Talk:Digital native/Archives/2020

Silencing science?
Please help me with: I updated the wikipedia page on digital natives to share the results of an article published in a highly respected academic journal. Someone deleted that, and I got the message that it is for promotional purposes. I wonder why updating a scientific topic based on a scientific article should be considered promotion? It is not a good practice if you keep showing outdated science in Wiki and remove recent developments only because someone thinks it is promotion. It is like silencing science and how it aims to help people understand a scientific phenomenon better. I need community opinion and support on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilaagh (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reversion of your edits has nothing to do with "silencing science". You made a promotional edit that violated our policies and it was reverted. If you discuss here, with other editors, what science you are trying to bring forth and get consensus on what should be added, it will be added. This article currently suffers from being drawn from too few sources, so getting additional views added would be welcome. Just do not add external links to the body of the article and do not add citations to your own works or works where you have a conflict of interest. You stated that you are an expert in this area, so there is an essay that may apply to you: Expert editors. Please read that to understand that we value your contributions, but you have to work in the same framework as other editors in a cooperative fashion. And please don't ask the same question in multiple places. This talk page is the best place for this dicussion.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * your edits here and under what appears to be another account of yours,, bear all the hallmarks of being made not to improve the quality of the Wikipedia articles, but rather to promote the academic career of the author of the works you are linking to. In this most recent spate of edits:
 * You placed the external link to Shahla Ghobadi's article in the lede, despite it not meeting the qualifications of WP:LEDE;
 * You added multiple works of Ghobasi's in the Notes section, despite one duplicating the EL you already had added to the lede, and the other not being used at all.
 * Previous to this:
 * Under your other account, you have added Ghobadi's works to Coopetition multiple times.
 * Under your other account, you have added Ghobadi's works to Internet activism multiple times as well.
 * A search for Ghobadi indicates that, in the whole of Wikipedia, there are no citations to her works that have not been added by you.
 * Your current account has been used for no purpose other than to add links to Ghobadi's works, and to try to get them reinstated when deleted.
 * So, in sum: Yeah. Your edits look pretty promotionally-motivated to me.
 * In addition, the martyric claim that Wikipedia is trying to suppress science rather than to keep you from using the encyclopedia for promotional purposes is a classic play when a promotional user is called out.
 * Let me ask you point-blank: do you have any connection to Shahla Ghobadi? You certainly appear to be a connected contributor. TJRC (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * @TJRC: Okay, Take control of the page you feel so into controlling it. My intention was not promotion rather than sharing recent articles. If you want to interpret it that way, it is unfortunately your choice. Those researchers who want to know about a topic will use Google scholar. They would not rely on this page to read the same old story, over and over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheilaagh (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about control. I have no interest in controlling the page, and couldn't even if I wanted to; see WP:OWN. Control has nothing to do with it.
 * You haven't answered the question, though: do you have any connection to Shahla Ghobadi? If so, please read and comply with WP:COI. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)