Citation Needed: Will Wikipedia Retract Stanford Pres?

Hello, loyal Wikify readers! If you've ever wondered what happens on Wikipedia when the accuracy of scientific research is called into question, then we've got a great issue for you, as that's exactly what we cover ahead. If that all sounds too academic, please skip to the next section where we dive into a lighter topic: Wikipedia page protection. Yes, you can finally find out what those pesky ?? symbols mean and how they guide editorial decisions.?

But first, let's go to Palo Alto.

This past November, bombshell reporting from the student-run Stanford Daily paper revealed that scientific articles co-authored by Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne were under review following allegations of fraud and data manipulation. This was a *huge* story, as Stanford is one of the world's most renowned research institutions. The university soon announced that its Board of Trustees would oversee a complete examination of Tessier-Lavigne's publications.

That full report was released earlier this month, and the investigators confirmed that in four of the papers where Tessier-Lavigne was the principal author, there was indeed evidence of "apparent manipulation of research data"—although the report absolved Tessier-Lavigne of direct culpability.

Nevertheless, Tessier-Lavigne swiftly announced that he was stepping down as the university’s leader.

We were immediately interested to see whether Tessier-Lavigne's research was cited anywhere on Wikipedia, and if so, whether editors were taking steps to either remove those citations or update claims to note the confirmed misconduct.

A complete audit of all Tessier-Lavigne-related citations on Wikipedia was, alas, outside of the scope of this newsletter's tiny staff of gumshoe reporters. Here's what we did find, though, when searching specifically for each of the four "principal author" articles that the report identified as being flawed:

• An abundance of direct citations: Six different English language Wikipedia articles (Tropic cues involved in growth cone guidance, Axon, Axon guidance, Slit-Robo, Netrin receptor DCC, and SLIT2) cite either Tessier-Lavigne's 1999 Cell paper or his 2001 Science paper. We also found his 2009 Nature paper cited in a French-language article about the Caspase 6 enzyme.?
• Examples of indirect citations: We were surprised that the 2009 Nature paper wasn't cited in the English language Wikipedia, as it's perhaps the most notable of Tessier-Lavigne's career (it advanced the novel theory that "neuronal pruning" may contribute to Alzheimer's disease). But there's a simple explanation for this: Subsequent research into neuronal pruning further expanded the hypothesis, and these more recent studies are the ones cited on Wikipedia—e.g., the article for Death receptor 6 includes a mention of DR6-linked neurodegeneration supported by a Journal of Molecular Biology citation. That JMB paper, in turn, cites the 2009 Nature paper.?
• No evidence of Wikipedia retractions: No recent edit or Talk page activity on the Wikipedia articles identified above suggests that editors have flagged the Tessier-Lavigne research as being problematic. This could be because editors haven't yet gotten around to reviewing these sources in light of the controversy. But it's also worth noting that the Stanford investigators found that it was primarily (though not exclusively) the presentation of data that was flawed, not the underlying research. For instance, three of Tessier-Lavigne's papers were flagged by investigators for containing "images that are the result of manipulation of research data." (You can read evidence of the alleged graphic manipulation issues on these PubPeer threads.)

Tessier-Lavigne has stated that he's going to correct image and data disparities and resubmit. It thus seems unlikely that the papers identified above will be rescinded by the journals, and they are thus unlikely to be stricken as sources on Wikipedia. But if something changes, we'll be sure to report on it here!

Why do some Wikipedia articles get protected by site administrators??

Let's talk about protection on Wikipedia. Maybe you've seen a ?? when looking at your page or another on the site, or you're curious about how to stop people from "messing with" your carefully updated Wikipedia page.

What is page protection??

Page protection is a tool used by Wikipedia's administrators, typically to prevent new or unregistered editors from editing a page.

There are two levels: full protection and semi protection. In each case, the intention is to stop (or at least slow down) problematic edits, such as churlish vandalism or additions of unsourced content.

When does page protection happen??

Page protection is usually a short-term solution put in place when there is a large amount of problematic editing activity on a page. For example when there is a major controversy in the news about a brand or individual.

Can anyone request page protection??

Anyone with a Wikipedia account can request page protection, but administrators will likely take action only when there is a lot of undesirable editing on a page (or when undesirable editing is highly likely to happen). You can't protect a page just because you want the content to stay as-is.

To maintain a page, the best approach is to dedicate internal or agency time to monitoring the article regularly and engaging with editors as new events and coverage emerge — so while you can't (and shouldn't try to) stop updates altogether, you can have a voice in the discussion about the page as it evolves.

Ready to learn more about Wikipedia? Check out our book!

Thanks for reading Wikify! Don't forget to tell a friend.