organization itself for that matter. For example, in the area of Boolean networks his apparent greatest contribution is having surveyed the field (one of his many cited papers) and having given names to different updating network schemes but nothing or little else. To the community, he has managed to alienate all the researchers in his own area, not making them part of any of the events he is involved in and which he clearly uses to personally promote himself. I am not trying to diminish Carlos as a young scientist, it is just not right to overestimate one's contributions and he does need a reality-check that I hope he overcomes, otherwise this is not science or how science should be done. But I will leave aside piling more on what has been already said and I hope he comes down to reason. 181.41.198.133 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This talk has unfounded claims. Most of the citations to my works are made by other people (excluding colleagues). Self-citaiton is not a sin. All statements in the article have citations and can be verified, complying with Wikipedia guidelines. It seems that this "talk" is made by a single person using multiple IP addresses (VPN?), whose work was rejected from the ALife XV conference by peer review, and prefers to spend his time libeling the organizers instead of improving his work. Cgershen (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others but no, I had nothing to do with ALIFE or any article submitted to it. The statements in the article are not much of the problem, the problem is your self designed article in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines and their COI policy. It is an overinflated Wikipedia article designed by yourself for your self-promoting purposes that reads as an autobiography and several others seem to agree with this. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

For the Academic Notability case, examining his 8 publications with more than 100 citations in Google Scholar, 3 of them are ArXiV preprints with no associated journal whatsoever, 6 of them are reviews or surveys, only 2 of them published as part of conference proceedings AND none of the 8 'papers' are published in a journal with Impact Factor, i.e. not even listed in the Web of Science (SCI). These 8 publications amount for more than 1200 citations to Gershenson, together with about 1000 self-reference citations from Gershenson himself it adds up to about 2200 citations out of his 2500 total (1600 since 2011). His PubMed articles are also dominated by PLoS ONE papers and has only 9 papers other than PLoS with some IF score. Taking into account this, his citations amount to perhaps less than 100 to and from journals with some IF different to 0 and his H-index comes down to perhaps 3 or 4 at most. This places this author in context and perspective. References (as of June 2016): https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=fBRKCewAAAAJ ; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/advanced; https://webofknowledge.com/ 199.71.233.34 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone created this webpage (see History), I just updated it. I followed Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality, please edit if I am mistaken. Concerning citations, the numbers are simply made up. No need to speculate. The fact that some of my works have been published in venues without an impact factor does not take any merit from citations to them. And from the list above there are events which qualify for 2, 4, and 7, but no one has added them (and if I do it would be self-promotion...) Cgershen (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The history of your Wikipedia article does not tell that you have not created or driven the content of your Wikipedia page from the beginning, on the contrary, there are clear footprints of your full control. Moreover, you have been asked directly and you could easily answer whether you think you are of encyclopedic value and academically notable enough given the context of Wikipedia profiles for you to want so badly to keep this article and rather come here to make what under all lights are not neutral editions (e.g. changing your title to "Professor" as in "Research Professor" when there is not) rather than openly expressing your concern about what looks like an autobiography and promote its deletion. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Carlos, but it is so sad, attention-seeking and delusional that you think you comply with Wikipedia notability points: 2, 4, and 7. Following your carreer this is only unfortunate and self-destructive for yourself. 187.190.160.243 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

More on his notability. Gershenson adding or restoring his list of very minor awards and labeling them as 'notable'. Here the evidence stamp:

16:21, 12 August 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,841 bytes) (+342)‎ . . (added tags, restored awards) 199.71.233.34 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Again in clear conflict of interest, when it is clear others think they are not even worth mentioning because the Wikipedia article itself was of someone not notable at all in academic terms (see further explanation above)

Conflict of Interest (COI)

There is a stong suspicion that the subject of this article is making editions to his own Wikipedia page from IP 18.189.82.200 from where the author (Gershenson) claims to be currently located in (visiting MIT). This would also explain the excessive length, the overhype of the content and even some unfunded/potentially false claims made in the article. It is also suspected sock puppetry from the author's students and assistants who are making him appear more prominent. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No conflict of interest defending myself against libel. Cgershen (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The conflict of interest is to design/write and then also defend your own Wikipedia article and make unfounded claims e.g. that you purport the title of Professor in any part of your official title either explicitely or implicitely. At best you are a Research lecturer if you wanted to put it in an English (or Belgian as you say) style. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To be of notice: Carlos Gershenson still looking after his own Wikipedia article in complete conflict against Wikipedia's COI policy:

(cur | prev) 17:32, 6 June 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,037 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:31, 6 June 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,085 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (→‎Work) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:30, 6 June 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,114 bytes) (-368)‎ . . (→‎Biography) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.56.3 (talk)

Notability in question and excessive self-promotion

Notice that the decision to keep this article of a non-notable Mexican researcher was based on 'Six papers with over 100 citations according to Google Scholar. That's enough to show anyone an authority in their subject.' Verdict that did not take into consideration self-citations and citations from his protegés, such as his research assistant Tom Froese, in regrettable practices of excessive cross-citation. This article is the result of strong self-promotion activities and not of any brilliant work or true notability. It is shameful to have such a Wikipedia article when so many important Mexican scientists are completely ignored by the encyclopedia and when this article is almost as long as some of the best world scientists. This is for the archive. 201.147.170.50 (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Notice how this 'scientist' Wikipedia article is even longer than some of the greatest Mexican scientists such as Dr. Prof. Antonio Lazcano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Lazcano) which is not only regrettable but also ridiculous. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the author, Gershenson, should just reveal himself and be honest and ask to either downgrade the self-promotion style of his lengthy Wikipedia entry or be humble and request page deletion unless he himself thinks he is notable enough versus e.g. his many Mexican peers that either lack of any entry or have much shorter entries despite being definitely more notable but less inclined to promoting themselves. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting how people can spend time in libeling young researchers instead of expanding the Wikipedia pages of people who deserve it more (agree on Prof. Lazcano) Cgershen (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, part of the main purpose of editors and Wikipedia readers is to keep articles balanced and neutral and that includes to stop people making it a marketing platform for their own selfish purposes. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that CGershen is around (at least now explicitly) maybe he can explain why he never ever cites anyone doing traffic simulation/self-organization experiments just as he does thus completely neglecting the most basic practice of science hence also misleading readers to believe that CGershen is the only maverick in a rather crowded area. That is extremely strange and dodgy and I hope CGershen can explain why this is not true and how he cites previous work by others who do similar work to his, if not exactly the same. Truly CGershen, I think people here are making you a favor by pointing out or the many grave flaws before it is too late in your early career to behave in such dividing fashion against good practices and against your own colleagues who have similar academic merits but are not self-promoting themselves all over the place to design a false sense of accomplishment. If you agree that other Mexican researchers (e.g. Lazcano mentioned above) deserve much better Wikipedia articles (than e.g. yourself, clearly) why you do not serve that purpose instead of coming to create your own cherry picked fact and hand-tailored self-promoting Wikipedia article. I may have participated or tried to participate in ALIFE and you would be surprised to know who I am, but under no circumstances I am acting because of a paper rejection or anything of that sort. It is a sense of fairness to all others that do a fair job but are less self-driven and more down to earth than you. 64.27.56.3 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I do cite previous work (I apologize if not yours), just read the papers. If I didn't they wouldn't be published in peer-reviewed venues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgershen (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't cite parallel work on your own area, long-standing researchers doing almost exactly the same simulations as you do with similar, if not the same, results, etc. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Grave offense in the usurpation of title

It seems there is also an abuse in the title used by this scientist perhaps taking advantage of the fact that almost any teacher in Spanish can be called a 'profesor' (even at primary school). This is, however, misleading in the English-speaking world, and Carlos Gershenson cannot be strange to the international practice and exclusive use of the title of Professor to that of someone given such a title officially (he uses the misleading title of "Research Professor" in his own webpage). Some researchers have long had a variety of reasons to seek media attention. Media coverage brings attention to their research, helps attract funding and raises their own profile for their personal interests. The case of Carlos Gershenson seems to be a typical case of hype and the selling of science, motivated by him and/or his followers. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

UNAM has the distinction between "Profesores" (teaching professors) and "Investigadores" (research professors). The first ones mainly teach at faculties and schools. The second ones mainly do research at institutes and centres. However, the levels are the same, (salary, tenure track, etc.), as it is noted in Title IV of the Academic Personnel's Statutes: http://dgapa.unam.mx/html/normatividad/epa.html See Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_ranks#Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.179.245 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I should weight in. The university webpage referred to, by who is seemingly Gershenson himself, in order to back his personal claim to the title of Profesor is that the salary of Researchers and Professors are the same at his university. That is clearly not a reason to purport the title of Professor to which he admits is a different position even in his home country. Neither in his country nor as interpreted by him in English he is a Professor as he advertizes on his own webpage and has taken it to the Wikipedia article that he has designed for himself. The many interventions of this user clearly indicates the COI stated above. 103.246.96.185 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It amuses me that you translate "Investigadores" as "Research Professors", seriously? Common Carlos. 181.41.198.133 (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the typical example of someone writing his Wikipedia article and hurting himself a.k.a. self-inflicted injury for reflecting of what they think of themselves only in their minds. The best he can hope for is the deletion of his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.96.185 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The equivalent of "Investigador Asociado de Tiempo Completo Definitivo" in other countries, e.g. Belgium is "Research Professor". It is a translation problem, and a difference with "researcher" (literal translation of investigador) is that in most countries researcher positions are non-tenured. In any case, this discussion is not relevant for a Wikipedia webpage. Cgershen (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That still does not justify that you purposely want to mislead people that do not know the equivalences. As I said, you are at most a Research lecturer if that is what you intend to convey. No translation problem, only an ego problem. As for any other unfounded claims about you, could you be more specific? Is it false for example that you self-proclaimed an organizing committee of the conference you are organizing a 'dream team'? Is it false that you have fell into the practice of cross-referencing with people very close to you who you have either hired directly or have been involved in hiring them? Would you be open to a further investigation of the number of cross citation between these people and you? Is it false that you did not invite any other researcher in your own area from Mexico as speaker to the conference when you could have used such conference to promote local researchers and local research? 103.246.96.185 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why this, as some other researchers, believe that 'tenure' is a credential for anything above their work, it sounds more like a oedipus complex to me. But if he wants so badly to look childish and stick the tenured position to his title and he is not a professor he could just say he is tenured and not make call to a title nobody seems to have awarded him and no translation can back. It is not true either that researchers tend to be non-tenured (but even if they were, and so?) examples are in Australia, Germany, France and Italy in institutions as important such as the Max Planck Institute, the CNRS and the CRS. In the U.S. this is also the case even if more difficult, but usually researchers with tenure have greater status than their equivalent professors and even 'researcher' alone is of a higher caliber in several European and Asian countries because professor means they have to spend some or most of their time teaching rather than in higher intellectual activities related to research. Here in Chile nobody would have been so twisted to call himself a Professor in the English fashion if they were just starting their careers, that goes over the top and would be regarded quite cheap by their colleagues. 37.139.70.1 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if the author is using 'tenured' to denote seniority over perhaps his other Mexican colleagues or anyone else I have to say that I know every researcher in Mexico is tenured except for perhaps a few postdocs that are now hired on a fixed term contract in line with international practice, but those are a few compared to the international practice. Almost every person on a contract in a Mexican university has an open ended contract hence tenure, it is not an academic merit and should not be something to show off as a credential for academic merit especially to back any academic notability. It would be interesting if the author can explain why he thinks so strongly that he deserves his Wikipedia article that he has pushed himself and why he thinks he is so notable over his own colleagues in the same level as his. Because clearly people are asking especially those seeing through all self-promotion aside (e.g. it is the first time ever I see in a conference a full sub page devoted to the organizer: http://xva.life/portfolio/carlos-gershenson/ additionally with complete fake information, he is not longer head of any department, he is not professor, and I see no need to stick a super large picture of himself, needless to say a devoted subpage for you and your other colleagues that you were forced to create only to justify yours). The author apparently thinks at this early stage of his academic career that he is of encyclopedic value and comes here introducing and editing his Wikipedia article as if it were his personal webpage. I do not know CGershen so please refrain from accusing me of any vendetta, just stop and look at yourself, get real and act accordingly to Wikipedia guidelines instead of your own marketing agenda. 37.139.70.1 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

In reply to 103.246.96.185

* Is it false for example that you self-proclaimed an organizing committee of the conference you are organizing a 'dream team'? Yes. The production company made the text, we changed it. Thanks for noticing it.

* Is it false that you have fell into the practice of cross-referencing with people very close to you who you have either hired directly or have been involved in hiring them? Yes.

* Would you be open to a further investigation of the number of cross citation between these people and you? Yes.

* Is it false that you did not invite any other researcher in your own area from Mexico as speaker to the conference when you could have used such conference to promote local researchers and local research? Yes. Antonio Lazcano was a confirmed speaker but had to cancel last week. We also tried unsuccessfully to involve other Mexican colleagues in the organization. Cgershen (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In reply to 37.139.70.1: Tenure is a fact, and encyclopedias tend to include facts. Cgershen (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In response to CGershen on comments made by others 103.246.96.185 and 37.139.70.1:

* It tells something not to be able to involve the many other Mexican researchers working in the broad areas of ALIFE in an ALIFE conference happening in Mexico! and despite the position of power that should have had acting as administrative head of a department. With all due respect, you must be doing something terribly wrong and that is what you should be thinking rather than fighting the unfightable here. The organizing committee had to be even handpicked with either members completely aligned with you marketing-oriented approach or completely subordinated. Your inclusion of art, anthropology, mysticism and even a previously considered children program track are only a distraction to what is supposed to be a scientific conference. The organizing committee and pictures look worth a cover of Vanity Fair.

* Policemen and firefighters have tenure, that is also a fact, but they don't stick a contractual detail to their positions in order to seemingly make a statement of false authority.

* It is hard to believe you had not seen the text introducing the organizing committee as a 'dream team' before or that you did not write it yourself. I think the main problem behind all this and what people are trying to tell you above is that you think you are a dream team of one, but that is highly damaging your credibility rather than taking you back to earth for you to someday be as notable as you think you are in your mind. Everything you are doing looks rather fake, an ALIFE conference organized in a hotel for tourists completely strange to Mexican reality, a tailored committee of friends and employees, a secondary lineup of keynote speakers irrelevant to what is and should be the purpose of a Mexican conference and Mexican research on Mexican soil not a platform of your personal promotion, a false sense of self-accomplishment in the way you act and present yourself, including the terribly scientific and dishonorable wrongdoing of never citing others in your very own research on traffic simulation as if you were the only one making your readers believe so thus faulting in the most basic principle of science.

* People can go through Google Scholar to check from where your overinflated H-index and number of citations is coming from, so it is already under scrutiny especially under the light of the academic non-notability concern expressed herein, usually this figures would not be a problem for a young researcher making their way, but it is if you push your way in the ways you do, that is what seems terribly wrong by following the story described by all people contributing above and in your surroundings. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Coming back to the matter of usurpation of the title of Professor, the author of this article Carlos Gershenson, cannot reverse his decision to use a lesser title because some of his subordinates that he helped hire are incurring in similar practices certainly motivated by the behavior of Carlos Gershenson himself. Tom Froese, another young researcher at UNAM, introduces himself as an 'Associate Professor' (https://froese.wordpress.com/about-me/), when he has barely made it to a tenure track position. Froese is at most a senior postdoc or research fellow, perhaps even a lecturer being generous, but he has promoted himself just as Carlos has done with fakes academic titles. As it is widely known, 'Associate Professor' is equivalent to Reader or Senior Lecturer only one step below Full Professor in all English speaking countries and beyond, something that DOES NOT represent his seniority just as in no way Carlos Gershenson made up title as Research Professor represents his seniority. For those that may think Carlos Gershenson (or Tom Froese for that matter) may have their own valid point of view on the matter to defend their case under some valid interpretation let me explain why not once and for all. As acknowledged by Carlos Gershenson himself before, in Mexico anyone that teaches becomes a de facto 'professor' as used in Spanish, as a synonym of 'teacher'. However, at the university level, just as everywhere in the world, the are at academic levels. The broadest levels are usually identified by a letter from A to C or a number from 1 to 3 or perhaps 4. Carlos Gershenson is, as pointed out by himself in the official URL from the university and his university official listing with his title (http://www.fciencias.unam.mx/directorio/63899), he is of entry level in agreement also with his level in the SNI (the national researchers list of Mexico). This means that if Carlos Gershenson were honest to himself and others rather than to take advantage of translation ambiguities, he would have chosen a more appropriate title such as Research Lecturer or Assistant Professor, yet not only Carlos Gershenson gives himself the title of Professor in Research Professor, but his subordinate Tom Froese who just finished a postdoc position at UNAM about a year ago and is not even fully tenured but in tenure track, has awarded himself the title of 'Associate Professor'. This is not only a disgrace but an offense, if not a felony both in Mexico and abroad, because both researchers know what they are doing and that they have not been awarded such titles neither by their home institution in Mexico nor anywhere else and that their usurped titles do not represent neither by de facto not by their official academic status. This is even more despicable because Gershenson has been able to unfaithfully deceive other institutions that themselves present him as 'professor' (e.g. https://www.ccis.northeastern.edu/people/carlos-gershenson/ and http://en.hpc.ifmo.ru/staff/23/dr-carlos-gershenson). Also, notice that the department of computer science to which from Gershenson and Froese belong has only 11 faculty members, yet both Carlos and Tom Froese claim to be leaders of 2 laboratories in yet another unfaithful way of deception. I am only sorry that they have been unmasked publicly and it has taken to this point and place and I agree with others that have expressed their many concerns. 37.139.70.1 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That seems very clear and definite. So in brief, neither of these characters are in practice or by any awarded title Professors, as they both claim and freely use in English justified in all sorts of fishy reasons including their own interpretation and the ambiguity of the use of the term in Spanish but that they are aware of the weight they have in English when in reality are in entry level positions! Outrageous. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Allegation of scientific misconduct

What appears a well-founded allegation of scientific misconduct has been made public in a letter to the editor in chief of the MIT Press: https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/ where it is also suggested that a formal complain will be filed in their home institutions 199.71.233.34 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

To report that Carlos Gershenson is trying to erase the documented allegations of his scientific misconduct:

(cur | prev) 19:01, 13 July 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,757 bytes) (-290)‎ . . (→‎Biography: removed libel) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:00, 13 July 2016‎ Cgershen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,047 bytes) (-219)‎ . . (Removed libel) (undo)

This is, however, no libel, it is documented and true by comparing actual and claimed titles, and even publicly acknowledged by one of his colleagues, Tom Froese, who accepts he and Gershenson have been using false titles, hence factual. See text written by his colleague Froese himself: https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/

Cgershen: if you want to delete please discuss first in this Talk page. Thanks 199.71.233.34 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that a Wordpress blog can be considered a reliable source, is the letter to the editor available? (VRTS ticket # 2016072910017261) - TheDaveRoss (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it becomes a reliable source when at least one of the researchers involved in the misconduct acknowledges it in his own personal blog (Tom Froese, Gershenson's research assistant): https://froese.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/clarification-of-english-translation-of-job-title/ It is also a blog! but from the researcher in question himself! (acknowledging the offense, though) AND a professor at their institution (Pedro Miramontes) has commented on this blog post. I do not see how this blog post would not, therefore, be a reliable source just as Google's blog or any other blog would not be a nonreliable source only because it is a blog (on WordPress or not). All parties are available for confirmation, through the blog and independently to speak out if it were libelous, the fact can also be verified by looking at Gershenson's webpage, screenshots in the Wordpress post, and the UNAM website. MIT Press director also has confirmed reception of the letter but understandably there is no a press release, she can be contacted anytime, though. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If MIT Press published the letter with attribution then that would be a reliable source. A blog post about a letter which someone sent does not carry any weight for me. Anyone can create a blog on WordPress, and they can claim anything they like as well as claim to be whomever they like. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A blog post should not be ruled out as a reliable source just because it is a blog post especially when the parties involved do acknowledge the fact (on the one side, one of the accused, Dr. Tom Froese: https://froese.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/clarification-of-english-translation-of-job-title/. Another blog post hosted Wordpress of an academic, which does not mean is unreliable because it is the accused main and personal webpage! Anyone can also buy a domain and post things, not much different to a blog. The original blog post also contains an acknowledgment of the issue by a colleague of Gershenson himself. Finally, CGershen should not modify in his favor his own web page without consultation. Moreover, after my concern that the blog post was removed from the bio of this person by the person himself, I contacted the owners of the blog post, as I know the letter existed and they could prove it. The blog post now includes a screenshot of an email sent directly by MIT Press director acknowledging receipt of the letter, the screenshot includes contact info of Dr. Brand and she is avail for confirmation (https://scientificmisconduct.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/carlos-gershenson-and-tom-froese/), this thus address your concern as this is a released document (an email) of a reliable source (Dr. Amy Brand directly) that can be also confirmed independently. 199.71.233.34 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Any reasonable person who looks at that blog will quickly see that it is not a reliable source. The blog purports to "Report Worldwide Scientific Misconduct" and contains exactly one post which it the one you reference. Please do not reinstate information which is backed solely by such a poor source. I am creating a new BLP noticeboard request to have additional editors weigh in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Carlos_Gershenson. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what is the relevance between the blog post name and whether it is a reliable source or not that is leaking information with even an email confirmation from the MIT Press director, but I let others judge. However, please do not think you have the final word and any power over others to decide what goes or not into a Wikipedia article. I will see if others contribute to the discussion and, but in the meantime I am reverting, as others have discussed and agreed here at length about the issue, and is now well known in academia. You are only helping to keep a matter concealed from others that may be misled by Gershenson's misleading claims under a dubious argument (e.g. the name of the blog??). So let me get this straight if the blog post name is changed to your like, or the blog post owner buys a nice domain what would it be your argument to dismiss a leaked official document by the MIT Press director of an ongoing discussed issue in academia? You are not making anybody a favor, you should probably join the voices against the use of fake titles, and see how Gershenson's colleagues have rectified (but not him), and then see beyond the narrow points you are making here. For example, would you say then that Tom Froese's blog is also not a reliable source because his academic webpage is a blog? 199.71.233.34 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Without going into further detail. A wordpress blog is not a reliable source for contentious information about a living person. If you disagree, feel free to take this to WP:BLPN where I am pretty sure the consensus agrees with me on this due to WP:BLPSPS Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.71.233.34 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)