Jennifer: Again, look at Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. The policy is quite clear.
(And, again, are you discussing this on Wikipedia? If so, where?) Take care Jon On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Jennifer Gristock <[email protected]> wrote: > > If a researcher has new results in a particular field, a published, > surprising research finding that confounds expectations, I think it might be > understandable why they might feel most passionate and most knowledgeable > about those new findings and might want to share them inside a Wikipedia > article. > > That is all I said. I did not say they could not contribute. > > I do think that it would be very strange to insist that a researcher can't > insert a fact and a (self-citing) reference into an article because that > would be a COI. But if that is how it is, then I would like to know. And I > also feel that if one of the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation is to > encourage more academics to edit Wilkipedia, then having a clear policy on > this is rather important, and these questions that I am asking here is me > trying to find out what the policy and technical data-crunching possibilities > are with respect to self-citing and student/colleague citing. > > http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/29/wikipedia-survey-academic-contributions > > With best wishes > > Jen > > > > Sent from my mobile > >> On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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.) > > _______________________________________________ > Education mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education _______________________________________________ Education mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education
