User talk:Gpwhld

April 2011[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with links to http://www.scienceofrelationships.com in Facebook, Interpersonal attraction, The Simpsons, Jersey Shore (TV series), and others. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Joja lozzo 01:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought adding those was part of full referencing.

I understand you added those links in good faith but references need to be reliable and most commercial web sites are not. Self-published material such as blogs, press releases, and some of the articles on www.scienceofrelationships.com are not considered reliable. Please have a look at this article on reliable sources. (Also, if you end your posts on talk pages with "~~~~" the wiki editor will replace it with your user name and the date, e.g.:) Joja lozzo 13:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'm not sure why Science of relationships isn't reliable. Although it is a website, posts predominantly authored by experts in the field with PhDs. All posts rely on scientific research as the source and do not include opinion or statements that are not supported by a proper citation. As far as I can tell science of relationships uses "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" and uses information that "directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" I am new to using wikipedia so I'm really trying to understand. Gpwhld (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad you are willing to put in the time to improve the project and in no way do I want to discourage your participation. In the case of scienceofrelationships.com, I recommend directly referencing the journal articles or other reliable sources on which the material in the authors' commercial web site is based. We cannot be sure the authors' own web site has the same quality controls that exist in academic journals or reputable news media and we cannot be sure that personal opinion is not included - actually by my reading, opinion and advocacy is included in the mission of the site. Joja lozzo 22:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I am quite new to Wikipedia so I can understand that there are certain practices in place to prevent flagrant spamming and conspicuous attempts to promote a commercial website (to my knowledge scienceofrelationships.com isn’t commercial, but is more of a means to get research out to a broader audience). Granted, the peer review process isn’t parallel with an academic journal (though many of the most frequent contributors to science of relationships are on editorial boards for major journals in the field of relationship research). However, academics have extensive training in ethical conduct that includes carefully considering the fact in order to avoid making claims that extend beyond data. It would seem that any advocacy on the scienceofrelationships site is a data-based statement that attempts counter opinion or anecdotal claims in other sources. Much like a book that brings together cited material to make a new point, the website does the same thing. So the citations I’ve made to the site have been of that variety. The simple fact is that for many topics there will never be a academic journal article on something like relationships of the Simpsons so a website like this is the best source. I deeply respect the need to be wary of reliability and ensure that personal opinions do not undermine sources. Academics do this by trade. Yet, in the Simpsons post where I tried to include a link to a scientific analysis of Homer & Marge’s relationship, it got pulled for not being reliable. (I was told that had it been a cite to a book it would be okay, but a website was not. So it isn’t the quality of the information that is really the question. The website is the easiest way for folks to learn more, so in the interest of open/free information the website is the best source.) In fact I didn’t believe this would be an issue because on the same Simpsons post, accepted references include an AOL link of best episodes (#132), a tv review (#135), a “best of” from tv squad.com (#45), several from “channel 4” (#153-155), and numerous cites from newspapers. Many of these seem predicated on personal opinion. It could be argued that these authors’ opinion is valuable due to their experience or credentials. I think the same applies to academics who write on a website. Also, much like newspaper journalists, academics who make unsupported statements (in any forum) tend to have short careers. Like I said, I’m new so I may be missing a bigger point or may just have to accept that this is the way it is. But as an outsider, it seems like there is an automatic bias against websites without recognition that all websites may not be created equally. I’m just not clear on where the line is. For example, on Dr. Phil’s Wikipedia page it has a long list of his books and a link to his website, none of which have strong scientific backing or peer review (there is even a link to a website, ref # 53). I know this was long, but I feel strongly about the quality of what I’ve cited and feel that it being kept off is a loss for the readers. I hope to make many more contributions to Wikipedia but want to be sure I fully understand the rules before adding valuable information that gets deleted. Gpwhld (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking up these questions about what is included and what is not for any particular articles on the talk pages of the respective articles. That is probably the best way to learn about policy and its application.

I stand by my suggestion that you cite the sources on which the scienceofrelationships.com articles are based rather than the site itself. By my reading the site has a bias which is not evident in the sources cited on it. The site also appears to be promoting the authors' publications which is another good reason to keep it out of Wikipedia and also presents a potential conflict of interest for anyone who is involved with the site. By my understanding, if there were an article about the group of academics that publish on the site then it would be appropriate to include an external link to the site from that article and still inappropriate to post any external links to the site from other articles.

Here are some links to general information for newcomers (in case you haven't already read them):

Help contents - the main help page.
Quick guide - a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial

Joja lozzo 13:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If something on a website only summarized a primary source, I wholeheartedly agree with "suggestion that you cite the sources on which the scienceofrelationships.com articles are based rather than the site itself" But if an article uses multiple citations to make a new contribution to knowledge on a topic, the article itself becomes the primary source. Originally the issue seemed to be about questioning the reliability of the source, however the source in this case seems to meet the wikipedia criteria: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." My interest is in providing non-opinion, fact-based, information from reliable sources in order to benefit readers. I've read the wikipedia help pages, pillars, tutorials etc. and believe that I have acted in good faith and adhered to the best practices. Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree. I hope that if I make any future edits will be acceptable. Gpwhld (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Wikipedia authority by any stretch and nor am I an administrator. Disputes about what to include are usually resolved by seeking consensus among the editors contributing to an article. That is why I referred you to the talk pages of the articles in question. I am willing to submit to the sense of the community on these issues.

Some if not most of the articles on the scienseofrelationships.com site qualify as self-published works which are rarely acceptable Wikipedia sources. However, since the authors are experts in the field, the following quote from SPS could apply:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Even with the exception allowed for experts, it's still my opinion that the original journal articles and books published by these authors or third party publications that are based on the original work are the best sources for Wikipedia.

One of my objections to using that site is that in addition to being informative it is also commercial and promotional. Most of the time I see multiple and persistent posting of links to external web sites it does not appear to arise from a desire to improve Wikipedia but from a desire to attract readership to the external site.

For the record, do you have any relationship to the any of the authors on that site?

Joja lozzo 16:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI and spamming[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these edits keep getting changed. What is the appropriate way to cite something that is read on another website? I see other references to websites that appear acceptable, and I'm following those as a guide (I made an honest mistake before by adding a link to a bibliography, but once that was pointed out as inappropriate haven't done it again). Even when I add information that provides citations to academic articles, those get deleted as well. I'm not sure why this is considered spamming because in each case the cite is to an original source written by an expert in the field. These are good faith edits that attempt to add new pieces of information. Am I wasting my time? Gpwhld (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to view the scienceofrelationships.com site as a poor source for this project as I have explained a length above. Because scienceofrelationships.com is a commercial web site that promotes non-academic publications of the contributors, I have difficulty assuming your persistence in posting links to it are made in good faith from a neutral point of view as opposed to being the product of a conflict of interest.

I do not understand why material you added with references to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology have been removed. Perhaps your reliance on citations from scienceofrelationships.com has (unfairly) put all your contributions here into question. I recommend you try again without references to commercial sources. Joja lozzo 00:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't begin to understand why this science of relationships is considered problematic, yet on the Charlie Sheen page where a cite was deleted as spam/coi there are links to showbiz411.com, Eonline, biggeststars.com, tcm.com, hollywoodreporter.com, (all commercial websites it would seem) as well as tabloid magazines like TMZ and People. These aren't poor sources? What is a "neutral" point of view? Because I may know some of the experts on that site, I don't see why that makes them less expert than TMZ or leads them have less valid insights than showbiz411.com. I mean, we're talking about experts with degrees writing original pieces that use published research from scientific journals. If Wikipedia is about having the highest quality and most up to date information, this should be exactly the type of information that would benefit this project. If TMZ is an good source, but science of relationships is a "poor" source, I've really misunderstood the goals of Wikipedia. Gpwhld (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technicalities of editing biographies of living people is a specialty I know little about. Perhaps you could start a discussion on the Sheen talk page and find out how they apply policy. Maybe you can find support for your sources there. However, in my view People, TMZ and most commercial sites are generally inappropriate as sources for technical articles in the areas of psychology or sociology. Your repeated attempts to post links to scienceofrelationships.com in technical articles may benefit that web site but in my view they do not improve the project. Your ability to be constructive here appears to suffer from a conflict of interest. Joja lozzo 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your replies largely dodge the many issues I raise. It is a continual shell game where every point is met with some new reason for my contributions being a problem. Now it is about it being a biographical page. I'm told to go talk about it on the pages, yet on those pages my good faith edits get deleted even though they compare favorably to content already accepted there. The source is continually pejoratively labeled as commercial, yet sites from large businesses and magazines are acceptable (those seem extremely commercial). The heuristic in use here seems to be if it appears in print (i.e., newspaper) it is better than something written by the expert themselves. Guess who those reporters go to interview in order to make their stories credible? The same experts. Ironic. Gpwhld (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm do not intend to dodge your questions nor am I the authority that can fix your problems. I am trying to help you understand some things about this project and why I think you are having trouble working here. There are many helpful articles that can help you figure this out and facilities that where you can address your questions to administrators that have authority to correct errors that you bring to their attention. I posted a message with several links for new editors above. If you are dissatisfied with my responses please seek assistance through one or more of those locations or perhaps you may find answers here: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Joja lozzo 15:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Gpwhld, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re Jersey Shore[edit]

1) it was only "in the article for several weeks" because you had reverted another editor who had also removed it. 2) wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles //about the named topic// - not places to give general advice based on examples that appear in the show 3) I share User:Jojalozzo's concerns that a) the site itself appears to be less than fully creditable, with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and not pushing a particlular viewpoint 2) that your insertion of content from that one website into multiple articles has very much a feel of some type of conflict of interest on your part. Active Banana (^bananaphone 06:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]