Most academic researchers do a pretty good job of adding their most important work to pertinent articles, and we should try to encourage them to do better. The problem comes with the all-to-easy trap of self-promotion and advocacy, and when that goes wrong, in maybe 10-20% of such cases, it makes a mess large enough for most policy-oriented editors to take a dim view of all such additions. But if those editors took a closer look at the good COI contributions, I suspect they would temper their views, so maybe we need to highlight a list of examples of the good and bad way to go about adding one's work, and distribute that more formally?
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:17 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
