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 <gristock(a)me.com> 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-…
With best wishes
Jen
Sent from my mobile
On 10 Jul 2014, at 19:14, Wjhonson
<wjhonson(a)aol.com> 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
Education(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/education