Talk:Sherry Marts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Could you please explain...

Mo Billings, could you please return here and explain this edit more fully? Are you quoting a guideline? Could you link to it? Did you see that the NYTimes, used the tweet as an image in this article? Geo Swan (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the paragraph Mo Billings excised, substituting a different reference. Geo Swan (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you're looking for is WP:SELFSOURCE. The New York Times included her tweet, but does not say anything about bullying or leaving the organization. Other sources may end up discussing this, but I'm not sure that this one point would be included in such a short biography anyway. Mo Billings (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you read the same NYTimes article I did? You wrote the NYTimes didn't say anything about bullying, or resignation?

The @sherrymarts's tweet follows this passage:
In February of 2020, another BuzzFeed report detailed further strife and resignations at MeTooSTEM. Activists including Ms. Marts publicly distanced themselves from the embattled MeTooSTEM leader; they even officially resigned from the hashtag.

WP:SELFSOURCE says "...may be used as sources of information about themselves...". The passage you excised said "In 2020 Marts described being bullied by her co-winner McLaughlin, and announced she was leaving the organization the pair helped found." Okay, isn't that passage Marts wrote about her? Isn't she providing information about feeling bullied, and about her resignation decision?

You wrote "I'm not sure that this one point would be included in such a short biography anyway." Hmmm. Is it your position that BethAnn McLaughlin's abuse, admitted long-term identity fraud and alleged embezzlement of tens of thousands of dollars of charitable funds is a trivial tempest-in-a-teapot? If I agreed it was a trivial tempest-in-a-teapot I would agree it did not merit being mentioned, either here or at McLaughlin's article.

I don't think it is trivial, at all. Care to try to explain why you see it as trivial? Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of questions. I don't think the @Sciencing_bi incident is "trvial", to use your word, but it isn't something important about Sherry Marts. It is well covered in the appropriate article. You can't use self-source references to make statements about third parties. So, no, you can't say "Marts described being bullied by her co-winner McLaughlin". And you can't say she quit "the organization" because neither she nor the New York Times says that. If a better source comes along, it could be mentioned with the sentence about winning the Disobedience prize but this really doesn't like something important in Marts' career, even if it has probably ruined McLaughlin's. Mo Billings (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to re-read the NYTimes article. Hmmm. I don't mean to be insulting, but I am going to ask you to re-read it a third time. They had a paragraph about former colleagues who described McLaughlin as verbally abusive, who resigned from the organization. This paragraph was followed by four paragraphs each devoted to one of those seven colleagues who described her as verbally abusive and who resigned. The paragraph about Marts resignation was followed by Marts's tweet, which was also included in the Buzzfeed reports

As Ms. McLaughlin received more public recognition, her colleagues at MeTooSTEM began to leave the organization, accusing her of frequent verbal abuse and citing the dysfunction plaguing the organization. By May 2019, seven members had resigned, according to a report in BuzzFeed at the time... In February of 2020, another BuzzFeed report detailed further strife and resignations at MeTooSTEM. Activists including Ms. Marts publicly distanced themselves from the embattled MeTooSTEM leader; they even officially resigned from the hashtag.

We agree the @Sciencing_bi incident isn't "trvial".
Your comment "well covered in the appropriate article"? I think suggests you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how topics should best be covered on the wikipedia. we could have a wikipedia-like thing where we allowed mergists to get their way, where we had a small number of very large articles, each crammed with lots of topics, and those unmanageably large articles would make very few wikilinks to other articles. What works best for our readers is a relatively large number of small richly inter-linked articles, where each of those articles was about just one topic. It is not our content that makes the wikipedia powerful, it is the rich inter-linking of topics.
I think you have picked the wrong interpretation of "You can't use self-source references to make statements about third parties." When Marts says she felt McLaughlin bullied her, that should be seen as a statement primarily about Marts, and her feelings, not McLaughlin.
As above, please re-read the NYTimes article again.
You wrote "...this really doesn't like something important in Marts' career, even if it has probably ruined McLaughlin." I agree that McLaughlin's academic career is almost certainly in ruins. As for the importance to Marts's career - WP:WEIGHT says coverage of events should be proportional to the importance. I gave it a one sentance paragraph, which is the importance I think it merits.
In a wikipedia full of small but richly interlinked articles, each topic should primarily be covered in one article, but linked from other related articles. It is important to provide context for the wikilinks in the related articles. Sometimes the relevance of the link doesn't require specific context. Other times it does. We don't want to repeat coverage of the entire @Sciencing_bi incident in the Sherry Marts's article, as that is redundant, and introduces the danger it will go out of synch with the other coverage. But some context of the incident is appropriate.

You seem to be amenable to drafting your alternative to that paragraph, rather than completely excising it. If I got that right why don't you first restore the status quo ante, as BRD suggests, and then provide your alternate paragraph here? Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are going in circles. You can't use Twitter for claims about third parties. Feel free to ask for a third opinion. Mo Billings (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three edits in question follow:

Do not use Twitter for claims about third parties. - no explanation from you on the talk page
revert - see talk - supplemented by an explanation here.
I substituted the NYTimes reference for the twitter reference that concerned you.
See talk - you ignore the explicit wording of BRD and re-revert. You did challenge whether the NYTimes supported my wording, on the talk page, but you ignored my counter-arguments that it did support my wording. You did hint that you would agree to alternate wording, but you did not bother to suggest alternate wording.

It seems to me you want to insist on your wording, but we have reached the limit of your willingness to respond to counter-arguments.

I think some people would tell me that I now no longer have an obligation to wait for you to suggest the alternate wording you hinted at being willing to accept, and that I am now free to restore status quo ante. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but just like you I am a volunteer editor and arguing with you isn't how I want to spend my time. I have tried to explain what was wrong with your edits. If you don't understand or agree please ask for a third opinion. Please don't restore your edit (for the reasons already given). Mo Billings (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a volunteer, just as you are a volunteer. We are both volunteers on a project most volunteers take seriously. Sometimes taking our participation seriously can be hard work - the same kind of hard work we get bored doing when we are at work. Sometimes starting a task can mean we end up facing a greater time and attention commitment than we initially anticipated. I suggest taking the wikipedia seriously implies that when a task does require more attention we do our best to give it that attention. I am working on an essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/teachable moments. In it I say there is no training course for the wikipedia, it is all "on the job training", and I think that means we have to take the people who disagree with us seriously.
If you or I bail out of discussions simply because we find responding to be hard work then you or I could end up continuing to make mistakes for which we received good faith warnings. I don't want to be doing that. Do you? Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Billings WP:BRD#Discuss says "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." I think you jumped the gun, and "reverted to your reversion" here. Please consider restoring the status quo ante, until the discussion concludes. Geo Swan (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have that completely backwards. If someone disputes or reverts your edit, you are the one who needs to discuss it. Most cases probably won't require discussion since the person who made the original change will either fix whatever was wrong with their edit (finding a source, etc) or realize that it was contrary to a guideline (like WP:SELFSOURCE). Hope this helps. Mo Billings (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think if you re-read BRD, you will see the sequence is (1) bold contributor B boldly changes an article's content, without trying to discuss it with anyone first - ie what you did; (2) contributor Z, who disagrees with the bold change reverts the bold change, and restores the original wording - ie what I did; (3) contributor Z explains why they reverted, on the talk page - ie what I did; (4) bold contributor B lays out their reasoning, on the talk page, but does not make a second reversion, because that leads to edit warring; (5) discussion either comes to wording both contributors as satisfied with, or they call for the opinion of previously uninvolved third parties, or take it to dispute resolution - this stage is not yet complete.

Your interpretation of BRD rests on the assumption that bold contributors should be assumed to be correct. If you look at the revision history of long established articles you'll see bold contributors are often clueless newbies, or POV pushers. So, no, we don't assume the bold contributor who introduced a change without discussion is correct. Geo Swan (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:BRD has anything to do with one editor or the other being "correct". It's probably safe to assume that both editors believe they are correct when they make their edits. Mo Billings (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why should we follow your interpretation of BRD, where we let the bold change that had been challenged remain until the bold contributor was satisfied? You haven't addressed my concern that following that interpretation triggers edit warring. Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the wording to BRD's nutshell:

This page in a nutshell: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus.

The nutshell specifically tells the bold contributor "do not revert again"... Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to disagree about what BRD means? That's not the issue here. I think we can agree that if someone disagrees with your edit, don't just blindly revert them. Right? Mo Billings (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. No. I do not agree to disagree, because I found the wording of BRD very clear and indisputable. I think it very clearly and indisputably says the bold contributor is not supposed to re-revert, they are supposed to discuss the content issue until it is resolved.
You seem to acknowledge that BRD lays an obligation on both parties to discuss the disputed content issue. But you seem to have stopped replying to my points. I don't think this means you have come to agree with me. What am I supposed to do if you insist your bold edit should stay, but you stop discussing our disagreement? Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT USE TWITTER FOR CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PARTIES. Mo Billings (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mo Billings, even if, for the sake of argument, I agreed that SELFSOURCE applied to Marts's tweet, your second excision was of material that cited the NYTimes, not twitter. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT USE TWITTER FOR CLAIMS ABOUT THIRD PARTIES, EVEN IF THE NEW YORK TIMES QUOTES THE TWEET Mo Billings (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the decision of what information to include in secondary sources what makes a secondary source? As in, aren't all (proper) secondary sources based on information pulled from primary sources? Leijurv (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason not to use Twitter is either because it is a primary source or because it is self-published (the policy that Mo Billings seems to be referring to here). However, if you consult WP:USINGSPS, you can clearly see that a NYTimes article is not self-published since something is self-published when the answers to "Who is the author or creator of the work?" and "Who is the publisher of the work?" are the same. In this case, the author is the NYT article author and the publisher is the NYT, so it is not self-published. In addition, that guideline specifically gives "The contents of magazines and newspapers" as an example of a source that is not self-published.

The reason to avoid self-published sources is because there needs to be a different body (other than the source and Wikipedia) validating that the contents are reliable. In this case, the NYT reporter is that validator, so using information that the NYT provides is perfectly valid. We probably still shouldn't use the quote of the tweet as information. However, we can use information that the NYT provides relating to and based on the tweet. Gbear605 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that quoting Marts' tweet magically turned the tweet from a self published source to a secondary source? Mo Billings (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I'm saying that the NYT's commentary on the tweet is a secondary source while the tweet itself is a primary source. We can use the commentary

Activists including Ms. Marts publicly distanced themselves from the embattled MeTooSTEM leader; they even officially resigned from the hashtag.

But we can't use the tweet directly:

I have experienced bullying and intimidation by the founder of MeTooSTEM (which I refuse to use as.a hashtag anymore), and I split that damn prize with her. She isn’t the movement, and there are so many of us working to change the culture of STEM. It will happen. #STEMToo

I'd suggest a middle ground, saying that Marts has stopped associating with McLaughlin (which is information entirely from the NYT, a secondary source), but without mentioning the bullying as a cause (since the only source for that is a primary source). Does that sound reasonable? Gbear605 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's quite reasonable. See my first reply to Geo Swan, two days ago. Mo Billings (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article includes a falsehood

I am the subject of this article and it includes an untrue statement about me. I was not a founder of MeTooSTEM nor was I ever a volunteer for the organization. I met BethAnn McLaughlin for the first time at the award ceremony at MIT and interacted with her, mostly on Twitter, after that. I have no idea how to edit the article and I don't have the time or inclination to learn. Can anyone help? SherryMarts (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SherryMarts, thanks for coming here to the talk page instead of making the change yourself. If you happen to want to make any changes about yourself on Wikipedia in the future, make sure to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy first, but to summarize it, asking other people to make the changes is the right policy.

Looking over the two articles that connect you with McLaughlin, I see that the New York Times article is ambiguously phrased, and we had clearly gotten the wrong meaning from that ambiguity. I've changed it to say In 2018 Marts shared an MIT Disobedience Award, given to individuals who fight sexual harassment, with BethAnn McLaughlin and Tarana Burke. In 2020 Marts stopped associating with McLaughlin and stopped using the #MeTooSTEM hashtag., which seems accurate to me. Is that fine with you?

Gbear605 (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's ok. One additional change - I didn't just "describe experiencing" sexual harassment when I was at Duke, I experienced it.

Would you (or anyone else reading this) have any interest in fleshing this out with more biographical information? I'm happy to provide it. I mean, if there's going to be an entry with my name on it, it should at least contain some information beyond what's there, don't you think? SherryMarts (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SherryMarts, Wikipedia policy is that we only include information that is from reliable sources, which goes doubly so for information about living persons. Those would include things like published books and news articles. For some examples you can see the sources used on this article. This is to avoid including information that isn’t verified by someone outside of Wikipedia. After all, I don’t have any proof that you’re not someone impersonating yourself, and even if we did, you could be making it up. I don’t think that either of those is true, but we have to follow that standard just in case.

If you do know of reliable sources that mention you though, I’d be glad to add information from them. Gbear605 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is WebMD a reliable source? https://www.webmd.com/sherry-marts Here's the book I co-authored on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7155982.Sherry_Marts Do articles in which I am quoted count? I have a lot of those. Oh, and I'm in IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2849996/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1 I presented at the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/shstudy/PGA_177869 My presentation starts at about 14:00. I'm a coauthor on a highly cited review article on sex differences in the brain: https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/146/4/1650/2878058 I'm not sure how to prove that I actually graduated from high school, university, and got my PhD at Duke. I could scan transcripts, I suppose. I'm not being snarky, I'm truly naive as to how all this works. What I can't get over is that someone I don't know can slap something like this up and I don't get any say about it. Hardly seems fair. SherryMarts (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found this - look in the articles about the Graduate and Professional Student Council. I was one of a small group of grad students who created this - before that, grad students had no representation as a group: https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/32732/rec/1 https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/30709/rec/3 https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/30423/rec/9 https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/32374/rec/13 https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/32838/rec/17https://dukelibraries.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15957coll13/id/31643/rec/14

My publications are listed here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sherry_Marts SherryMarts (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of fun. Here's the newspaper archive from my hometown - evidence that I did graduate from high school. https://thedailyjournal.newspapers.com/search/beta/#query=Sherry+Marts&t=7950&ymd-start=1966-01-01&ymd-end=2005-12-31

SherryMarts (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again SherryMarts! I added the article and book, and also added a line about the GPSC.

There's no need to prove that you graduated from high school, or other trivial facts about you - essentially, the rule is that any controversial information could have a citation. Since no one doubts that you graduated from high school, there's no need to prove it.

As for the "fairness," that's the reason for this reliable source rule. Since Wikipedia only provides information that is published by others, we're ensuring that we're not adding more information to the world, only summarizing what is already out there.

I suggest reading through WP:AUTOBIO, which might help inform you about the reasoning behind these policies. I really appreciate the help though, and that you want to help Wikipedia here. Gbear605 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the additions, thank you for doing that. I would point out that the original article did "add information" in that it included an entirely made up assertion that I was a co-founder of MeTooSTEM, with no external evidence that this was the case. However, you fixed that pretty quickly so it is now a moot point. I actually have a bio that my assistant prepared that fits Wikipedia's requirements, or so we thought. It was rejected because it didn't have enough citations and then (after citations were added) it "wasn't an encyclopedia article." I would be happy to send that text to someone who could figure out whether to add any of that information to this article. I'm really not all that vain - our original attempt was done when I realized that Dr. McLaughlin had a Wikipedia bio and given that we got the same award, I though I could have one, too. I gave up after the second try. Now, I figure if this is going to exist, it should be both accurate and a bit more complete. SherryMarts (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please don't unnecessarily rewrite references for purely esthetic reason

This article has had references rewritten for largely esthetic reasons, twice.

This is a highly disruptive practice and I strongly encourage those doing it to cease doing it here, now, in this article and in every other article they work on.

I repeat this practice is highly disruptive.

In engineering experienced people follow the long accepted principle "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Fixing things that aren't broken can be counted on to introduce new errors, at least some of the time. So, this highly disruptive practice should be avoided for that reason.

In addition, the rewrites completely obfuscated some actual changes to those references.

Guideline and MOS are silent as to whether author's names in references should be in normal order or surname first order. Contributors are strongly encouraged to follow the example of the order used in the existing references when adding new references. No policy, guideline, or MOS suggests rewriting the names of references in our preferred style. Yet someone did this to the references.

If the references had been left as list-defined references, using one field per line, as originally written, the diff engine would show the actual changes to the references, with trivial effort.

But, due to the highly disruptive practice of rewriting references for esthetic reasons, someone collapsed those references from one field per line, to all fields on a single line. This disruptive practice completely obfuscated any actual changes to the contents of those fields.

So, whoever you are, DON'T DO THIS. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]