Talk:Autoethnography

Untitled
I've been meaning to add to this article for well over a year. I had already created a website for autoethnography that has received some traffic, but I thought putting the information here would be much better (especially since I felt overwhelmed by how much more the site needed). This article is looking good, so my compliments! I've added a bib. CR Rik (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not great with Wikipedia, but to me everything after the first sentence looks like a commercial for the concept rather than neutral information. 82.214.44.30 (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Revisions/Additions
I added the Narrative section and moved the original para 1 to top as intro to article. I really like that paragraph and think it's summarizes AE really well. CR Rik (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

More additions/moves
I added a section on assessing AE texts. This section could use some work.

I also moved the notable texts down near the references. That seemed to make sense in users want to find sources -- they can do so in one section. CR Rik (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied material
I've removed a large block of material copied in from one of the references. Other sections may have this problem. The article relies too much on quoting material rather than summarizing. That is not useful in an encyclopedia article. Since activity here peaks in December and March, end of term, I wonder if this isn't due to student assignments. Don't copy. Everything has to be written in your own words. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=GXW2oAEACAAJ&pg=PA43. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Mesearch
This article currently reads like a stuffy Gender Studies Masters thesis, full of vague boilerplate academese. Sorry to say, wikipedia is not the right place to publish this stuff.

It's time to add some criticism

"'Mesearch' - when study really is all about me" - http://www.bbc.com/news/business-39856894

--Nanite (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this article propaganda?
The article looks suspiciously like propaganda - there is barely any mention of criticism or rejection of Autoethnography as a valid research method. The scientific community rejected the method for good reasons, which are not mentioned in the article. Ignoring of quantifiable evidence in favor of emotions is not a research method, it's a blog. 78.0.195.100 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @78.0.195.100: There is already some criticism of autoethnography mentioned in the article. If you think that more criticism of autoethnography from reliable sources needs to be added to this article, nobody is stopping you from adding it. Lack of criticism in an article is not necessarily evidence of the sinister machinations of propagandists; it may merely indicate that somebody (such as, perhaps, you) with knowledge of relevant criticism needs to add that knowledge to the article. Biogeographist (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @78.0.195.100: Short answer: yes. Caveats: I felt unable to read more than one sentence of the article, so my answer may not be of the highest value. I am, however, grateful I will never have to read it. Longer answer: no, it's probably not propaganda, propaganda would be more interesting to read and have more of a point. However, I must really apologize and repeat that I haven't read this article, so it's unclear how I could back up any of my answers. Consider this comment a form of autosomething or other, and good luck to us all. Again, I am very sorry for this. --Kai Carver (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you find a summary of autoethnography on the web that you think is clearer than this Wikipedia article? If so, please share the link(s) here so that future editors can see a potential alternative to the article's current state. If not, perhaps the lack of clarity is endemic to the subject and "good luck to us all" is indeed the last word. Biogeographist (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

While I have a fair number of concerns about this entry, it's not propaganda. That seems like an overreach. The first comment in this section writes, "The scientific community rejected the method for good reasons," but this comment and commenter doesn't reckon with the quantitative/qualitative research methods split. Considering subjective positions may not be a quantitative method, but that doesn't invalidate autoethnography or other qualitative methods as forms of inquiry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.137.161 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This is most definitely propaganda. Journal entires (observations of 1) are not scientific. Autoethnographic papers cannot be peer reviewed, cannot be verified, and have no hard data to collect. It is testimony, not evidence and most definitely not scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:501:2E50:FD7D:865:AE88:BCEE (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In-text citations missing bibliographic references
There are a large number of APA-style in-text references in this article which lack corresponding bibliographic references below. For example, the Bruder, Freeman, and Waldorf in-text citations do not have any bibliographic references. This gives the false impression that the information has been verified, but the reader is unable to check the referenced source text because there is no way of knowing which text is being referenced. Shedsan (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)