Talk:2018 in science

Substantial removal of cited edit entries
FWIW - Substantial removal of cited edit entries (see copy below) has been made (more than once => 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (and without discussion or WP:CONSENSUS by other editors) by User:Deacon Vorbis - these removals may (or may not) be justified - the edit entries seem worthy and relevant to the "2018 in science" article - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC) 

Copied from "2018 in science#January (earlier version)":

January

 * 1 January – Researchers at Harvard, writing in Nature Nanotechnology, report the first single lens that can focus all colours of the rainbow in the same spot and in high resolution, previously only achievable with multiple lenses.
 * 2 January – Physicists at Cornell University report the creation of "muscle" for shape-changing, cell-sized robots.
 * 3 January
 * Computer researchers report discovering two major security vulnerabilities, named "Meltdown" and "Spectre," in the microprocessors inside almost all computers in the world.
 * Physicists demonstrate the existence of a fourth spatial dimension.
 * Scientists in Rome unveil the first bionic hand with a sense of touch that can be worn outside a laboratory.
 * 4 January – MIT researchers devise a new method to create stronger and more resilient nanofibers.
 * 5 January – Researchers report images (including image-1) taken by the Curiosity rover on Mars showing curious rock shapes that may require further study in order to help better determine whether the shapes are biological or geological.


 * All of these seem worthy of inclusion, save perhaps the Mars one (pending further study). They’re all valid and important. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, removal of unreliably sourced material doesn't really require or benefit from discussion first. But as a show of good faith, I'll summarize my reasons here.  For ease of discussion, I'll refer to the 7 items listed above in order from 1-7.
 * #1, #2, and #6 were sourced to press releases. Such sources are not reliable.
 * #3 is noteworthy, but off-topic – it's not a science story.
 * #4 was sourced to essentially press releases (one via phys.org, and one via an even sketchier 12 News Online; see Talk:Four-dimensional space for another editor's comments about this source). The claim that physicists had "demonstrated the existence of a fourth spatial dimension" was demonstrably false.  The other two sources were reliable, but primary, and certainly didn't support that assertion.
 * #5 I left in place.
 * #7 was nothing more than "scientists find some interesting looking rocks on Mars that might need more study". That's not noteworthy.
 * More generally, in response to above, validity is irrelevant.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information.  And as far as importance, that's impossible to judge on things like these immediately after they come out.  That's why the farther back in years you go, the better these articles get.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * BRIEF Followup - re the "2018 in science" page - seems one (or more?) of the following may apply? - at least to some extent? => WP:Ignore All Rules, WP:IAR-abg, WP:IARxC, WP:UIAR, WP:NOTBURO, WP:FATRATT - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is any of this relevant to the discussion here? Throwing a bunch of essays at the wall and hoping something sticks isn't helpful.  If you have a point to make and want to point to an essay (or even a policy) as you do so, that's fine, but you're not doing that.  Reliable sources are pretty important for science news, and not something you can just blithely wave WP:IAR at to bypass.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AS Before, my current position is that the "2018 in science" page is worthy - the cited references above to "Nature (journal)" and "NASA" may be considered "WP:RS" by most I would think - nonetheless - other cited sources may be sufficiently reliable to alert those interested to the more responsible scientific literature - no problem whatsoever in improving/updating supporting references to even better cited sources (if available) of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, this doesn't help, because you haven't addressed any of the concerns I've raised. I've not once claimed that Nature or NASA are not reliable sources.  You kept clamoring for discussion, yet you've refused to engage in it in any meaningful way.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And just in case there's still any question, for the umpteenth time, from WP:IS:
 * –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 06:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Identifying_and_using_self-published_works--110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what? That doesn't relate to what's trying to be used as sources here.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 06:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are self published from the universities themselves, but I think universities like MIT and Harvard could be classed as reputable. As well as sources like the BBC. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As well as NASA. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliability of the article from the BBC has never been questioned; stop trying to use it as a straw man. And no one's trying to decide whether or not Harvard or MIT are reputable universities.  The point is that press releases from them are still not kosher.  These are organizations writing about themselves.  They have a vested financial interest in promoting work that originates from them.  There's necessarily a conflict of interest there, particularly when trying to assess the impact of the work in question.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 06:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just mentioning the BBC can also be stated as a reputable source. I wasn't trying to start anything. Calm down. As towards the universities, you may have a point but they are still generally reputable sources and we can put the entries in a neutral manner. Not necessary to delete them. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just mentioning the BBC can also be stated as a reputable source. I wasn't trying to start anything. Calm down. As towards the universities, you may have a point but they are still generally reputable sources and we can put the entries in a neutral manner. Not necessary to delete them. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because the sourcing might not be perfect, doesn't mean you should remove it. That is rather pointy. I've added better references, so I hope we can move on and focus on improving the article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Setting aside any other issues, the item Physicists demonstrate the existence of a fourth spatial dimension should not be included. The title is hyperbolic and false. The researchers developed systems that parallel/simulate/model theoretical 4 dimensional systems. There's absolutely nothing significant able modeling something else, other than better understanding the thing being modeled. And the thing being modeled here is the theoretical behavior of a non-existent 4 dimensional system. I wouldn't bother trying to come up with a more accurate title, it's so esoteric that virtually no readers would find it of interest. Alsee (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Potential future entries
The page is protected, so let's collect here. --mfb (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 9 January
 * A pattern in exoplanets is discovered: Planets orbiting the same star tend to have similar sizes and regular spacings. This could imply that most planetary systems form differently from the Solar System.
 * Analysis of the stone Hypatia shows it has a different origin than the planets and known asteroids. Parts of it could be older than the solar system.


 * I guess you can add these now. :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is relevant. Organic compounds were detected in meteorites long ago. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Who is "you"? An administrator can. I'm not so sure about the third entry as well. --mfb (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WTF? So this page is only open to admins now? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is another possible addition:- --110.93.240.148 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 9 January
 * A new study indicates the genetic engineering method known as CRISPR may trigger an immune response in humans, thus rendering it potentially ineffective in humans.

Another one: --110.93.240.148 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 15 January
 * An artificial intelligence developed by Microsoft and Alibaba manages to achieve better average performance on a Stanford University reading and comprehension test than human beings.

One thing to keep an eye on: The muon g-2 discrepancy might have been explained by gravity. Papers have been uploaded to arXiv a few days ago, I think we should wait for peer review or at least other experts having a look at it. Preprints, 20science.com, physicsworld.com. --mfb (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please allow editing on this article
Why is this page unavailable to edit? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They locked it temporarily because of the edit war. It should become back to normal on January 16th. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Deacon Vorbis still deleting entries with reputable references
User:Deacon_Vorbis is still deleting entries with reputable references, as he did here with User:Wjfox2005's entry about engineers at the University of Texas at Austin and Peking University announcing the development of a new type of memory storage. He's saying the deleted reference can't be considered reputable because it's a press release from the University itself, but as was previously stated, press releases from the same institution can be considered reputable if the institution itself is generally considered reputable: Identifying_and_using_self-published_works. I believe that applies in this case as well. His previous deletions under this logic were also reverted (see above). Can we please formally solve this issue so we don't have to keep on arguing on about this on the talk page? --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Also listed at Third_opinion. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * RfC started below. Third opinion won't work since this involves more than two people.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IP editor: The university can be be a reliable source for the factoid that a someone did develop X, however you are overlooking the implicit claim that X is a significant event of 2018. The university itself cannot support a claim that X is significant. The university has an obvious conflict of interest in that. By that standard the page could be flooded with every science-item posted by every university, every institution, and every minor bit of reporting. If an item is challenged, a minimum you need independent coverage to indicate an independent source considered significant enough to cover at all. Preferably you want multiple independent coverage implicitly indicating meaningful significance. Ideally you want independent sources making some implicit or explicit assertion of significance. I'm guessing that this page generally gets along fine with more causal agreement on which items are reasonably significant, but reliable sourcing of significance would be the Gold Standard if this page starts getting cluttered with junk or if intractable disputes break out. Alsee (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about sources for new entries
Is a press release (or article heavily based on a press release) sufficient to list a new entry at this article? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * No (as proposer). Press releases are not independent sources and should not be used as sources here.  They're generally put out by the organization (which may be perfectly reputable) themselves.  There's an inherent conflict of interest in a press release.  By their very nature, they overstate the importance of what they're discussing.  Unless an item is reported by an independent reliable source, it shouldn't be here (and even then, that's of course no guarantee that it should be here either).  Note, this would also exclude sources like phys.org, and even sometimes better ones, which just repackage press releases (see Churnalism).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes if it is from a reputable organization or reputable secondary source, even if the article is heavily based on the press release. I prefer a press release from a reputable research institute or university over a random secondary source, where the author is typically not an expert. The conflict of interest exists for secondary sources as well, just with different motivations (getting more readers). Ideally we have both, and for entries I put into the article I always try to give the original publication/release and a secondary source as reference. --mfb (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We disagreed on all those private nuclear fusion startups in the 2017 science article, but we agree on this. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes however replace it with a more neutral secondary or news source when the opportunity arises. Also not everything with a press release should appear here, only things with higher impact, so if they only reference is a press release and nothing else, then it is not important enough for this list. If the press release is superior to other science news reporting places then it could be used, but really you can expect anything important to be republished. So Deacon Vorbis should not be just removing entries because they are referenced by a press release, instead should find a news reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes entirely agree with the excellent comments above (very well stated imo) by User:Mfb and User:Graeme Bartlett - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed for the same reasons as the others who say yes. --110.93.240.148 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Press release no but Reliable 2ndary source yes - (called by bot) One isn't RS the other is. Is there a specific piece of content under dispute? If so, the nom should have pointed to it. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What if it's a press release from a reputable institution like MIT or Harvard? --110.93.240.148 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, if  this press-release made a reasonable splash (This is very easy to verify), per WP:TRIVIA (Yes, science is surprisingly full of trivia as well, due to grant-chasing. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and these science pages have been working perfectly fine for many years now. In the vast majority of cases, whenever I use a press release, that press release will also include details of a peer-reviewed journal article. For example, on Science Daily or EurekAlert, at the bottom of each article is a link to somewhere like Nature, Science, PNAS or whatever, discussing the science in far more technical detail. Likewise, most BBC news articles include links to the journals. So press releases can actually be preferable, as they're easier for the layman to understand (surely the goal of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge?) – but if somebody wants more indepth specialist knowledge, they can just click through to the actual science report. There is a balance, of course – I have, occasionally, removed entries if they're too "speculative" or dubious, i.e. without scientific backing, but in the vast majority of cases they're fine. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not generally - if it is a significant item then there should be some secondary source taking notice. The repute of the PR source is not relevant for inclusion and seems likely to just get into opinionating over whether it is or isn't.  Markbassett (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No - by its nature a press release is an organization notifying the press of something newsworthy. But it needs independent sourcing and as another editor noted, not even the originator is saying the material meets notability guidelines of Wikipedia, as everything that is newsworthy is not necessarily appropriate as encyclopedic content.  --Klaun (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes subject to the reservations in the various foregoing yes-votes. If the release seems doubtful, fringe, snake-oil or spammy, we should use our common sense anyway, since a few weeks' delay can do no harm if there are grounds for doubt, and no harm delaying a few weeks before stampeding to press anyway, but press releases from reputable sources generally are good in uncontroversial topics, and often better than even reputable news media subsequently based on them. Of course, we need to use some good sense or we find ourselves recording non-events such as yet another model of a Chinese Iphone rival (yippeee....) JonRichfield (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Press release no, unclear regarding "article heavily based on a press release". Our article is defined as significant scientific events of the year. If NASA issues a press release saying "X" and there is zero secondary coverage, that is prima facie evidence that the world does not consider "X" to have significance. Furthermore if a press release isn't coming from NASA, there can be significant concerns of promotion/exaggeration/reliability etc. Regarding "article heavily based on a press release", it's unclear what we are discussing here. Significant original writing on a subject carries more weight, and there are cases elsewhere where we discard supposed ReliableSources for being little more than a reprint of a press release. On the other hand good science coverage often sticks closely to the expert information. I'd want an RFC to identify a more specific dispute before taking a position on the "heavily based on a press release" angle. Alsee (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If something is notable in a scientific field, it will get secondary independent coverage. Press releases, etc. are almost always tied to the publisher or authors making statements right after publication. This should be a topic where WP:MEDRS / WP:SCIRS are applied to at least some degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe. A press release from NASA about research not directly connected with NASA may be a legitimate secondary source.  (It does happen.)  I'm not sure about NASA press releases about NASA projects. As for press releases in general, remember E-Cat and D-Wave, who have announced significant results that have not be verified.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No: One source directly from either the horse's mouth or that which feeds it? No. This is independent of the question of whether a press release should be cited instead of the publication or preprint itself, or instead of an inaccurate newspaper write-up of the release by a rookie reporter who never had to take a science journalism class. If something is to be categorized as a "significant" event in science for WP's sake then either it makes a pop culture crater on its own (so independent of scientific merit per se), or some authoritative people independent of the original producers have to declare it so, not us. A NASA press release may be somewhat less self-sycophantic than what a university or private company typically puts out, but the gist still the same: congratulate yourselves and team, mention your institution as much as possible, and direct all inquiries to the person at the bottom. SamuelRiv (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No Absolutely agree with SamuelRiv and Kingofaces43. Plus, often a press release will be released when something, whatever it is, is too new. Perhaps a new field, a product, or discovery, and its not in its final defined form and still taking shape. You see it all time. So why not wait, until proper secondary sources are availble. scope_creep (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe; depends on the source of the press release, and on whether/how quickly it is followed up by regular RSs which do more than reprint the release. The result should be that, while a press release may be the origin of the article, except for a very short time, it should never be the only source. Happy days, LindsayHello 13:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If a discovery is significant enough to be notable, there will be secondary coverage of it. Natureium (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

question re article format
this article is awesome. thanks for all the data here. one question, is there any support for grouping this article by broad scientific divisions? i.e., biology, physics, chemistry, etc? if not, no worries. just wanted to ask. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Could be difficult to find a good category for some entries and it would make following new entries a bit more effort. Afterwards it would make the articles better to read, however. I put the section back to the bottom, here it is more likely to be found. --mfb (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Bacteria - earliest life forms on land - OK to include - or not?
FWIW - Following text and reference from a "WP:Reliable Source" (see copy below) was added to the "2018 in science" main article, but "later reverted" as "speculative, non-noteworthy" by one editor - other editors may not agree - should the edit be included in the main article - or not? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Copied from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_in_science&oldid=898429971#July (earlier July, 2018 version)": * 23 July [2018] '''**Scientists report that the earliest life on land may have been bacteria living on land 3.22 billion years ago. '''