Talk:Beverly Glenn-Copeland

Reliable source
There's been an editing dispute about using this source to update info on this topic: https://daily.bandcamp.com/2018/05/14/beverly-glenn-copeland-interview/

The dispute was on my talk page, but I thought I'd put it here so others can weigh in: ____________


 * The problem with that edit is that it used inline external links rather than references. They're also a primary source. If you'd like to learn how to incorporate that material correctly, please don't hesitate to ask. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So there are two potential problems now. That external link is an article and not one written by the subject, which I incorrectly assumed, but is instead written by Noah Berlatsky, and that appears to be you, it's still self-promotional, but the promoter is you. You've already been asked to avoid editing without explaining conflicts of interest, so I will not repeat that. I will indicate that you have no earthly clue how to link to an actual reference. While that was the primary problem, this problem is larger. Either way, the source fails WP:RS. Feel free to restore it, however, if you decide to and you have not declared CoI, I'll mention it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I merely suspect a strong CoI, but they deal with this more frequently and should be able to address the appropriately. If you do declare a CoI, I will take the source to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss whether the interview can be used in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Again, I dabble in that notice board, but I don't know all the details.
 * Also, as it states in the edit notice on my talk page, please respond to comments left on your talk page here. It keeps the discussion all in one place. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Insulting me isn't helpful. If there are problems with the link, you can fix them. Mocking users with less knowledge is not a good way to operate on Wikipedia.
 * There's no conflict of interest in using information from an article I wrote? How on earth does it benefit me? I just want there to be accurate information; topic experts aren't prevented from using their expertise.

You're interactions with me are needlessly aggressive and insulting. Why you don't want people to have accurate information about this topic I am not sure; do you actually think the information is wrong? You don't right? It's a BLP; it's important to have correct info. At the moment, the info is not as accurate as it could be. I attempted to update that, and you've taken to edit warring on technical nonsense to prevent me from doing so. I think we need an arbitrator. I'll see about asking one for help NoahB (talk) Also, we should move this convo to the article's talk page; putting it over here isn't very helpful; I will start a discussion there. NoahB (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC) ______

I'm going to ask other editors to weigh in so we can stop edit warring. NoahB (talk)
 * Again, the initial problem was that you were linking it incorrectly. It should have been added like this: . But as the author, on a site that doesn't appear to have an editorial policy, and without a staff page, this appears to be an unreliable source. At issue is WP:RS, WP:SELFPUBLISH (Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.) and other policies (not even guidelines). But I will let other editors, as interested, comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I request that NoahB explain what the interest in the subject there is. Is there a CoI here or is this an attempt at self-promotion of the article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he's a great musician and would like accurate information about him to be available That's it. Having Wikipedia correctly identify his birthplace does not help me in any way that I'm aware of. NoahB (talk)
 * If you have an external relationship with the subject of the article you need to disclose it. Either way, it is bad form to link to an article that you yourself wrote as if it's a reliable source. I've left a template on your talk page with more information. I hope that helps. Brad  v  03:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused. Why isn't the article a reliable source? NoahB (talk)
 * Looking at the template you left, none of those COI"s are in effect here. I am not being paid, I get no benefit from the piece.
 * "avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors"
 * Copeland is not me, not my family, not my friend, and not part of my company or organization, nor is he a competitor.
 * "do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."
 * I don't see how I violated this. I linked to a third-party source in order to correct basic information, like his place of birth.NoahB (talk)
 * Bandcamp Daily has a page about its mission here . That page also lists the editors. If those are the objections, this should resolve them.
 * If you do not want me to edit the page, it would be cool if someone else could make the edit so that we don't have him being born in the wrong place?NoahB (talk)
 * You're not listed on that Bandcamp daily page so you are not an accredited journalist. By linking your article on Wikipedia, it improves search engine optimization. It should not be done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? You can find numerous sites that list me as a journalist if you wanted? And how on earth does SEO help me in this case? I don't get paid by the click, and an article about a fairly obscure musician is not going to affect my career.

I linked to the article because it includes information that isn't available elsewhere. I would like this article to be as complete and accurate as possible because I admire Glenn-Copeland's music and think he should be represented accurately (especially since he's still alive.) Wikipedia doesn't have blanket objections to COI's in any case, especially not one as tenuous as this is. You asked for an article about editorial policy and with a listing of editors; I provided it. Most freelancers are not listed on editorial pages for *any* site. Can you point me to wikipedia policy saying the articles by freelancers are not a reliable source? NoahB (talk)

I see that there is another source for Copeland's correct birthplace, so that's something at least. It still seems ridiculous to cut out accurate information about a little known performer over technicalities and (originally) because you didn't like the way the notes were formatted.NoahB (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I could understand having this argument over, say, Keith Richards or David Bowie, where there are plenty of secondary sources and being linked to their Wikipedia page could conceivably raise one's profile (via SEO or resume padding or whatever). In this case, though, there are very few sources for the subject (and the sources that are cited are clearly wrong) and the subject is obscure enough that having one reference is unlikely to improve anyone's standing. It seems in this instance, at least, it would be worth leaving the correct information in, even if the source is somewhat less than verifiably reliable, especially given the state of "reliable" sources these days. Crywalt (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no difference for self-published sources for a superstar or a relatively unknown subject. We only accept reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes Bandcamp an unreliable source. They have editors. This isn't user-generated content.  Admittedly they're not the New York Times but they do have standards. Crywalt (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And, again, if there were a plethora of solid sources I could see this, but given the lack of sources, and the fact that this source includes an interview with a living subject (who could conceivably object if they desired), I think this is worth including. Crywalt (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)