Talk:Digital agriculture

Introduce evidence coming from a broad review study

 * The following phrase should be added in the page's lead section at the end of the first paragrapgh (or in a new ==Definition== or ==Terminology== as proposed by @Invasive Spices):

In a bibliometric study on the digital agricultural revolution (DAR) from the Polytechnic University of Milan, digital agriculture has been defined as applying digital technologies to achieve Climate-smart agriculture objectives, that is, climate-change resilience, GHG emissions reduction, and sustainable intensification.


 * Reason for the change: The change improves the quality of the lead section by introducing evidence from an in-depth literature review article (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9547306) published in a relevant journal (IEEE Access; H-index: 127; Five-year Journal Impact Factor: 3.671). The current lead section is reporting website articles as primary references. The cited review article exploits bibliometric tools (statistics analysis) to remove researchers' biases that can afflict traditional literature reviews. The main purpose of the article is to give a definition and context to the concept of Digital Agriculture. Being based on bibliometric tools, the article is structured to take into account and summarize the main research streams in the field of Digital Agriculture. The review article's aim is to answer to three specific research questions: i) what is the spectrum of the digital agricultural revolution (DAR)-related terminology?; ii) what are the key articles and the most influential journals, institutions, and countries?; iii) what are the main research streams and the emerging topics? The review article contains 88 high-impact articles based on citation counts.

Ricber1 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * References supporting change: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9547306


 * Ricber1 & Smartse: I think the only problem here is that the text is misplaced. It should be in a new ==Definition== or ==Terminology==. In every other way this appears to be an appropriate self cite. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Invasive Spices: Thank you for your comment. My only intent is to genuinely contribute with my time and experience to improve the quality of this page, and this is proved by the many modifications I did, citing and improving different authors' references. I am sorry if some of my previous contributions gave too much weight to a single source. Still, I believe that a literature review article published in a journal is of greater quality than website articles to provide an accurate topic's definition. As you may know, a literature review article submitted to a recognized journal has to pass many checks and reviews by field experts before being published. This is not true for website articles that undergo, let's say, a much lighter review process. I put the text in the page's lead section because definitions usually go there. Indeed, there are currently other definitions from different sources. Thus, I think adding the new review article there is appropriate. Ricber1 (talk) 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree because the review has only just been published and it would be better to be citing reviews which are already highly cited and therefore determined as noteworthy by the scientific community. Something like this for example. Self citing risks verging into original research and giving undue weight to concepts compared to what exists in the literature. Writing an encyclopedia is quite different to writing a scientific article, and it is advisable to gain some experience writing about topics which you are not directly researching yourself before contributing in areas you are at the cutting edge of yourself. If you are interested in improving this article then use the highly-cited reviews in the field and see what is missing from this article which you can add to. WP:SCIRS has more information on how we to source scientific articles. More specifically regarding your edits so far, the introduction of an article is supposed to be a summary of the main text and therefore doesn't actually need to contain any references. SmartSE (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * the review that I propose to add is relevant to this page because it summarises the findings of the most relevant scientific articles, most of them are indeed highly cited reviews. Thus, the article I am proposing to add is a review of reviews. Also, the review exploits bibliometric tools to objectively analyze the publication data of almost 5000 articles in the field of Digital Agriculture. The review that I am proposing has the main scope to give a broad perspective of the Digital Agriculture field. This is why I think it is a relevant piece of information to have on this page and could help the readers have an objective view of the field. When you say, "Self citing risks verging into original research" I doubt your statement is consistent with the concepts connected to original research. Indeed, it is written on that page that "Wikipedia editors must not base their contributions on their own original research. Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources." Also, in the original research page's summary, it's written that "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Indeed, you can verify that my contributions were directly attributable to the cited source. The concept of original research has no connection with self-citing, and furthermore, self-citing is allowed on Wikipedia. Also, when you say "giving undue weight to concepts compared to what exists in the literature" you don't realize that the article I am proposing is comparable to a tertiary source since it is a review of reviews. The article does not contain authors' personal opinions but it is a summary of all the opinions present in the literature related to Digital Agriculture. Finally, you said that it "would be better to cite reviews that are already highly cited". Can I ask you to link the part of Wikipedia guidelines that contains this requirement? Also, can you please define a numerical threshold to define highly-cited reviews? Once we have that threshold, we can check each Wikipedia's article and delete the references which are not compliant with your personal judgment, I am sure we can spot a lot of them. I invite you to try to objectively evaluate the quality of my proposition in the context of this page. Thank you. Ricber1 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Smartse: An IEEE review is unlikely to be ignored or retracted. (And for SCIRS, although there is no requirement to use SCIRS, I also do not see any conflict between it and this citation. Can you explain why this would be unacceptable under SCIRS?) Invasive Spices (talk) 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the Request edit template for this proposed change.  Thinker78  (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thinker78 can you please tag editors involved in the subject area to further discuss the topic? I only know @User:Invasive Spices and @Smartse. Ricber1 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Airtransat236 I saw you edited the "Agricultural drone" Wikipedia page. May I ask you to join this talk as a field expert? Thank you! Ricber1 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Femke I am citing you since you edited the "Agriculture" Wikipedia page. May I ask you to join this talk as a field expert? Thank you! Ricber1 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Pmrich I saw you created the "Precision viticulture" Wikipedia page. I would like you to join this discussion as field expert. Thank you! Ricber1 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As expected your review has been well received. You've garnered some citations. My position is the same and I think Smartse will now agree. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with this being added. Wikifying / removing the typos:
 * In a bibliometric study on the digital agricultural revolution (DAR), digital agriculture was as applying digital technologies to achieve climate-smart agriculture objectives, that is, climate change resilience, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and sustainable intensification. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear @Thinker78, since @Smartse is ignoring this talk, and we have the consensus of two editors, can we proceed with integrating the edit? Ricber1 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't commented sooner, it wasn't clear before what was being suggested to be included. I had concerns about the content that went beyond WP:SELFCITE such as where it should be included in the article. 's suggestion doesn't seem like a great summary of the article as climate objectives were only one of the five topics identified. Just because the review has now been cited, does not automatically mean that it should be cited here and I still have concerns about giving undue weight to this review just because the author is here arguing for it to be included (and so far not here for any other purpose). If the article needs a better definition of what digital agriculture means, there are likely be more authoritative sources that we could use. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the study in more detail, I do agree with SmartSE's objection that this is not a great summary. @Ricber1: could you make a proposal that includes the other four aspects and is better intregrated with the existing text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)