User talk:Barry Popik

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hey, Barry, it's great to have you hear at Wikipedia! I remember reading that great profile of you in the New York Times a while back. If you have any questions feel free to ask me.--Pharos 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Barry,
 * I do believe this situation is a bit sticky. While I do respect the work you are doing, there are a couple problems with the links in question. Adding links to a website that you own, run, or maintain violates external links guidelines. Also, I believe that the site doesn't qualify as a reliable source (at least according to Wikipedia standards), as it is your own personal website and isn't subject to the same fact-checking that publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers have (this sentence was taken from WP:RS, "Evaluating reliability").
 * On the other hand, I do feel that your edits have been made in the spirit of adding useful information to Wikipedia, and that is what our shared goal is here. And it does seem that at least some of your work has been published in many various sources.
 * Considering all of this, I feel a good compromise would be if you:


 * 1) Whenever available, reference locations for your work other than your website. For instance, if one of your articles is published in the NYT, reference that article instead of the one on your website.
 * 2) Try to cite more often instead of just adding external links. Most of the link additions I've seen so far have been "bare" links which don't serve as a citation for any of the content in the article.


 * I honestly don't mean to at all discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. Though I strongly encourage linking to other websites or referencing other material that more clearly meets verification guidelines, going forward I'll keep our conversation in mind and won't remove any reasonable links that I see.
 * If you would like to discuss this any further, don't hesitate to leave me another message on my talk page --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why the situation is so sticky. I apologize for any hard feelings my messages may have caused. I do not mean to belittle your work at all. My only concerns are with neutrality, reliable sources, and original research.
 * I think one of the main issue here is that very few published people actually contribute to Wikipedia - their work is usually added by neutral, 3rd-party editors, which satisfies neutrality guidelines. Wikipedia's policies are generally written with laymen in mind - designed to deter us non-notable experts from contributing personal thoughts, essays, ideas etc. that haven't been backed up by a reliable source. It gets a little fuzzy when you try to interpret it for an editor who is an expert in their field, contributing their own work. If the reference isn't a RS, it's considered original research.
 * I think I may have to ask for a 3rd opinion on this. While the work you do is valuable, I'm just not completely sure whether or not your website meets WP:RS's criteria. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, by all means please feel free to seek 3rd-party opinions from other Wikipedia members on this. I certainly don't know everything these is to know about Wikipedia, and I could be way off on my interpretation of the guidelines and rules as it applies to this situation. If you are able to get some opinions of your own, just have them post here or on my talk page, or include links to the appropriate discussions. As I mentioned above, I have posted a request to WP:3O. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)