User talk:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton

Welcome!

Don't just add it back, without seeking actual consensus on the talk page. Your contents are WP:OR, and thus not acceptable for Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with ResearchGate, you should refrain from making any edits, because of WP:COI. --Chire (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC): No, my contents are not WP:OR. Links are provided. Read! Translate! Lugger's original article is highly questionable as a source, though. It is like quoting any Joe Schmoe with an opinion on a blog (her blogs are her personal opinions regardless who pays her money [she only has 1-2 posters as well]). If you do not listen to reason and update the outdated info on RG scores in the article I think we may indeed have a problem. You are highly biased clearly stating that the website is "shit". I am sure the millions of active RG members would disagree with you.

User: Chire I understand that your RG score of 38.64 looks much more favourable than your scholar h index of 5 when looking for a job. But consider that your index is 42% for some light chit-chat in the forums, with absolutely no scientific impact, isn't it? Do you really think this is an adequate measure, and your scientific contributions are 50% higher than that of Harry A Hogan? WoK only includes a tiny bit of citations, some studies say 3%. It is also biased to certain disciplines. In your case, ResearchGATE has 29 citations, Scholar 83, for example. That is more on the line of 35%, but still very low (and you may be in the overrepresented part of WoK). You may currently like the gamification part of ResearchGATE, but this will pass! When they again change their algorithm, and your score drops, you will be annoyed at them, not at all those "Joe Schmoes on Facebook and Wikipedia". They have repeatedly noticed that their scores are too easy to be bumped by some trivial forum activity, and they are bound to fix that again, not to your favor. There is a reason why even on RG, a lot of people have doubts on the RG score game. If you are unhappy with the other scores - and every score is flawed; RG is just the worst of them all - then educate people to not use them for evaluation. Explain their flaws, don't promote another measure instead. And by any means, stop your aggressive behaviour: you do not do yourself a favour.

Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) RG is heavily based on # of citations and impact factors of journals where they were published (WoK encompasses 23,000 journals to date by the way), and takes into account your service (asking questions/answering questions) to the research community. As a whole I think it is more useful than an H-index, which suffers from self-citations among other things. There are pros and cons to each measure and if you want to discuss this you should add your criticism to an article of scientometrics Scientometrics. Google scholar adds in articles automatically without asking so it depends on the morals/ethics researcher to keep it correct. RG asks you prior to adding articles, but it does not keep track of number of citations accurately. Academia has no scientific rank measure whatsoever and it is a very limited format. Wikipedia appears to be one step up from Facebook and suffers from unprofessional editors/desk-jockeys. Enjoy your day!

Hello, I'm Millionmice. I wanted to let you know that I have concerns about your recent contributions to ResearchGate because they do not appear constructive, although given the talk page I believe are in good faith. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. For future reference, large deletions of highly debated content is generally frowned upon. Please make yourself aware of edit war policy. Thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

How can this not be constructive? One of the complaints that are being brought up is the inflation of RG scores (by questions and answers), but they never attempt to define what the RG score actually is. They also reference a blogger and a non-peer reviewed paper. Although the RG scoring system has its flaws like other indices, I (and millions of other researchers) think it could serve as an additional useful measure of scientific contribution in the future. A second opinion by the anonymous editors of Wikipedia is that ResearchGate automatically adds papers to the member's profile, but this never happens unless the user accepts authorship. A third point that is brought up is that unsolicited emails are being sent to co-authors, but there is a opt-out box in our profiles. Basically, we decide on our own if this happens or not. Lastly, the editors complain that there is a risk of unintentional copyright infringement although the users themselves are the ones that upload the actual papers. So, on the whole, the critique seems out of line as of April 29th 2014. Hopefully, it will change to reflect a more balanced view soon.Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The action that concerned me was the deletion of the criticism section when there was clearly a history of discussion and compromise on the topic. Regarding the other issues, I find it very difficult to follow your posts on the talk page, succinct language will make you more convincing. Put another way, I suspect I would support you if I didn't have to read a wall of text that appears to wander between topics.

I note you expressed frustration at the editing interface, I suggest you read the talkpage help and talkpage guidelines. The guidelines also provide specific advice on communication styles that bring change with minimum effort in discussion. In general, if a reference agrees with what you want to say, you only need to state the reference and your point succinctly, anything beyond that is generally unconvincing and distracts from your point.

Finally, you may benefit from reading the policy regarding what is verifiability and why truth is tricky, particularly in regards to situations where sources are neither great nor terrible. Millionmice (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

All of these points are clear-cut and have been relayed to both editors on countless number of occasions. I have been threatened (not that I care, but you mentioned tact and professionalism), my edits were initially removed without discussion (hypocritical action considering all hell breaks lose when I remove Chire's comments), Chire has expressed that "RG is crap" and "that he does not like RG" (clear subjectivity and with an agenda). Succinct enough? I mean, is it my fault that people don't have the energy to read? Listen User:Millionmice, it is the reader's (of Wikipedia) loss. Not mine. There are two editors that have filled half a page with criticism, which is not balanced and the article looks like crap because of it. Importantly, the criticism is poorly written, outdated, and misleading. Imagine if I filled up Wikipedia article about critique on the editing system of Wikipedia? I could find article after article that would support my points, but it would not make it balanced. This is a complete farce and I don't have time to do this. In fact, most researchers do not.

I agree others acted poorly on talk pages. I do not see the relevance that has to your edits. As stated, I believe you are acting in good faith, but need to be aware of Editing policy. I have now carefully read your input on the dispute resolution noticeboard, researchgate talk page, and reread the researchgate page. I agree with the position the other editors took, for the reasons they stated. Your comments about about old sources are noted, I'll keep an eye out for better ones. Millionmice (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, please share this "article after article that would support my points" with us. We need reliable sources for your points, and such articles would be helpful. --Chire (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Chire: Wikipedia is not supposed to be reflective of the person that is most the most persistent or vindictive; it is about objectivity and up-to-date/evolving information (!). Although you have spent some time improving the section (as we speak), the criticism is first and foremost outdated/inaccurate but it is also too long and unbalanced. The analogy I made is if someone would have filled half of the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia with criticism regarding the editing system Wikipedia. It would just be plain unbalanced and counterproductive. Either one of us can dig up information that supports our negative/positive views with varying degrees of scientific credibility. You have certainly made an effort to support your biases, but that does not mean that the information is scientifically credible or currently correct.

User:Millionmice+Chire: 1. Copyright: No PDF articles are added without input from the member. Neither are links added or titles added. You have to actively do this on your own as a member. How can you blame RG for this? Asking me to find find a scientific article about this fact is like asking someone to prove that the sky is blue. Check the website and sign up for an account. The information is right there for you. 2. SPAM: No invitations are sent without the member allowing RG to do so. Although requests sent over email are annoying, these requests are not sent without some input from the member and therefore the criticism about "spam" is also exaggerated. The member can adjust all of the email notices to his/her specifications. How can you blame RG for this? Check the website and sign up for an account. 3. The RG scores: These are very unlikely to be boosted significantly by just answers and questions. Generally speaking researchers simply do not have time to do it. Furthermore, each scientrometric has its pro and cons and RG attempts to account for # of pubs, impact factor + social interactions between researchers. Seems like a decent idea to most people except some disgruntled supporters of Nobel Price laureates that have not added high-impact papers or engaged in discussion on RG. Further to this, the study Chire is citing is not "scientific" and I have given the reasons why (case number is too low for example). Remove the word "scientific" and present the data therein without cherry-picking. I feel like a broken record: ResearchGate had options already in place at the time of the article and this is even cited in the article. Why was this ignored?

User:Millionmice: It is not old sources we are talking about, it is outdated information therein. Thanks, though. The main problem about this ResearchGate Wikipedia article is that Chire had an agenda and that it is very easy to cherry-pick information from the web. At least I got a taste of how Wikipedia editing works. Good luck to both of you. I am done with this.

@Sjuttiosjuochfjorton: I dispute your claim that you "got a taste of how Wikipedia editing works." You have repeatedly refused to alter your arguments and your behavior so as to follow Wikipedia policies and norms. I still believe that you could be a productive editor if you chose to work at it. If you are "done with this," I would be sad to lose you, but don't go off thinking that the problem is Wikipedia and not your refusal to engage with it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet and others: 1. I am way too seasoned to actually be bothered about "internet squabbles". It is not about pleasing other "editors" on Wikipedia, it is about objectivity, balance, and up-to-date information. 2. In order to provide the latter one has to be able to understand what constitutes good references/sources/links, not perhaps from Wikipedia's standpoint but from a scientific stand-point. One also must be able to put in some effort to gather information. In this instance, it requires a ResearchGate account and possibly some hours of objective fact-finding. Emphasis on objective. 3. Secondly, in the scientific world there cannot be such a thing as a bias or an agenda; Chire has admitted to "disliking ResearchGate" and thinking that ResearchGate is "crap". He/she would literally been thrown out head first as a peer-reviewer of a scientific journal.

Here are the changes that would do the readers of Wikipedia good: Critique section needs to be cut down to one-two sentence only + information therein needs to be up-to-date and balanced. The section should be the size of Wikipedia's own article at most and it must reflect that RG allows each member to govern his/her own profile, articles (RG score and copyright), and email flow (spam). Contemplate that a person's CV, Google Scholar, Academia, and Mendelay work under similar stipulations. If the member wants to inflate their information, they can certainly do so. RG is not exempted. This critique is nonetheless universal to all academic web sites and life in general, which makes it superfluous to this article

Anyone with a serious scientific background who reads through the talk/edit section of this article will shy away from adding any input to Wikipedia. Originally I added in 1-2 sentences from Chire's own sources to present a more balanced standpoint and then all hell broke lose. His/her very own sources! We have now spent how long time discussing something that could be resolved in a few seconds...1-2 weeks... Geez Louise.

Content is not created by editors doing original research. Formal peer review is not the only path to useful information. Most of what has been said to you will make more sense if you understand the policies and philosophy of Wikipedia. My final input on this matter is Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability, and Consensus, not winning. Millionmice (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Millionmice+Chire+BlueMoonlet: It should indeed be about verifiability. First: Check the website(beyond Chires own "refs"). The truth is right there. This conversation goes back to the burden of proof and quality of the material. Any Joe Schmoe with a blog can have an opinion or write a paper that is not peer-reviewed + publish it on the web. That does not always mean that it is worthy of a retort or should be countered with research refs. It is imbecilic to think that someone would have to dig up research to disprove any outlandish/skewed comment on the web (aka "the moon is made out of cheese" disprove it). Here we have a couple of editors with no experience regarding the topic (who are trying to mediate), one with an admitted agenda, and then there is me. Clearly, I did not go on this website "to win". Inaccuracies disturb me. I will end this now with saying the following to all of you, enjoy your day, good luck in the future. Hope for good things to happen in your lives. Cheers...and thanks for the fish!

I'm sorry to see you still talking as if the sources in question were "any Joe Schmoe with a blog," which demonstrates again that you have not listened to or engaged with anything said by the people with whom you disagree. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

BlueMoonlet: Yes, I have informed you that the references are not up to standard and I have also given you the reasons why, but the most important insight I gave (from a scientific point of view) was that cherry-picking of information therein is completely inappropriate (and consistent with Chire's proven bias). The critique section is slightly better currently (who forced Chire to improve it? lol), but it is still imbalanced (way too long) and most of the critique is a mute point since RG has implemented the changes. Again, the readers of Wikipedia will suffer and you are standing idly by. Do you know what I find extremely entertaining in all of this? It is that my RG profile suddenly has received so much traffic from Chire himself/herself, Germany, and Munich specifically. It is good for my research, but not for my RG score apparently :-). Rest easy Chire + Blue Moonlet, H-index is still #1 in my book. I sincerely meant what I wrote: Best of luck to both you. Keep things classy.