Talk:Francesca Gino

Plagiarism

Note that the plagiarism section is being supported with just a single Substack blog which clearly violates WP:BLPSPS, as it prevents a self-published source from being used for third-party claims about living persons. I have not deleted it but added a citations needed tag so more reliable sources can be added to verify these claims. Diederika (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The one-paragraph "Allegations of plagiarism" section is sourced only to an entry by Bruce Ivar Gundmundsson in the "Extra Muros" blog, which notes similarities between a single paragraph in Gino's Rebel Talent and one in an article by John Dellinger in Military History magazine. The Gundmundsson piece asserts that there're other such similarities between Rebel Talent and the Dellinger article, but doesn't provide detail.

I've Googled [francesca gino "dellinger"] and related terms, but found nothing to suggest that this story's received any additional notice. The Gundmundsson piece is dated June 24, 2023; given its lack of depth, and the apparent absence of further coverage in the nearly nine months since its publication, I've elected to remove the section. — Ammodramus (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - I could not find any further details either Diederika (talk) Diederika 15:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fraud allegations

Earlier today, I marked this sentence as POV and without a source:

"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on data falsified by another researcher."

I pointed out that the sentence had no citation and contained a POV (that someone else fabricated the data), which was attributed to no source.

User Abecedare reverted the changes and said the "Scince" [sic] article supported the statement. I believe it was reference #8 (doi:10.1126/science.adj3539) to which Abecedare referred. I checked the reference and did not see anywhere that it says someone else falsified the data. The closest it comes to saying anything like that is that it reports The Chronicle of Higher Education: "notes that Gino had told a co-author that a lab manager had collected the data." In other words, no independent source says that someone else fabricated the data. Additionally, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Gino did not explicitly deny it either—only reportedly told a co-author someone else collected the data. I am altering the sentence to more accurately reflect what the reference says, and I am including the citation.

"She is a co-author of a 2012 article that was retracted for apparently being based on falsified data; however, she reported that a lab manager collected the data."

笔名 (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Gino is currently under investigation by Harvard (and on "administrative leave") after apparent evidence of fraud in a number of her publications came to light. 2A00:23C5:6D1A:9501:55D:6641:8CDF:B5F7 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added "admin leave" per this ref, but its implications of possible data fraud specific to Gino are vague. We'll need to wait for further developments and significant coverage. (Data Colada is not a reliable source for this article.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure—the editors who requested the retraction of the 2012 Shu, et al. paper in 2021 specifically cite Data Colada, which is published by three well-established and respected professors, as having asked the questions and provided the information that led to their decision to request retraction. And Gino herself released a statement through HBS that "expressed appreciation for Data Colada’s analysis", which had led her and her coauthors to submit "a letter to PNAS editors requesting retraction" of their 2012 paper in 2021.

To suggest that Data Colada isn't an RS when it comes to its own assertions seems wrong. There's no reason not to cite the claims of professors regarding possible malfeasance by Gino—especially when Gino already credited their work with convincing her to request retraction of a prior paper she published. We wouldn't cite it for claims in Wiikivoice, but that doesn't mean it can't be a source.

More recently, The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported that Gino's coauthor, Bazernan said "Harvard informed him that it believed fabricated data for this experiment made it invalid" and that they had “'compelling evidence' of data alterations" including that "somebody had accessed a database and added and altered data in the file." Bazerman said that he "did not have anything to do with the fabrication” and that “in retrospect, Gino reported that her lab manager at her prior university managed data collection for the two laboratory experiments in the 2012 paper.” Meanwhile, they note that Gino is on leave. And a "June 17, 2023, 2:16 p.m.)" update notes that "The day after this story was published,[Data Colada] wrote that they had notified Harvard Business School of what they characterized as evidence of fraud in four papers co-authored by Francesca Gino, including the 2012 paper discussed in this article."

Given all that, I'd encourage you to rethink your blanket statement that "Data Colada is not a reliable source for this article." It's certainly reliable and citable for the claims it's made, and notable, to boot, given all the coverage, kudos, and results its analysis has gotten—including, no less, praise and credit from Gino herself.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 05:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros, see WP:BLPSPS: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Schazjmd (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, shouldn't the Datacolada blog post(s) (there will be three more in addition to the one currently available) be referred to as containing important details regarding the fraud? This involves the excel spreadsheet files -- the data for the study -- containing evidence that observations were switched to suit the goals of the study. Importantly, the Datacolada team have released the data for this analysis. This is surely highly relevant! BScomond (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The article should summarize independent reliable sources, which can include sources that are making use of the Data Colada analyses for their coverage. But the Data Colada blog itself cannot be directly used as a source for content in the article. Whether we should include a link to the Data Colada page(s) about Gino in an External links section is a gray area. WP:ELNO says avoid Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities are individuals who always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) Only one of the blog authors (Uri Simonsohn) is wikipedia-notable, although it could be argued that the blog's authors are considered "recognized authorities" in this field as evidenced by the use of their research to drive the investigation and media coverage. However, right now, coverage of their assertions (in reliable sources) is scant and rightfully so as other experts in the field need to investigate and validate their findings. Personally, I think we should wait until this all plays out.

I don't know that many editors are watching this article, but you're welcome to raise the issue of linking to Data Colada as an external link at the BLP noticeboard to get a wider range of opinions on it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all this—I'm definitely not as fluent in terms of guidelines and I appreciate the information.

I think you're correct in a couple important respects—first and foremost that the Data Colada posts should be in § External links rather than as an inline cited RS. And you're right to bring up the BLO issue—although the article is of course a BLP, I hadn't really seen this issue in quite that strict a context. I guess I was focused on the article and hadn't seen Data Colada's posts so much as "third-party claims about Gino as about her papers. But I can see now that's a distinction without a difference.

I was also focused on the fact that the subject herself had asked for a retraction of her own article based on the information posted by Data Colada, a group of published experts in the field—but in retrospect, I can see that doesn't really provide any exemption from BLP policy (unless it were, say, a quote from Gino about how Data Colada convinced her to ask for the retraction).

In short: you've convinced me that Data Colada is not an RS for this BLP. That said, I do think it can be linked externally, given that Data Colada easily meet these criteria: "The author is an established expert on the topic of the article in the relevant field whose work has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." And of course the Chronicle Of Higher Ed's article and its references to Data Colada can and should be included. I never thought our article should claim in Wikivoice that Gino committed academic fraud—but I still believe that it can and should neutrally and dispassionately note the unassailable facts: credible experts have asserted that her data is bogus; several papers for which she provided data have been or are being investigated, with some already retracted; and that she has taken leave with no public explanation.

Thanks again for your thoughtful and patient input! ElleTheBelle 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And it's my opinion that this sentence could be improved and clarified: "She is a co-author of at least one article that has been retracted for being based on fake data." I think a little more detail would be helpful—I'm not totally clear that it was retracted for "fake data" so much as at the request of the authors after claims of bogus data had been made publicly. Also worth noting Bazerman's claim that Harvard sent him the results of an investigation that found data had been fabricated—and that the school is pushing the journal to add that information to the retraction notice. Rather than "at least one", it might be better to note how many and which articles, the status of investigations, etc. Hope that makes sense! ElleTheBelle 18:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What are your suggestions for rewording the sentence and based on which sources? Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have tweaked the related language to reflect how two secondary sources (FT and Science) have summarized the Data Colada findings. I am torn as to whether the primary source, Data Colada, should be lined at all, and won't object if someone decides to remove it. Pinging @Schazjmd: since they have been involved in this discussion longer than I. Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) (Repinging Schazjmd Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC))

I removed the cite to the blog per WP:BLPSPS. We have to rely on sources that summarize what it says. Schazjmd (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The findings posted on the website of Data Colada have not been refuted by any scientific forensic examination. Any refutation aspiring to be taken seriously would've addressed the statistical aspect of the findings; words and generalities won't and did not do. Therefore, all that remains to be established is which person is guilty of what. And it's important that the lawsuit filed by Francesca Gino does not contest the Data Colada findings. (Notably, as well, the contested papers were retracted because their publishers accepted the Data Colada findings.) Gino contests in her lawsuit as false, defamatory, and personally harmful strictly the explicit allegation that the "data manipulation" was done by her or that she was in any way involved in it. Hence, linking to the Data Colada work cannot be assessed as any kind of WP:BLP violation.

About WP:BLPSPS: The Data Colada website publishes work by eponymous, established scientists. The work about Francesca Gino's papers was by Leif D. Nelson, professor of Business Administration and Marketing at Berkeley, Uri Simonsohn, professor of Behavioral Science, ESADE Business School, and Joseph Simmons, professor of Applied Statistics, Wharton. WP:BLPSPS allows that some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I submit that on account of the authors' professional background, the Data Colada website (whose playful name admittedly does not help) should be accepted as at least equivalent to a newspaper blog hosting third-party works. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits by potentially connected User:Gregburd

This article appears to have been edited by what appears to be the subject's spouse User:Gregburd. They edited here, e.g. removing template adding Greg Scott Burd as spouse. Of course this could also be hoax/vandalism but that would be a rather odd way to vandalize. Would be good to check what they added, I haven't had the time. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

AncientWalrus It looks like he actually added the infobox to this page (including his own name listed as her spouse), rather than removing it as you stated. Also, most if not all of the unsourced stuff that he added to the infobox seems to have been removed since he added it (about 5 years ago). IntoThinAir (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was imprecise which template they removed: they removed the template {{Missing information|birthyear + CV|date=April 2017}} after adding the birthdate, so I guess that's ok (though the birth date is unsourced). You're right, that they also added the entire infobox, I had missed that, though I noticed he had added himself as spouse. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement that an investigation "determined" anything is unverifiable as it's findings are not public. I suggested an edit to change the language to a more reasonable word that indicates that there is no certainty in the investigation. I've read these documents in question (again not public so making statements of fact citing a private document is... well... a bit... wrong?) and there's no finding based in fact. For Wikipedia to publish it as fact is, IMO, demonstrably defamatory and false. Gregory Burd (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@User:Gregburd has come back to this page and just made another edit [1], marked inappropriately as "minor" and not going through the appropriate route which is per WP:DISCLOSE

Also, if you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, you can use the {{edit COI}} template. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.

I have reverted that edit. Gregburd should propose it here. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not as well versed in the ways of Wikipedia as you are, if I happened to edit something that wasn't "minor" or forgot four tildes I apologize. I ask for fairness and truth from this site, that is all. Gregory Burd (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

My full name is Gregory Scott Burd, no I'm not a "hoax" and yes I am her husband. I changed one word, from "determined" to "accused", and the issue with that is? The edit was minor, as it was one word. Excuse me if I don't fully appreciate your editing rules, I'm not an expert in how your determine the level of change. Gregory Burd (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue with that is that you have a clear Conflict of Interest and should not be editing the page at all. From your edit summary, it's clear that you believe the one word is important and meaningfully affects the article; if that is the case, it's kind of hard to argue it's not a big deal that you changed it. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have a "conflict of interest". That shouldn't excuse Wikipedia from publishing false information. Gregory Burd (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to use this page to discuss issues with the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's true that Wikipedia has many rules and it can be difficult to understand them as a new editor and I apologize that I didn't explain myself well and that I might have come across as strongly critical. I don't think I suggested that you're a hoax, at least I never thought so. You are welcome to make suggestions here on this talk page and they will be considered. In fact, the wording has recently been changed from "determined" to "concluded" in this edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gregburd I have left a message on your talk page, feel free to discuss this further there AncientWalrus (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Law suit

I think this is worth including, but maybe not: Ms. Gino filed a law suit against Data and Harvard:https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholar-accused-of-research-fraud-sues-harvard-and-data-sleuths-alleging-a-smear-campaign?cid=at&sra=true Kdammers (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is pertinent information and should be included in this site. Also, a link to her rebuttal wouldn't be out of line. https://francesca-v-harvard.org/ Gregory Burd (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a section covering this. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Harvard's report on Gino's data fabrication has been released through court documents

The full unsealed (slightly redacted) report can be found at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.259933/gov.uscourts.mad.259933.20.5_1.pdf. Not sure if this should be included in the article as an external link or reference... skeptical scientist (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also been covered by some reliable news sources, including Science, https://www.science.org/content/article/honesty-researcher-committed-research-misconduct-according-newly-unsealed-harvard, and The Harvard Crimson, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/3/15/gino-harvard-investigation-report. -- skeptical scientist (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I see someone added some info about this already to the second paragraph of Francesca_Gino#Allegations_of_data_fabrication based on yesterday's article in Chronicle of Higher Ed. I went ahead and expanded it further based on the two new sources from my last message. -- skeptical scientist (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)