Talk:Electronic Journal of Sociology

COI and notability

Hi all, I recently added some verifiable secondary sources to this article as requested in the article tags (or whatever they are called). The edits I made are factual and can be found in the citations I provided. I realize this might qualify as COI but I think in this instance it falls under the following subsection of the policy, especially item 6 of the Non-controversial edits statement of the COI policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COIU

The sources I added are likely to add significantly to the quality of this article since they point to secondary sources which people can read and, once read, add as information to this article.

Mike Sosteric PhD 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Beauty! Mike Sosteric PhD 15:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

• So you really think that dumping a load of references to articles by the editor of this journal (i.e., you) and that hardly even mention this journal is a neutral way of adding independent sources to the article? As for the editor who objects to the notability tag that I placed on this article: There are zero independent sources, nor is there any evidence that this journal is indexed in any selective database. In other words: this article fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Meaning that the notability is in doubt and that a notability tag is justified. --Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, take the article out then. Delete it. I really don't care. The article asked for secondary sources, so I provided them. The articles, even the ones you deleted, spoke to the reason the journal was formed to begin with (i.e. as a response to call for a transformation of the Scholarly communication process), and its position in the historical development (and criticism) of the scholarly communication process. These articles were published in secondary sources and it really shouldn't matter that I wrote them since it is common practice in the scholarly realms to cite one's own work when applicable. Or perhaps there is a policy that says otherwise? Anyway, I put those articles in there because I felt they were relevant and they would spur reading on the topic that would improve the relevance and information of this source. I didn't put a lot of effort into the edits and really just left it up to the others to do the reading and flesh it out.

FYI, the EJS was the first electronic journal in Sociology, the first open access one, one that recognized the limitations of the scholarly communication process, and one of the few that sought a solution to pervasive calls for transformation. The EJS was an important moment in the history of scholarly communication, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Sosteric (IMHO obviously, but others may agree if they read the background information, follow the citations in the articles I posted, etc), was cited by social science indexes. I was just trying to lay some foundation so that whomever might be interested in scholarly communication, the serials crises (see Scholarly communication or the political economy of scholarly communication might be able to do the required additional reading in order to improve the article as called for by Wikipedia community. I could go ahead and enter all that detail, adding additional secondary sources as necessary, fleshing out the relevant Sociological arguments, but then I'd be accused of COI and my contributions would be likely be deleted. So why waste more time then necessary? Instead I just thought, throw some citations in and let somebody else figure it out.

It seems to me that there is a knee-jerk reaction in this community to expert involvement in this Wikipedia. Is that true?I am not trying to start an argument here, I'm asking a question. It is quite unusual to me and seems almost hostile. I'm writing an article for IRRODL on using the Wikipedia as an outlet for scholarly activity and in that article (I have a draft here) so I'm interested in this cultural aspect of Wikipedia. Does anybody reading this know of other scholars who have successfully contributed to Wikipedia in their areas of expertise, or have others met with this sort of reaction as well? If so I'd be interested in hearing your stories.

I would also like to point out that scholarly communication is an esoteric topic with only a few experts in the world. It seems to me that improving Wikipedia information in this area, specifically talking about the serials crises, the political economy of scholarly communication, and such (all relevant to this entry on the EJS), requires the attention of the experts themselves. Otherwise what happens? Wikipedia articles just sit there waiting for attention and never getting it, eventually getting deleted. So questions about hostility to expert intervention, citing one's own work, working through COI issues, and working with topic matter experts seem highly relevant to at least portions of Wikipedia content. Mike Sosteric PhD 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SO what's going to happen when I go over the Scholarly Communication page and enter some resources, or add some detail on the serials crises, something I know a LOT about. Is there something I can do in advance to make my contributions more acceptable up front, and less likely to invoke these seemingly hostile reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

• OK, so that is what you thought you were doing. Let me tell you what it looks like from the outside and perhaps you understand my reaction a bit better. Here is an article about a journal that does not show how it meets our encyclopedic inclusion criteria. That is not to say that the subject of the article doesn't meet these criteria, just that the article doesn't show that. So a tag is placed on that article signalling that problem (because a problem it is, of course). Then along comes someone who claims to be the editor of the journal that is the subject of the article and removes the tag. His solution to the problems noted by the tags: he adds a bunch of references to articles written by himself. Only two of those are actually about the journal that is the subject of the article. The others are about another subject, the "serials crisis" (or whatever you want to call it). Of course, many, many people have written many, many articles about this subject, but the only ones added are those that you wrote yourself (including your unpublished PhD thesis), and they are only in the most tangential way relevant to the subject. If this were somebody else and a subject that you're not connected with, wouldn't you also think that some self-promotion was going on here??? And then if somebody says something about this, you launch into a diatribe about Wikipedia being hostile to experts. I know quite a lot of WP editors who are experts in their fields and professors at universities. I know WP editors who occasionally edit articles with which they have a COI. However, those editors would not have added their on publications to this article. They would not have removed maintenance tags. They would either have added references to the work of others (which is truly independent, instead of using some twisted reasoning saying "my articles were peer reviewed and that now makes them independent secondary sources), OR if their own publications were really the only good references available, have posted them on the talk page and let somebody else put them in the article (and remove the maintenance tags if they think that is justified). This is, in fact, the recommended way of doing things as you clearly were aware because you cited that guideline yourself above.

Yes, in the "scholarly realm" it is quite normal to cite yourself, because we all tend to build upon the work that we did before. But here we are not writing a research article about your journal. We are writing an encyclopedic article about your journal. And to satisfy the inclusion cirteria, we have to show that it is notable (in the WP sense, i.e., that has nothing to do with "good", "bad", "worthy", or whatever). For this, it seems quite logical to me that you need independent sources. Not the editor of the journal itself who comes and says "my journal is important". Now all the stuff that I wrote above seemed quite self-evident to me when I started editing WP and I still think that the logic behind them is not only very strong, but that things hardly can be different. If you can manage to get these points, then your expertise is more than welcome here to improve this project. If not, then you probably can spend your tile better than fighting with people here.

Now to get back to what this talk page actually should be about (improving the article), we still need to show that this subject meets our inclusion criteria and you are the person most likely to know the sources. If the journal is indeed so important as you claim, somebody must have said something about that. And some databases should have included it in their list of covered journals. Sources that document this are what is needed to show that this journal merits inclusion. And while you're at it, the article currently contains a whole unsourced paragraph about another journal criticizing this one and the board of this one speculating about their motives. Here, we need a sources that documents this criticism. And speculation has no place in a serious encyclopedia. So this paragraph needs sources and should be re-written. Here, too, I would think that you are the person to know about sources, although having been involved in that episode, you're probably not the person to do the re-writing. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, many, many people have written many, many articles about this subject, but the only ones added are those that you wrote yourself (including your unpublished PhD thesis), and they are only in the most tangential way relevant to the subject. If this were somebody else and a subject that you're not connected with, wouldn't you also think that some self-promotion was going on here???

No I would not. I would have assumed a good faith effort to improve the article, or at least I would like to think I would, because that's what Wikipedia suggests I do, assume good faith. I would have read the citations, checked back links to the journal, entered "Electronic Journal of Sociology" into Google scholar (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Electronic+Journal+of+Sociology%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) to see what came up, or otherwise done some research myself on the notability of the source. I wouldn't just jump to conclusions, running roughshod over somebody's contribution to the article, and making statements without doing a little background checking myself. That doesn't feel like good faith at all to me, that feels hostile. It is also puts me off of further contributions, makes me question whether I should be here at all, and makes me wonder about the worthiness of putting any sort of scholarly effort into the Wikipedia at all. And this at a time when disciplinary leaders are calling for scholarly input.

You know, as far as I knew I was following Wikipedia guidelines, but apparently not because citing secondary sources isn't enough after all. I also thought removing the tags would be OK, since I added the articles as suggested, but then again I guess not. Is there a policy that says when its OK to remove a tag?? The whole think on citing independent third party sources seems silly. What makes the difference between me citing my work, or somebody else citing it? If I put the reference in, and somebody agrees its relevant, isn't that enough? I know you said a couple where tangentially related, but how you do know my plan wasn't to develop a historical overview of the EJS in the context of the "serials crises" by using secondary sources. Why did you just assume the worst about what I was doing here? Maybe you didn't and I'm reacting defensively, but I'm not feeling very welcome here, especially after you told me directly to go find somebody else to fight with.

I feel like you are not assuming good faith at all, you are adopting a hostile stance and making huge assumptions about my motive and intent. You are also making unfounded generalizations, and invoking ephemeral empirical evidence ("I know many scholarly editors and they would never do what you do."). Really? You've done some empirical research on how scholars approach the Wiki have you? You've written that up have you? And it now appears in a secondary source does it? Or are the standards of argument and evidence different for you than they are for me? I have to cite secondary sources that don't have my name on it, but you can just make things up out of thin air?

Anyway, having said that, I get your point about independent third party sources, but in a situation like this those might be hard to come by. In any case, I put the articles up there (I should have done that on the talk page, I agree. Live and learn I guess), and suggested a reason for their relevance, you deleted them, somebody else put them back, now we're arguing about everything but the relevance of the EJS, which I find odd. Why can't the sources be evaluated on their own merit, and why can't you make an effort to see where I'm coming from, which is simply to add some relevant detail to the article about the motive for founding it, its situation in a historical moment, and so on.

I read the materials on scholarly communication here and they need work to. I think that people like me are needed to make improvements in these areas because frankly nobody else is really interested in scholarly journals, the scholarly communication process, or the serials crises. It is just too esoteric a topic. That's going to be a problem because making any headway here seems to require duking it out with the established authorities of Wikipedia, not something I'd be willing to do for very long since I got others things I want to accomplish.

Anyway, if there are scholars out there reading this and you have experience with the Wiki community and its editing policies, I'd like to hear about it. I am currently writing an article on scholarly use of Wikipedia (a draft is on my talk page) and I'd certainly be interested in hearing ethnographic accounts (even if you only have time to be brief) of your experience here (both positive and negative). If you have some time to do a short write up, tap me on my talk page and we can go from there. Mike Sosteric PhD 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

I'd like to add some information on the serials crises and how the EJS fits into that call. I think it is important to note that the EJS was part of a loose initiate to create open access scholarly resources. I have several independent citations I can add to back up what I say. ANy objections?Mike Sosteric PhD 12:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)