User talk:50.202.93.198

Verifiability, original research, and expert opinion
Hello, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia. your point of view is appreciated, and I'm sorry the work you contributed to Erotic humiliation was reverted, but I'd like to explain a bit more about why that happened, and what you can do to reintroduce your edits&mdash;which are not lost, they are all preserved in Wikipedia's article history, which you can still retrieve.

It's great when an editor has specialized knowledge about a topic, and we rely on them to help make Wikipedia articles better, in their domain of expertise. I appreciate that you wrote your doctoral thesis on paraphilias. However, Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even without a login (as you did) this means, among other things, that we require citations to reliable sources when new material is introduced. Otherwise, it would just become a free-for-all, with anybody adding whatever their personal point of view was, to an article, and that would lead to chaos. In that one sense, it's maybe not that different from writing your thesis, in which, I assume, your probably had anywhere from dozens, to hundreds of footnotes. Making unsubstantiated claims in your thesis, would probably have been frowned upon if not rejected outright by the examining board. It's kind of like that here. One of Wikipedia's core principles is that of Verifiability, which relies on citations to reliable sources. I'm sure that sounds familiar, even if it's couched differently here.

The one biggest difference between the two imho, is that one of the major goals of a thesis is to contribute something new and original to the field that hasn't been seen before, or that is a synthesis of existing material to reach a new conclusion. That is completely anathema at Wikipedia, and forbidden by another core principle, namely, No original research. The reason for this, is that rather than a publisher of original research such as an academic press, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are a tertiary source, that relies primarily on secondary sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, journals, and to a lesser extent, primary sources.

Point #2 at WP:EXPERT is on-topic to the question of WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research with respect to expert editors.

As for your changes that were undone, I don't doubt the basis for your edits, or their accuracy. But at Wikipedia, that is not the point (the essay WP:NOTTRUTH addresses this). The point is that all assertions of fact need to be verifiable. So, if you simply look over your changes (see the History tab of the article), and then find reliable sources in the literature that back up your additions and changes to the article, create citations for them (see Help:Footnotes), and add your material back. (Anything not involving an assertion of fact, i.e, fixing typos, better grammar, syntax, or style, and so on, does not need a footnote.) To make writing citations at Wikipedia easier for you, please see the templates cite journal, cite book, cite encyclopedia, cite magazine, cite news, and cite web. I hope this helps, and don't hesitate to contact me here, or at my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)