For Dr @ashadevos there are 14 @Wikipedia articles

 

Hardly a "woman in red", Dr De Vos has many accomplishments chronicled in these Wikipedia articles. She presents herself with her colleagues on Facebook and, the graph of her co-authors should paint a similar picture, initially it did not. At first there were only a few publications to her name, they have been expanded to 26 at present. It introduced many co-authors and there are now some 112 co-authors missing.

Obviously, there is much more that could be done. Adding more papers and co-authors adds complexity to the Scholia of Dr de Vos. More distinctions could be added, talks at conferences and papers that were cited. I typically restrict myself to papers with a DOI and authors with an ORCiD identifier as they have the biggest network effect. 

I was reminded by Greenpeace that some people give themselves nothing for their birthday. So I updated this Wikidata item. Who will notice or care.. Like Greenpeace, Dr De Vos cares about whales; it is her specialty.

Thanks,

     GerardM

#Wikidata - #CocaCola, what science in paid "science"?

Greenpeace has a reputation on the science it uses to base its actions on. Its objective is one that should be not controversial but it is because it affects business as usual for industries like the plastic bottled drinks of a Coca Cola or the production of oil by a Shell.

Industry has a long tradition of performing research and of keeping it confidential when this is considered in its interest. Another, new strategy is to commission research to find the numbers to shore up its market position.

When the numbers do not add up because reality is different, the last bastion to defend is the integrity of the science and its scientists. Even when a case goes to court, the findings of a judge are disputed when other scientists do not consider the legal findings. In a post at the Dutch Greenpeace website, 5 reasons to dispose of rebate and 12 reasons to reinforce rebate, multiple examples of doctored science are mentioned. Mentioned in a way where research is invalidated by research. When a bad faith actor like the plastic bottle industry buys research, it follows that the research is easily suspect and with the same brush, the organisations, the people involved.

When science is pseudo science, when both Wikipedia and Wikidata use sources to establish points of view it follows that this pseudo science is used to establish a neutral point of view. That is exactly why a Coca Cola invests in these programs; just to shore up its business. Obviously the court cases, the papers trouncing pseudo science should be prominently included. This pseudo science has no place in the Wikimedia projects except when it is obvious for what it is.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikipedia - #GMO controversy as a red herring

#Wikipedia has/had a big discussion on the safety of GMO food. When you read from what the Signpost has to say; it is only about the safety for people to eat this stuff.

The problem is that many promises have been made and this is only one issue, not even the most relevant issue. Read the article "20 years of failure" by Greenpeace or reads its rebuttal to what some Nobel Prize winners had to say.

The question if it is safe to eat is only one. The question if it will do us any good is more relevant. It does not bring us a more reliable food supply. It will not bring us more resiliency against climate change and it is very much in doubt that "golden rice" actually brings additional vitamins while a balanced diet does.

The important point of Greenpeace is that it backs its assertions with science. It is not in it for the money and its aim? A world that we can live in.
Thanks,
       GerardM