Talk:David A. Wiley

10 most influential publications, as ranked by Google Scholar
I find it rather strange that you rely on a non-academic source for the choice of Wiley's writings. Google is basically an advertising platform that also provides a search engine. Google is not a source for an encyclopaedia. Could you please select those papers and books that are actually cited in textbooks and journals? – Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I dispute your characterization of Google Scholar and think this is a legitimate use of it. Google Scholar is an index of the very papers you request. Furthermore, it also shows how often they have been cited which gives them additional credibility. I think this POV flag should be removed, promptly. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, your comment shows that you have not understood Verifiability. It goes without saying that Google is not a reliable source. No one knows how Google works because the company does not publish the methods it applies. Using Google as a source for Wikipedia is against a basic Wikipedia policy. This is why I have removed the section from the article altogether. If you want to re-insert it, please quote valid sources such as textbooks. I have a hunch that you only want to avoid going to your library for some unknown reason and use Google instead. Could someone please rewrite the section according to the rules. Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand WP:Verifiability clearly and upon re-visiting the guideline find nothing there to indicate that Google Scholar does not meet the criteria for a verifiable source. Google Scholar is an index of academic publications, the most respected sources available for Wikipedia articles. ChristineBushMV (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On a completely different matter: making assertions about my motivations is not in accordance with acting in good faith. You have overstepped in this regard and I do not appreciate the attitude you are bringing to this discussion. ChristineBushMV (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you on both matters. This is a matter of quality and bias. But there are more things I have to do except this.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I come to this discussion because Christine, who has taken my class on Wikipedia, asked about it today. I didn't want to give a specific answer in class (without reading the discussion more closely), but have read up now and want to offer this thought.

It seems to me this is a question worth exploring in a little more depth. Google Scholar is a service that is based, in part at least, on the number of citations to an article, which has long been considered an important measure of a journal article's significance. While Aschmidt makes a good point that Google does not fully disclose its algorithm, a cursory review reveals that many sources (library journals, etc.) have praised Google Scholar's utility. And reliable sources in general have not been 100% transparent about their editorial processes, either.

To me, it seems that the important thing is to use phrasing that appropriately captures what we do and don't know. The current phrasing reads "most influential publications" -- but that is a conclusion drawn from the numerical ranking Google applies. It would be an improvement to say "Wiley's most widely cited publications," if that is indeed how Google Scholar ranks them.

If this section is to remain, I think the phrasing "according to Google Scholar" is worth keeping, because it helps the reader understand the reasoning that went into the list's inclusion.

Curious about both of your thoughts about this. So far, I am undecided on whether or not the list should stay. -Pete (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to say -- I agree with Christine's last comment, the jab about her motivations was random and unhelpful. -Pete (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pete. ChristineBushMV (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I offer to re-write the section to include a summary overview of the articles, but I will still include a sentence on the Google Scholar results because I think they are relevant. Please give me some time to do this before deciding to remove the whole section again if you would be so kind, thank you. ChristineBushMV (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)