Talk:Pleioplectron

Major contributor
It's totally OK for a scientist who's co-authored a paper on a subject to update the Wikipedia article when it's published. There is no conflict of interest here: the editor is not employed by the genus Pleioplectron, nor are they related to it. This doesn't seem like an example of egregious WP:SELFCITE; I'd hope we'd want subject specialists to be contributing in their area of expertise. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Giantflightlessbirds. I don't believe this is an example of egregious WP:SELFCITE but instead is a helpful addition to the quality and reliability of this Wikipedia article. I'm of the opinion that subject experts should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia so long as the WP:SELFCITE is respected, the edits are relevant and not excessive.Ambrosia10 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the edits were quite small, not conflicted or spamming with references to own work. Merely factual and all improve the article. We don't even know if the author of any paper is related to the editor either.It would seem rather time-wasting to remove these constructive edits, only for another editor to copy them back in.....Markanderson72 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Giantflightlessbirds/User:Ambrosia10/User:Markanderson72: I added the tag based on this tweet, in which it was stated that the author of the article had edited the article. I inferred the author to be User:Morgan-weta, who added:

I acknowledge that this is an eminently suitable reference for this article and meets the requirements for WP:RS. However, since extensive research tells us that academic articles in wikipedia get cited more those not, and almost academics (or future academics) have a material interest in those citations which are a key measure used in promotions, if the editor is one of the three authors they have a direct material conflict of interest here, as per WP:COI. I'm not suggesting censuring the editor, since it appears to be a first offence and both the reference and the content are eminently encyclopedic, but should not be repeated. Also related is this tweet from earlier in the month which shows just how easily wikipedia can end up inflating reference counts (google scholar has now fixed this particular issue). Please bear in mind that stating obvious inferences about identities of other editors is in breach of WP:OUTTING, but I confirm that I am https://twitter.com/stuartayeates Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely sure that the editor is Mary Morgan-Richards, because I've been encouraging her to edit the wētā pages for a year now as part of WP:NZWPAL. She, her collaborator, and her students have been doing sterling work adding excellent photos, improving articles, and adding up-to-date references – despite bad actions from some grumpy editors, who on occasion took out all the macrons they'd added to an article. They are some of the main researchers in this field and of course publications of theirs should be prominently cited. And I'll continue to encourage them to participate. The last thing they need is someone biting the newbies and accusing them of materially trying to inflate their reference counts to increase their chances of promotion. Again, as the WP:COI guidelines clearly state, under WP:SELFCITE, it is perfectly OK for researchers to cite their own work in Wikipedia articles as long as it's relevant, encyclopaedic, and not excessive. I think this is fine. If they'd gone through the wētā articles adding nothing but links to their own papers (rather than improving content and photos as they have done), the appropriate response would have been a short polite comment on their Talk page, not flagging the article as problematic. What are the problems with the article? Is it biased or promotional? No. It's a good balanced article drawing heavily on the best available reference, which is the review of the group they've just published. I suggest we drop the warning label and accept their contributions as excellent improvements to the encyclopedia, and encourage other researchers to do likewise, rather than accuse them of breaking the rules. What do others think? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have dropped the COI tag. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Using on off-wiki activities and information to identify editors is specifically forbidden by WP:OUTTING. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The edits roughly doubled the size of the article content based on a single primary source less than a week old, when multiple authors have been writing about the topic for than a century and we're meant to be using secondary sources. That seems like like undue emphasis to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion at Teahouse to try and get more input. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have examined the edits made by . Before those edits, what we had here was an uncited stub with minimal text. What was added was one long paragraph, with four cited sources. Granted, three of them were from the same team of authors, but I gather that they are among the most active in this particular sub-field, so that is perfectly normal. If those edits doubled the size of the article, tht is because it had been left woefully short by previous editors. Speculating on the actual identities of that editor, unless the editor has personally chosen to reveal his or her identity is WP:OUTING, a potentially very serious matter. (I personally edit under my legal name, but many editors do not.), if you think that some of the should be cited here, you are free to add additional citations. Primary sources seem to be used here for direct facts, which is perfectly proper, not for interpretations. I see nothing wrong in those edits. If an y editor thinks the sources are not appropriate on their own merit, or that better ones exist and should be used instead, that editor can revert or change and a talk page discussion can follow, or one can start with a talk page discussion. But it should be about the content, not the editors. This is not the kind of promotional self-citation that WP:SELFCITE is meant to discourage. Please do not violate WP:BITE in this matter. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)