User talk:Bgittings

I reverted your additions to Wikipedia because the file you linked to is not a reliable source.--Chaser - T 14:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You might suggest unreliable, but I am an academic and have thought, researched and taught on the principles and ethics of wikipedia. How does one establish a reliable source for the obvious? I will re-enter without the 'self-promotional' aspect, which actually wasn't intended to be self-promotional... User:Bgittings


 * Peer review, and anyway, according to your website, you're a geographer. You can reply here.--Chaser - T 15:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my web page very carefully; I am only in part a geographer, I am mostly an information scientist. (I have no qualifications in Geography). And anyway, does being a geographer suggest I don't have a brain? User:Bgittings


 * I don't see any Wikipedia-related publications here.--Chaser - T 15:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do find it just very slightly offensive that, when I take the time to contribute some of my carefully considered thoughts that you (whoever you are?) doubt my credibility? For your information the PPT I quote has been used at two seminars (one in the UK, one in the US). After the last one it was suggested that I post my thoughts as part of the Wikipedia entry. This is what I am now (trying!) to do. User:Bgittings


 * I'm sorry that I offended you. Let's back up and re-assess this this source with reference to the guideline on reliable sources. The main problem I have with it is that it didn't go through any fact-checking or editorial oversight via an established structure like peer review or a publishing house's editor looking something over before publication. I'm sure, if you used it at conferences, that there was an informal peer review, but how is the casual reader supposed to verify this? Call you up on the phone? Even I, talking to you know, have no way of verifying that you are the real Bruce Gittings, although I do believe you.--Chaser - T 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now this is getting interesting and the conversation could indeed make an additional point for my thesis that there are problems - and as far as I could see undocumented problems - with Wikipedia. Your point is an excellent one, but one if you are not careful which undermines a considerable amount of the information on Wikipedia. While I would agree that referencing is now somewhat more rigorous, many of the entries are assembled from what could, at best, be described as opinion. While indeed it makes my point, that Wikipedia is unreliable, if the ethos of the project is that it should be an all-encompassing encyclopedia which describes the undescribed, then it is self-defeating in that aim. It certainly exacerbates one of the problems I elude to, whereby Wikipedia recycles information from other parts of the web; unf I suspect very few of your contributors read peer-reviewed articles. As to whether I am the real Bruce Gittings and indeed whether that is any more real than you anonymous handle, such is the smoke-and-mirrors of the online world! But if you want to phone me up and find out, I'm happy to pass on the number... User:Bgittings

PS. With regard to my original points, I think there is the concept of accepted knowledge and the need to occasionally document this. Peer-review has a limited place here: my points are ones which, if anyone thought about it, are reasonable, accepted common knowledge - but undocumented knowledge. More the place of a newspaper than peer-review.


 * As I say, I believe you, and I could just email you to confirm. Wikipedia's inconsistencies are a valid criticism, as far as I'm concerned. I haven't presented anything, but I've written my own little bit (for internal consumption by other editors) at WP:INN. I think you're referencing a quote by Jimbo Wales that goes into fundraising, something along the lines of "assembling a compendium of all human knowledge". Surely that criticism has been documented in a newspaper or magazine, a journal, or some other medium. Perhaps you could reference your presentation at a conference? That is generally citeable in the academic world, if I'm not mistaken.


 * As to what you say about us not reading peer-reviewed works, you might be surprised.


 * If you prefer, you're welcome to email me to continue this discussion via that medium.--Chaser - T 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me add that not only do Wikipedia authors read peer-reviewed papers, many even write them. To be honest, much of the criticism in your powerpoint slides is either trivial, irrelevant, or wrong. I cannot see anything that shows serious research into the subject. If you talk professionally about Wikipedia, I would expect that you are aware of e.g. WP:V and in particular WP:SPS.  --Stephan Schulz 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before you continue to argue over the points on why your WP:OR was reverted. Mkdw talk 18:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The point on original research I can happily accept, an encyclopedia is not generally the place for this, although you folks have a lot of work to do because there are reams of entries full of people's descriptions of their own villages or districts for example.


 * We know. And yes, we do have a lot of work to do in that area.--Chaser - T 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Trivial, irrelevant, or wrong". Well this is a fascinating indicitment of Wikipedia being sadly lacking in self-criticism. If you don't agree with the party line, then you can't contribute. Well done the thought police. Meantime I will no longer waste my time with this and go off and write a peer-reviewed journal article which will be published.


 * We (myself included) haven't given you a very warm welcome to Wikipedia, which is a shame, because you were trying to contribute in good faith, albeit with a minor problem regarding sources. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to allow us to start over? Someone with specific subject knowledge such as yourself could be very valuable in articles relating to those subjects. I would be happy to verify your identity through email exchange and make a note of it on your user page. I think, if you give us another chance, you might actually like the place. Here's my try at that.--Chaser - T 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Chaser - T 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style