Talk:Amie Wilkinson

On Hill's complaint
I am coming from BLP/N where an IP complaining to be Wilkinson points out issues. Regardless of the identity of this IP, it is fully against BLP to use a self-written article by Hill to include accusations made by Hill towards Wilkinson. We need reliable third-party sources to acknowledge this is a significant complaint. --M asem (t) 17:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The fact that Hill made allegations is just that, a fact.  Facts can and should be reported, especially to help uncover serious allegations of suppression of free academic inquiry and expression.  Deleting mention on wikipedia is, unfortunately, akin to suppressing Hill's academic article itself.  The correct way to disagree with an academic article is to publish and comment, not to suppress.  Certainly the entry can note that Wilkinson disagrees with Hill's allegations, but my nose tells me she would then get caught in a lie.  Hill addresses the responses by the University of Chicago, namely that it did not find academic malfeasance, which was not what he claimed.  The story doesn't end just because a university took no action.  I make this entry guessing that Wilkinson will never want more people to know about the Hill article; so consensus is highly unlikely, and we must probably invoke wikipedia dispute resolution.JDMBA (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP. We don't repeat allegations just because someone said something, especially when those allegations concern another living person. If this gets picked up by reliable, third-party, published sources, then we can consider adding content about it to the article. Woodroar (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Woodroar. I understand the policy now.  I hope others find this before continuing any edit warring. JDMBA (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that was the rule either. I thought it was fine to add as long as I made it clear that it was only an allegation by Hill, not an established fact. Had I known that BLP was that strict, I wouldn't have added it. Sorry about that. I'll keep an eye out to see if the story gets picked up anywhere.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  05:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been picked up by Reason. -- Veggies (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason magazine merely retells the Quilette story without any investigation on their own. 84.213.47.175 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also not a particularly reliable source. At RSN, Reason is usually seen as an opinion/advocacy site. Sure, we can sometimes use those kinds of publications for their opinions, but for BLP claims we really need top-notch sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the source cited isn't an article in Reason but a post on its Hit & Run blog, meaning it is subject to the conditions spelled out in WP:NEWSBLOG. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  23:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of Reason in the link you provided. -- Veggies (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which link? RSN? It's a noticeboard, so you'd have to search through past discussions. Take a look here and here, for example. As others have mentioned, Reason merely repeats claims from the Wilkinson piece and hasn't vetted them through fact-checking, so it wouldn't be considered a reliable news article. And even besides all that, with one opinion piece the claim is still UNDUE and non-compliant with our BLP policies.
 * As an aside, pings don't work unless the correct markup is entered at the same time as a signature. However, I noticed the update because I check my Watchlist often (or I try to!) so there's no need to ping me. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been covered on retraction watch https://retractionwatch.com/2018/09/17/what-really-happened-when-two-mathematicians-tried-to-publish-a-paper-on-gender-differences-the-tale-of-the-emails/ The paragraph should be added back. 85.206.175.218 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That source does not support the reverted paragraph in any way. It does not mention Wilkinson, for one. It mentions Farb only to say the University of Chicago declined to reprimand him and that Farb said the NYJM should have stated why the article was retracted pulled rescinded whatever-it-was-ed, and Retraction Watch agreed with Farb on that last point. The article also says that the former editor of NYJM could not comment and the current editor didn't know the details. And it ends by saying "[s]o much remains a mystery about this story", which basically says that Retraction Watch doesn't know what really happened. We can't use that to many any claims about living persons, or any claims at all for that matter. Woodroar (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Attempting to correct Wikipedia's obvious bias does everyone an injustice. It takes out the most objectionable examples of the bias, giving Wikipedia credibility as a legitimate source of information. It is best that people searching for information encounter either the void left by the censorship or the egregiously one-sided views allowed so that they can know they must look elsewhere for genuine information. 47.156.21.196 (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Image of Wilkinson
The image has been removed twice now with no rationale. It's a decent image and the licensing appears valid. Is there any reason we shouldn't use this image? Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. It looks like the video was published under a CC BY-NC-ND licensed which is not compatible with our license, and we're not able to use non-free content when it comes to living persons. Woodroar (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)