Talk:Brainstorming/Archives/2020

101 Executive Uses for a Square Camel: and other lightbulb moments in problem solving - is there any reliable sourcing for Wherrett's work?

Hi @Synaptic peach: The problem with using Wherrett's book as a source is that it appears to be self-published. The website for Reroq publishing only lists books by Wherrett. The book "101 Executive Uses for a Square Camel: and other lightbulb moments in problem solving" is not cited on Google scholar. I also cannot find anything on google scholar about brainstorming written by Wherrett, so it is not possible to establish him as an expert. So it doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's threshold for a reliable self-published source. If, as you say in your edit summary when you reinserted the material, "the work on drawbacks was validated through academic usage", it would be better to use the academic sources that show that.OsFish (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @OsFish: You appear to be dismissing the content of a new paragraph which sets out the Drawbacks of Brainstorming without bothering to understand the implications. Wherrett taught for over 15 years the Management of Creativity, Innovation & Change for the OUBS MBA program - and in so doing engaged with students from as far afield as Moscow and Columbia (S. America) in how to devise, facilitate and use a whole raft of techniques, whilst understanding the psychological basis on which they operate.

Just because a book isn't cited on Google scholar doesn't remove its validity. As far as I know Wherrett has been involved with a number of business schools, helping to develop critical thinking and creativity. He doesn't have to publish through the usual academic channels because he's one of Europe's leading practitioners in creative problem-solving in business and is more interested in hands-on than theory.

I put this paragraph into the Wiki BECAUSE the whole article otherwise is lacking in balance - a problem that needed addressing and the only reasonable source I can find is that from Wherrett who not only clearly knows what he's talking about but has been acknowledged by senior academics (including a former Course Chair, Dr Jane Henry) at the OUBS as being at the leading edge in this field.

I have a philosophical interest in critical thinking and making sure that articles like this one are actually reflecting a neutral point of view. Removing the source reference deprives the reader of the only readily accessible piece explaining why this particular aspect is (a) so important; and (b) why this occurs. Rules need intelligent interpretation at times - this is one of them.

For the purposes of the encyclopedia, there needs to be a paper trail of some sort to demonstrate that Wherrett is an expert. This would normally take the form of multiple citations in academic journals, publications in recognised venues or by prestigious academic publishers. If everything you say is true, that paper trail should exist. Someone just needs to produce it.

As Wikipedia editors, we are not here to make our own judgements about the quality of anyone's work in terms of inclusion. That is true regardless of our real-world qualifications to have an opinion. Instead, we are supposed to provide evidence that the work is taken seriously in the "real world". Material in the encyclopedia should not be here because you or I say it is good, but because we have ample evidence that experts in the real world say it is good. So we do need sources that the public themselves can inspect.

For example, when you say Wherrett's work "has been acknowledged by senior academics (including a former Course Chair, Dr Jane Henry)", there should be sources to show that. The problem is that when I do a search with the terms "Jane" "Henry" "Wherrett" "Brainstorming", absolutely nothing comes up. Now, it could be I'm searching wrongly, but the onus is on you to produce evidence that he is considered an expert.

If the article is unbalanced in terms of what the research field says about brainstorming, and there is a different author supporting the same ideas who does publish in the right places and does have evidence of reliability of their work, then it would be better to go with that sourcing.OsFish (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)