User talk:Browndog1212

Welcome!
Hi, Browndog1212. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with the references section default in Wikipedia. Under the Dunning-Kruger Effect entry, the automatic version of the Wikipedia code seems to be taking it to try to grab journal articles' authors' institutional affiliations and then seeing these affiliations mistakenly as missing authors. This is happening with the Scholar Commons Journal Numeracy. THERE ARE NO MISSING AUTHORS in those citations, and NO MISSING INFORMATION needed for correct citation. but the Wikipedia algorithm is forcing certain journals to be cited in the References in formats that are nonstandard anywhere. I fixed these manually once after which a subsequent user/editor returned them back into non-standard format. I'm leaving the bad formatting introduced for the rest of the day in hope a more senior editor will see the problem. If I have to fix the citation manually again, please do not undo the correct citation and replace it again with a defective one.

Browndog1212 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Many other journals provide their articles' authors in a comma-separated list (example), so the tool's assumption that something after a comma is another author is reasonable. Human oversight is needed; we can't expect such an automated tool to correctly interpret every possible way of providing such information. If you don't like correcting the faulty information given by the tool, you can avoid using the tool altogether and provide the author information etc. yourself, manually. Huon (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Huon! As noted above, I don't mind putting in the references manually. The problem comes when others go in to change things. They use the automated tool and then never clean up their incorrectly worded citation that they let the tool create. After that, they just save it over the correct reference.

WP:RS and WP:VANPRED
Do review the above two links (particularly the "Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia" section of WP:VANPRED). The Clute Institute is a well-known predatory publisher and their journals are not considered reliable or reputable sources for information on Wikipedia. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)