Talk:West Lothian and Gloucestershire Aerial Archaeology

--Dr John Wells (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The content
Re: This user's editing has included contributions to this article and A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject:

The entry is written by the Chairman of the West Lothian Archaeological Trust. The Trust is a non-commercial, non-profit, registered Scottish Charity. I have simply described the nature and work of the charity. No Trustee has a vested professional or financial interest in the work of the Trust. All work is unpaid and voluntary.

This page considers our primary technique, archaeological kite aerial photography. Another page on Wikipedia deals with kite aerial photography and another with aerial archaeology in general.

The Trust is a legal entity for which the Trustees are responsible and the Wikipedia entry forms part of our public profile. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any queries or want to suggest possible changes: john(at)WLATrust.org.uk

The Trust's webpages (www.WestLothianArchaeology.org.uk) provide considerable detail on the Trust's work and include key references to techniques and the work of others in this field eg http://www.armadale.org.uk/kite03.htm which is a list of archaeological kite aerial photographers around the world. We will list any other archaeological kite aerial photographers who are willing to be included. See also our webpage http://www.armadale.org.uk/phototech07.htm

We promote archaeological kite aerial photography and the work of others in this area and our aim is to be as comprehensive as possible.

We would especially like to hear from anyone else doing archaeological kite aerial thermography (KAT).

The Trust's webpages http://westlothianarchaeology.org.uk/ are where we publish details of our activities and methodologies.

Dr John Wells (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy states:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."


 * That means that there are several problems with your statements above:
 * 1. "No Trustee has a vested professional or financial interest in the work of the Trust"
 * One does not have to have a financial stake in order to have a conflict of interest. You have disclosed that you are affiliated with the subject of the article and, therefore, in a position that makes it difficult to write objectively about it. You should instead make suggestions for content on this talk page and allow others to evaluate them.
 * 2. "We are here to promote archaeological kite aerial photography and the work of others"
 * You should not be here to promote anything. A core policy of Wikipedia is that it is not a soapbox - it cannot be used to promote or showcase the aims of a group or company.
 * 3. "... the Wikipedia entry forms part of our public profile"
 * Again, this article cannot exist to promote your organization's aims. The subject must be notable to the world at large, and able to be verified by independent third party sources.
 * I'm not sure if you intended it to sound that way, but your statement also seems to imply that you get to control the article's content. Be advised that no one "owns" an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so.


 * I suggest that you review the plain and simple conflict of interest guide before making any other changes. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talk • contribs) 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The comments I made above are about making it plain what we do and where we are coming from. They do not form part of the article.

As suggested at the top of the article, please advise where I, as the author, in the article, show any bias because of my involvement with the subject. The 'goals' are defined legally and the work is simply described with appropriate links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talk • contribs) 05:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Soap box - Promoting kite aerial photography (Education, heritage, non-invasive investigation etc) is what the Trust does, just as the RSPCA in Wikipedia promotes animal welfare and universities promote education and research. It is the basis of our charity.

your statement also seems to imply that you get to control the article's content - I like readers to feel that they are also welcome to contact me personally rather than just operate on this page alone. I know only too well what individuals can do to entries!

Removing aspects of our activities, the photos, at this stage, the day after posting, does not allow people to assess our entry, especially when there are so few people in the world carrying out archaeological kite aerial photography from the near-UV through to the thermal-IR. An archaeological kite aerial thermogram was removed. I do not understand why this image, in particular, was removed. Were the images removed because they were ours? It is very important for readers to access the information and then give a rationale (hopefully) as to why it is inappropriate. If you could suggest a relevant CC archaeological kite aerial thermogram, I would be happy to use it. Does anyone know of one?

We are known specialists in archaeological kite aerial photography, despite our amateur, charitable status (eg 1 2 3 )

I welcome any constructive criticism but please remember that the entry is about an archaeological organisation (cf Wiki Category:Archaeological organisations) with a bias towards non-destructive investigation.

I could chop down the article but then it would not be as useful to the reader. I could remove some of the links and replace them with the lists (inc. photos) that the links refer to, but the article would then become unwieldy. For example, http://www.armadale.org.uk/kite03.htm is a link to one of our own pages. Should it be excluded because it is one of our webpages or should I list everyone on the Wiki page instead or should I just exclude the link to all the other archeo-KAPers that I know? Please advise. My understanding is that the objective is to be informative and comprehensive.

I notice that other regional UK archaeology groups have kept their entries very short with a link to their webpage. I would be interested to know if readers would prefer us to do that too. It would be less informative but make life a lot easier.

Dr John Wells (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr John Wells (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have added: 'In May 2013, the Trust was approved as an Associated Partner of ArcheoLandscapes Europe (ArcLand), part of the European Union Culture Programme, to represent its area of expertise.' with a link, which may be helpful. Dr John Wells (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)