0

Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?

My question was about using the algorithm to create a black hole image. The moderator Mad Scientist locked my question because they dont agree to use twitter reference

According to Sara Issaoun, PhD student in astrophysics at Radboud University (@ruastro), EHT observational astronomer (@ehtelescope),

There are more of us. Katie's algorithm, despite the media's stance, was not used to produce this image. There were three algorithms used and combined to form the final image, and a team of 40 scientists part of that aspect of the project (including myself and more women).

She claims that Dr Katies algorithms were not used at all in imaging. Which means she contributed almost zero to the imaging. source: https://twitter.com/SaraIssaoun/status/1116304522660519936

If her algorithms were not used and she is not even first or the corresponding author in IOP publication, is her contribution misattributed?

this reference is important because I asked about her algorithm.

3

I agree with Mad Scientist's actions, the question should not be edited further. It's also already unlocked.

  • but is not what I asked for – SSimon Apr 16 '19 at 12:11
  • Could a different source instead of taitterbe used, like the Atlantic :"At first, the message was simple—Bouman stood out as a role model for young women and girls working in or aspiring to jobs in male-dominated science fields. A round of stories celebrated Bouman’s work on the algorithms that forged a mesmerizing photograph from a vat of telescope data. " – daniel Apr 17 '19 at 10:10
3

Your edit looked a bit like a self-answer, which is not something that belongs in a question. We also try to have our questions in a reasonably neutral tone, and some parts of your additions don't seem neutral to me, especially the " Which means she contributed almost zero to the imaging". You're jumping to a conclusion here based on a single tweet.

We try to avoid changing questions after they're answered, as that tends to invalidate answers and causes issues. It's still done if it's necessary, but we prefer not to do that. In your case it was already changed to some extent once, your edit would change the question again to a pretty significant degree.

The question based on that tweet, "was her algorithm used in creating the image" is different enough that I don't think it should be added to the existing question. I quickly looked at the original papers, and it's complicated enough that I think this is probably more of a specialized science question than a Skeptics one.

I'm going to revert again and lock the question, please do not roll back again after the lock expires.

  • I totally agree with MadScientist. An entirely new claim deserves a new question. Although I think one tweet is not a notable claim, especially since (if you look at the following tweets) Sara Issoun says things like "Katie was one of the leads of this aspect of the project. This is a group effort, there is no one person who made this happen.". Which is exactly what Katie and the rest of the team have been saying. – DJClayworth Apr 16 '19 at 15:59
  • 1
    Technicality: The lock message banner pointed and points again 'to meta in general'. Shouldn't this be directed in principle to a specific post on meta were the dispute is actually discussed? (Like this thread now?) – LаngLаngС Apr 16 '19 at 16:25
  • It's not configurable – Sklivvz Apr 17 '19 at 5:48
  • I literally asked only about algorithm. How much of it was used in imagining of black hole. That was my question until it was changed 100%. The current question is about something else – SSimon Apr 17 '19 at 9:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .