Thank you Martin, these sound like very good guidelines when contributing a whole article on a topic.
This seems to me to be a sensible addition to advice concerning whether it is permissible to cite yourself within an article, as a reference a contributed fact or finding. [Answer: Yes, bearing in mind the context as outlined by Charles and others]. For research areas that are new, and have no review papers yet, Wikipedia is a real agent for collaboration. Thanks so much to everyone for helping with this. Jenny. / Open Research Twitter: nulliusinverba Www: Gristock.net Sent from my mobile > On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:09, Martin Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > I advise that researchers either: > > 1. Write on topics where you have knowledge and interest but few > publications; researching for a WP article may help you prepare to work and > publish in that area! > > 2. If you do write on a topic where you actively publish, then you should > collaborate with other respected editors, and let them make the choices about > which papers are cited, etc. I encourage academics to work with the relevant > WikiProject; by having the WP community involved with the article it is much > more likely to be balanced and less likely to be reverted or even deleted. > > 3. I know one very prominent researcher actively editing WP, and he advocates > the use of published topic-review articles and book chapters as sources. He > believes that primary academic papers are less useful anyway (at least in > science), and the reviews/books give a broader perspective that is more > appropriate for an encyclopedia. > > In my experience, people active in a research field often have very strong > views about what is important and what is not. They may have a unique > perspective the drives their work, but others in the field may consider it a > distorted view. This affects how topics are covered in an article - and it > goes well beyond the citations at the bottom. > > Martin A. Walker > Department of Chemistry > State University of New York at Potsdam > +1 (315) 267-2271 > [email protected] > >> On 7/10/2014 12:51 PM, Pau Cabot wrote: >> >> 2014-07-10 18:17 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> >> I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his >> email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am >> attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students >> contributing information from their own research and citing it - >> does not by definition forbidden because of COI. >> >> In addition: I think researchers have a great field to contribute which >> does not involve citing their own references. If you're an expert in >> organolithium chemistry >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organolithium_chemistry>, you could write >> about that without having to cite your own works, writing articles >> slightly related to the purpose of your research. I think that it is >> possible, and It's the fairest way to do it. >> >> Alternatively, you could cite your own work if it's the only source that >> states one specific fact (and maybe explaining it at the discussion of >> the article). >> >> Pau. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Education mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
