Jump to content

Talk:2018 in science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deacon Vorbis (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 19 January 2018 (→Dispute with User:Deacon Vorbis still deleting entries with reputable references). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

January

5 January: Curious rock shapes (biological or geological?) found on Mars by the Curiosity rover.[1][2]
  • 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.[3]
  • 2 January – Physicists at Cornell University report the creation of "muscle" for shape-changing, cell-sized robots.[4]
  • 3 January
  • 4 January – MIT researchers devise a new method to create stronger and more resilient nanofibers.[13]
  • 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.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ a b David, Leonard (5 January 2018). "Structures on Mars". Space.com. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  2. ^ a b Edwards, Christopher (3 January 2018). "Sols 1913-1924: Curiosity's Working Holiday". NASA. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  3. ^ "Single metalens focuses all colors of the rainbow in one point". Harvard. 1 January 2018. Retrieved 1 January 2018.
  4. ^ "Physicists build muscle for shape-changing, cell-sized robots". EurekAlert!. 2 January 2018. Retrieved 4 January 2018.
  5. ^ Metz, Cade; Perlroth, Nicole (3 January 2018). "Researchers Discover Two Major Flaws in the World's Computers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  6. ^ Warren, Tom (3 January 2018). "Intel's processors have a security bug and the fix could slow down PCs". The Verge. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  7. ^ Bright, Peter (5 January 2018). "Meltdown and Spectre: Here's what Intel, Apple, Microsoft, others are doing about it". Ars Technica. Retrieved 6 January 2018.
  8. ^ Staff (8 January 2018). "Scientists prove the existence of fourth spatial dimension". 12newsonline.com. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
  9. ^ Staff (3 January 2018). "Four-dimensional physics in two dimensions". Phys.org. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
  10. ^ Lohse, Michael; Schweizer, Christian; Price, Hannah M.; Zilberberg, Oded; Bloch, Immanuel (3 January 2018). "Exploring 4D quantum Hall physics with a 2D topological charge pump". Nature (journal). 553: 55–58. doi:10.1038/nature25000. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
  11. ^ Zilberberg, Oded; Huang, Sheng; Guglielmon, Jonathan; Wang, Mohan; Chen, Kevin P.; Kraus, Yaacov E.; Rechtsman, Mikael C. (3 January 2018). "Photonic topological boundary pumping as a probe of 4D quantum Hall physics". Nature (journal). 553: 59–62. doi:10.1038/nature25011. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
  12. ^ "Woman receives bionic hand with sense of touch". BBC News. 3 January 2018. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  13. ^ "Ultrafine fibers have exceptional strength". MIT. 5 January 2018. Retrieved 7 January 2018.
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)[reply]
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#12 News Online 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 Hurricanehink 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 • videos) 23:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • videos) 04:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • videos) 14:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just in case there's still any question, for the umpteenth time, from WP:IS:

A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually generated either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization.

–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid--110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That doesn't relate to what's trying to be used as sources here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As well as NASA. --110.93.240.251 (talk) 06:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 • videos) 06:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Potential future entries

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


  • 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.[1]
    • 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.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Planets around other stars are like peas in a pod". 9 January 2018. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  2. ^ "Extra-terrestrial Hypatia stone rattles solar system status quo". 9 January 2018. Retrieved 11 January 2018.
I guess you can add these now. :) Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is relevant. Organic compounds were detected in meteorites long ago. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WTF? So this page is only open to admins now? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another possible addition:-

  • 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.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "You May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". The Atlantic. 9 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.
  2. ^ "Most People May Already Be Immune to CRISPR". Popular Mechanics. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2018.

--110.93.240.148 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another one:

References

  1. ^ "Computers are getting better than humans at reading". CNN. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
  2. ^ "Alibaba's AI Outguns Humans in Reading". Bloomberg. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

--110.93.240.148 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow editing on this article

Why is this page unavailable to edit? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Self-published_doesn't_mean_a_source_is_automatically_invalid. 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)[reply]

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

RfC started below. Third opinion won't work since this involves more than two people. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 • videos) 02:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 • videos) 02:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_in_science&oldid=821216639"