Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

See also:
Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1: ( December 2004 — August 2006 )

Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest: (August-October 2006)

Expert editors can refer to their own publications

I remind everyone that a long-standing rule at Wikipedia:No original research says:

  • " "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. (emphasis-added). We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia and that this is merely to give them the same status as any other editor."

What this common-sense rule does is give "experts" the ability to cite their own published papers at arms length. The Vanity guidelines inadvertantly make them second-class citizens in that everyone else can cite their papers but themselves, creating a potential huge lacunae in anything they post on wikipedia. If nobody objects, I will post the relevant passage to the project page. Pproctor 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines have been amended to reflect well established community consensus against vanity. The suggestion is to suggest changes on talk pages for other editors to make. In your case, the adding of your whining to Nobel Prize violated WP:VAIN, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Some humility wouldn't go amiss. — Dunc|☺ 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What "consensus" ? The issue has already been considered at length and the rule you propose to change is longstanding. The "consensus" on Wikipedia is to produce an informative and reliable information source. The rules exist only for this purpose. I was not proposing a new rule, but just reminding everyone of the established one. That is, that "experts" can cite their properly published works at arms length, just like anyone else can. You will have to give us better reasons than your own personal opinion for it to be changed. Pproctor 00:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunch has again tried to change the rules to fit his personal opinion (without discussion, naturally). A little more subtly this time. So I have again reverted his rule change back to the original and long-standing one. I wonder if he is tryng to trap me under the three-revisions rule. If so, one more abuse of his position as an administrator.Pproctor 15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I have long experience of Wikipedia and how it works, and that is what is being applied here. WP:VAIN is taken very seriously, and just because you have an elitist view of Wikipedia, and happen to have a PhD, does not make you exempt from WP:VAIN. I expect others will agree with me. — Dunc|☺ 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If you are such an expert on Wikipedia, why did I have to remind you about the long-existing rule that experts can cite their publications at arms length?
This just happens to be the rule you are currently trying to change, apparently to cover the vandalism you commited because of your ignorance of it. This was seeking out and reverting/deleting everything of mine you could find on Wikipedia.
At least I hope it was mere ignorance of the rule that made you do this. Perhaps it was pure malice, which your posting does express. Since I am about the only expert foolish enough to reveal his true identity here, this change will affect only me and my ability to cite the rule to you if you continue this sick game.
Similarly, if you know so much, why did you have to be reminded of all the rules you broke when you were recently censured. Really elementary stuff. See: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture .
As for your resentment about the fact that I have a PhD. I am also an MD (medical doctor). That should really set you off. But the fact you didn't know this clearly shows that I have not been flaunting my credentials, contrary to your paranoid assertions.
Similarly, Wikipedia is not antielitist. It just strives to be neutral on the issue, while welcoming the contribution of experts. The rule you seek to change to does nothing more than reaffirm this. Pproctor 17:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I remind you both that Assume Good Faith is also a rule? Accusations of vandalism do nothing but exacerbate a conflict. If you both feel your personal honour is so offended that you want to settle this by a duel, I believe they sell rapiers and pistols over that way. --tjstrf 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I gave up in exasperation and surrendered the field over on Raymond Damadian, hoping never to encounter the likes of Dunc ever again. Instead of gracefully accepting my abject flight, under the rubric of "vanity" he has deleted and reverted whatever of mine he can find where I have cited my various journal publications. Other issues aside, all totally against procedural guidelines, etc.
More to the guideline issue at hand--When I pointed out that I was merely following the rules, Dunc seeks to have them changed. Apparently, so he can continue this pointless battle.
If this stuff continues, I will eventually abandon Wikipedia. Only reason I have stayed this long is that I've been skulking here since it was Neupedia and have enough personal investment in this project not to be driven immediately out. True, Dunc has been chastized Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-08 Acupuncture. You can see how much good it did. Too bad-- another expert gets driven away by shenangans. Pproctor 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The author of a publication should be able to, according to our Original Research guidelines, refer to a published paper or interview they participated in, so long as they treat it neutrally (which would be difficult, but definitely still possible) and do not give it undue weight compared to similar papers by others. What they cannot make are additions of special knowledge which has not been published, or give their own work undue weight in the total sum of the article. --tjstrf 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the true believers going to do-- go around rooting out every expert who has referenced his own work? Or make them wait for "permission" from the likes of Dunc on an entirely subjective issue-- that is what this rule change does.
Many Wikipedia entries are so good that they are pretty obviously the product of some expert, at least at the last stages. This is unless they are copyright violations, another distinct possibility. Said expert has almost certainly cited his own publications in good faith. Pproctor 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Printed versus Internet encyclopediæ

At present, the phrase 'the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask oneself, "Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?"' may, even as just a 'rule of the thumb', be disregarding a major difference between printed works and Internet projects: The latter allows hyperlinks in a way that makes more information available even if valuable to only a small minority of readers. Wikipedia should not however force that information upon every reader. Thus the 'rule of the thumb' should indicate that more particular information can easily be made available either by a hyperlinked article even where it would be unlikely to find an equivalent entry on the linked subject in a printed version. — SomeHuman 25 Aug2006 13:25 (UTC)

Deletion of Vanity articles

I have moved this from the guidelines page, where I presume it was placed by mistake (it has already been deleted once). Tyrenius 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the apparently clear guidelines given above, there appears to be no real will among administrators effectively to delete articles that are plainly vanity articles or at best borderline. Articles by writers who have only published work through the vanity press, for example (something anyone with an average income can do), who further link their articles to websites promoting themselves, who refer to works that are in preparation and who bolster their reputation by listing very minor achievements as though they were noteworthy (such as a 'health and beauty column' in a local newspaper), still manage to get their articles voted to be kept in Wikipedia. So, until there is a blanket and well-enforced policy of deletion by the criteria outlined above, Wikipedia will continue to be padded out with useless froth rather than incisive and reliable information about noteworthy subjects. It may be argued that there is nothing wrong with indulging this sort of activity because it does the writers little good in the long run, but that is avoiding the central question: of what value is Wikipedia? If the answer is that it is a universally accessible database of noteworthy items to which anyone can contribute then there needs to be rigour in the assessment of that input before it gets included. If, on the other hand, all sorts of things are allowed to 'slide on in' on the basis that it can't really hurt anyone and doesn't really do the writers any good, then the Wikipedia will become simply an advertising forum for the unaccomplished or those wishing to promote peculiar points of view. Which is a great pity. Lgh 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How? Most people don't spend their time looking for a random article. If they stumble upon a vanity article it's typically because they were specifically tryign to look up that topic. What is wrong with that? The vanity articles in no way reduce the value of the good articles. Mathiastck 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Name of this guideline

Pursuant to some discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research, would it perhaps be advisable to rename this guideline to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines? The current name, "Vanity guidelines", isn't very descriptive, and is somewhat prejudicial, since the word "vanity" is more commonly used to refer to a character flaw than to the actual content of this guideline. What do people think? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose change to "Conflict of interests", as Conflicts of interest is a broader term, encompasses not only what we call "vanity" but also many violations of NPOV, such as cases where people are removing negative information about groups they are affiliated with. The name may need changed, but not to Conflict of interests. We could rename the guideline to WP:Self-promotion, perhaps, but that might be too restrictive and not contain everything we consider vanity. Let's face it, just like the Wikipedia definition of Original Research, Wikipedia has its own definition of Vanity, and it's the best term we have for it. --tjstrf 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Sorry, folks, if WP did formulate its own definition of Original Research, or Vanity or Conflict of Interest for that matter, then WP would be in violation of any rational definition of Original Research. So WP is stuck with trying to figure out what Reputable Sources consider Original Research, Vanity, Conflict of Interest, Reputable Sources, ad infinitum to be, and then to conform itself to that. Jon Awbrey 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we do. You'll notice how we explicitly state that on Wikipedia, Original Research is limited to the creation of primary sources? This is because outside of the Wikiverse, collation, collection, and organization of other people's work can be considered a form of Original Research. Also, any time you bring a term into common usage, you give it your own context. Consider "Neutral point of view", the words themselves would suggest it was synonymous with objectivity, or apathy, but on Wikipedia it is instead a law about how to be biased in an encyclopedic manner. We have created a subculture, with its own rules and terminology, and it's own definitions of that terminology. --tjstrf 20:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Talk about vanity. Jon Awbrey 20:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would that be vanity by the WP definition, Self-aggrandizement in editing, or by the rest of the world's definition, egotism and an excessively self-centered view? --tjstrf 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Okay, that makes things a whole lot easier. Nobody in the Real World need brook any further criticism about WP:Vanity — which I guess must really be a tradename, something like "I Kant Belive It's Not Vanity", or something — from anybody in the Vanity Fair that is WP, at least, not if Tjstrf's POV about it holds water.

JA: So now I'll hie me back to NOR, because it's clear that Tjstrf has got the definition of OR all wrong, and does not know how everybody else out there — since my sixth grade English teacher first explained it to us — defines the difference between Creative Writing and Sourced Research. And so, any time or links that we spend referring to this page is utterly, well, in vain. Jon Awbrey 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is protected right now, actually, though I'm not sure what that has to do with anything... Are you claiming that on Wikipedia, Original Research is not defined as the creation of primary sources? Because that's what it says.
Anyway, this conversation was basically irrelevant, except for stating the (obvious) fact that by using a term in a new context, you give it a new meaning. --tjstrf 22:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Tjstrf, I disagree that the conversation is irrelevant, and I still think that, although we're defining Vanity in the context of Wikipedia, that we've chosen a bad name for it. The word is prejudicial to many, and if we could use another, that would be good, IMO. I noticed since proposing this name change that someone's already putting a page together called Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest, so maybe something is afoot... -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: You probably missed it because the plural subject in "conflicts of interest" is a non-standard name for WP, and it was created less than a month ago, here:

JA: I was visiting here by way of making up my mind about a certain question with respect to the NOR page, namely, whether it is advisable to link to VAIN in regard to the issue of self-citation. Right now NOR links to VAIN under the somewhat illegitimate deception of calling it the WP policy on conflict of interest. The last time I looked here it would not have made sense to link to it, and so the question was whether this page could be made into something more sensible in real world referent terms. When it comes to the real world, you seem to be agin it, so now I'm thinking even more strongly that it won't help us to link here. Dinner! Jon Awbrey 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

JA: Okay, I see now that there's a genuine misunderstanding here, so let's slow down and go through the logic or illogic of it real carefully. We all know that WP:P&G is not an algorithm or an axiom system, but folks who study common-sense reasoning, heuristics, and phronetic policy formation can tell you that even a handbook of practical rules can't be all rules of thumb. There has to be some kind of hanging-together-ness or else the centre does not hold and things fall apart. But enough for today. Jon Awbrey 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? As best I understand, you're talking about something entirely different now. If you want the policy heirarchy, that would probably be WP:NPOV, as all other content guidelines derive from it. WP:IAR would also be fundamental, but it's a non-rule by its very nature.
If that's not your question, then please restate it in a less obfuscated tongue. --tjstrf 03:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
He may be unlikely to answer - click on his name to see why. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Company

Hey where do I find wiki policy specifically about editing your own companies page? I work at MySpace now, and would like to participate a little on it's talk page. I feel like I have to say, but I'm biased, at the end of my sugggestions :) Where is the policy? I think Your_company and Wikipedia:Your_company should both link to said policy. Mathiastck 13:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

self citation

I now harmonized the text with the corresponding policy, while keeping the good advice spirit of it. Harald88 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "notability" should be changed to "importance" with no link, in the sentence: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is.".

I propose this because the page Wikipedia:Notability is a stub proposal. Also, assertion of importance or assertion of significance is the usual terminology used in policy (for example WP:CSD)- notability isn't policy. Comments? Fresheneesz 07:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The link to the stub proposal is inapporpriate - despite being related to "notability". Vanity is not at all related to the proposal on that page. Fresheneesz 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The term "stub proposal" is an oxymoron. And yes, they are related, as I stated above. >Radiant< 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't mock my term. By stub proposal, i meant that it is short as all hell - as is NOT anywhere near being finished - and that it is a proposal. Most proposals aren't stubs - but that one is. And you give no new explanation in your last comment. My last comment still stands. Fresheneesz 20:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not mocking anything. But if you coin a new phrase, you shouldn't expect everyone to understand it immediately. Please see Wikipedia:Keep policies short. Good guideline pages are concise and to the point, as this one is. Verbosity is obfuscant and confusing. But if there's anything you'd like to add to it, please tell me.
You already claim that Vanity is related to Notability so I really fail to see how you can claim that WP:VAIN is not related to WP:N. >Radiant< 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing oneself

This section appears to be the subject of some dispute:

Citing oneself If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind the neutral point of view and no original research policies. When citing yourself could be interpreted as POV-pushing, it is advisable not to cite your own work without discussion. On the talk page of the article in question you can propose your work and ask other editors their opinion about including a citation of it. See also WP:NOR#Citing oneself.

The section with the same name at Wikipedia:No original research, linked to at the end there, looks like this: (the link back to here at the end is a recent (and disputed) addition)

Citing oneself "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. It does, however, prohibit expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. We further hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. While specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia, they are often familiar with and have access to a wider range of verifiable sources and can thus be of special assistance in verifying or citing sources. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

Those two don't quite say the same thing: The former doesn't make it clear that self-citation is often perfectly fine. It also has that bit about "When citing yourself could be interpreted as POV pushing", which doesn't seem like a very useful criterion for anything. Any edit could be interpreted as POV pushing, so it basically becomes an injunction against citing onself. I suggest rewriting the paragraph here as follows:

Citing oneself If an editor has published material in a reliable source that is relevant to some Wikipedia article, and they reference that material, with a proper citation, that is not necessarily a vanity edit. Such edits are of course subject to the neutral point of view and no original research policies. If there is some dispute over a self-citation, then as with any dispute, the recommended course of action is to discuss the citation on the talk page of the article in question. See also Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself.

Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is definitely a step forward. The one thing I'd change in your version is in the last sentence. Rather than waiting for a dispute, I think it's good to encourage self-citing editors here to consider how an edit looks to others before they make it. Although I don't like the wording of the original's "When citing yourself could be interpreted as POV-pushing", I like the spirit of it. William Pietri 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Ok, how about this:
Citing oneself If an editor has published material in a reliable source that is relevant to some Wikipedia article, and they reference that material, with a proper citation, that is not necessarily a vanity edit. Such edits are of course subject to the neutral point of view and no original research policies. In order to avoid any dispute regarding neutrality, or the appearance of vanity editing, self-citing editors are encouraged to discuss their edits on the talk page of the article in question. See also Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself.
I think that's closer to the spirit of the original, but with a bit more AGF built into it. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems perfect to me. Personally I'd lose the comma after "reference that material", change "any dispute" to "disputes", and drop the comma following that. But those are nits. The tone is much better, and definitely gets rid of that "I'm writing this with a particular editor in mind" feeling I get from the original. Great work. William Pietri 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Although it's only two of us agreeing so far, I'm going to go ahead and make the edit, incorporating your suggestions re punctuation and mechanics. If someone reverts me, then we can talk about it more. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The paragraph is close enough to the original in meaning that I think that's fine. William Pietri 20:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Make that 3 people who agree. Good work, GTBacchus. Now how long until the page can be unprotected? --tjstrf 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean WP:NOR? I unprotected it a few days ago, but that only lasted a few hours. I think all of the objections still being raised by one editor have been answered sufficiently, but that's no guarantee that we won't find ourselves in another edit war. I've suggested unprotection at WT:NOR#Safe to unprotect?; let's see what happens. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please note that the "original" was already a corrected version (by myself) to be more in line with the policy. this was the original before harmonization:
If you wish Wikipedia to cite your own reliably published work, please bear in mind the neutral point of view and no original research policies. It is probably best that you do not cite your own work, as this might be misintepreted. You can however suggest that changes be made to the talk page of the article in question so that other editors can discuss and make those changes if they are worthwhile.
I agree that the latest changes are further improvements. Harald88 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's true, Harald88, your edit of a few days ago was a significant improvement. I hope that, between your edit and mine, the guideline is now worded in a way that will serve to prevent future abuses. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_2&oldid=1190098323"