I take your point with careful consideration, however I was not asking who agreed with any scheme. Instead I was asking for people to +1 if they agreed with the principle that self-citing was not a conflict of interest.
I would be very happy to learn more about "Advancing primary sources". Best wishes Jen Sent from my mobile > On 10 Jul 2014, at 18:23, Jon Beasley-Murray <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jennifer: > > Why ask only for "+1"s?! You're looking only for confirmation, not for other > reactions to your scheme? > > For what it's worth, and per my earlier email, this gets a "-1" from me, for > reasons that are not simply (or even mainly) to do with conflict of interest. > (Another issue, at least with the scheme as you put it here, is the problem > of researchers advancing primary sources. Not on.) > > Take care > > Jon > >> On Jul 10, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far (on citing >> one's own research in an article.) >> >> I would echo Leigh's point about advice to potential editors being mixed: in >> June, for example, The advice at the Teahouse was that an academic ought to >> confine contributions regarding their own research papers to the Talk page >> of a topic or alternatively to write about a topic without citing >> themselves. Quite how you do that if your work is new I am not sure. >> >> This [in my view, peculiar] perspective, that citing yourself is a COI, is a >> million miles away from Pau's [in my view, sensible] advice that >> >>> First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the >>> interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously >>> writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate >>> these two things, you're allowed to do it. >> >> 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. >> >> Many thanks >> >> Jenny (Open_Research) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Advice given quote: >> >> >> "Bearing in mind the conflict of interest issues raised above, it would be >> acceptable if you went to an article's talk page and mentioned that a new >> piece of academic research on the topic is available, providing relevant >> information. This would allow interested editors to read your work and, if >> warranted, integrate it into existing pages. Additionally, if you're an >> academic with expertise in a field, I would strongly encourage you to work >> on improving articles relevant to your area of interest (steering clear of >> citing yourself). Keihatsu talk >> 19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC) >> >> >> >> >>> On 10 Jul 2014, at 16:28, Pau Cabot <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jennifer, >>> >>> First, COI is related to editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the >>> interests of your external relationships. It does not forbid obviously >>> writing about the things you're an expert on. If you are able to separate >>> these two things, you're allowed to do it. >>> >>> Related to the tracking of the alumni, I did it by creating a page where >>> there were listed my students' constributions, so I could easily keep track >>> of their progress. To count their editions, you can use this tool, which >>> counts all user contributions, but it does not matter as usually the only >>> editions that pupils make are the ones related to the project. >>> >>> In addition, if the aim of getting editions done by alumni is due to COI >>> issues, I think it's not the solution. The problem does not depend on the >>> user that makes the edits but on the intention of the edits. >>> >>> Pau. >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-10 16:43 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]>: >>> Greetings everyone. I'm still working on that system to encourage >>> university professors to contribute to Wikipedia, a system that is >>> concerned not through teaching, like the Education Programme, but through >>> research. >>> >>> I need some help. Can you tell me, in the Wikipedia API, is there a way to >>> count the contributions that a user has made on behalf of another >>> particular user? For example, a professor might ask a group of PhD students >>> to make contributions involving his/her research on various Wikipedia >>> pages, on his/her behalf. >>> >>> I have been frequently told (at the Teahouse and elsewhere) that Professors >>> are not allowed to contribute information about their own published >>> research papers on Wikipedia pages, because this would be biased. (Which is >>> rather a downer for the professor, because this means they are forbidden to >>> write about the things they are most passionate and knowledgeable about.) >>> >>> If this is rule is true, then it must certainly be seen as a roadblock to >>> academic engagement with Wikipedia. If it isn't, then it is editors' >>> perception of the rule as true (as I have experienced) that is the >>> roadblock. >>> >>> It seems to me that the way to overcome this roadblock is to introduce a >>> way of counting the contributions made by a person (say, a research >>> student, or a colleague) on behalf of a Professor. So at the end of the >>> year, the Professor can say 'my research contributed to X edits on >>> Wikipedia' as easily as each individual student (who might contribute on >>> behalf of many academic researchers) can count their individual edits. >>> >>> Can the API accommodate this in some way? Perhaps through some sort of >>> 'project' code or something? >>> >>> >>> Yours hopefully, >>> >>> Jenny Gristock (Open_Research) >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On 9 Jul 2014, at 22:40, LiAnna Davis <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all! >>>> >>>> I wanted to draw your attention to the Educator Training we'll be having >>>> as part of the Wikimania Pre-conference on August 7: >>>> >>>> https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education_Pre-Conference/Educator_training >>>> >>>> The Educator Training is designed to give educators of all levels the >>>> knowledge they need to use Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects as a >>>> teaching tool in their classrooms. The training is open to educators from >>>> any country, and Wikipedia editing experience is not required. >>>> >>>> If you're interested in attending or you know someone who is, please see >>>> the page for more information. I especially encourage anyone who's thought >>>> about getting a Wikipedia Education Program going in your country to >>>> attend, as you'll learn a lot about the different kinds of assignments >>>> students could do. >>>> >>>> LiAnna >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> LiAnna Davis >>>> Head of Communications and External Relations >>>> Wiki Education Foundation >>>> +1-415-770-1061 >>>> www.wikiedu.org >>>> >>>> Please note my new email address and update your contacts accordingly: >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
