User talk:Dr Goh

MfD nomination of User:Dr Goh
User:Dr Goh, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dr Goh and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Dr Goh during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MER-C 12:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi, Dr Goh. 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 place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

AICPT
Dr Goh, the reason why your user page was nominated for deletion is that Wikipedia user pages are not like those on social-networking sites. Their use is explained at WP:NOTWEBHOST: "'Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they should be used primarily to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. Limited biographical information is allowed, but user pages should not function as personal webpages or be repositories for large amounts of material that is irrelevant to collaborating on Wikipedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your résumé, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account.'" If you want to write about AICPT on Wikipedia, the proper place would be an article, but the material on your user page would not be a suitable article, for reasons explained at User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard. As you refered to "our professional body" you are evidently connected with AICPT, which gives you, from Wikipedia's point of view, a WP:Conflict of interest and means that you should not write about it directly - see the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What you could do is make a draft by going to WP:Articles for creation, for an uninvolved user to review. Read WP:Your first article before you start, and note in particular the need for references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to establish WP:Notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Hi John

I have ongoing concerns with Wikipedia user page and WP: Articles for creation. There is no way to authenticate the numerous professional bodies such as AICPA, Institute of Chartered Accountants, CPA, Institute of Engineers, CIMM, etc. were verified by an uninvolved user to review. It could be anyone (example their own family members, friends), staff members related to these professional bodies or members of these professional bodies who contributed or reviewed the articles and signed off as uninvolved user. They can just cover up to show no conflict of interest and contributed/verified by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Logically, no one will want to participate or contribute if it is not related to their professional membership status one way or the other. It appears Wikipedia failed to see these gaps.Indications of other weaknesses-Wiki leaks which makes headlines. Can Wiki analyze and think carefully about these issues that I'm highlighting?

Dr Goh 203.59.74.82 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved this down because new contributions customarily go at the bottom of the page, so as to keep the conversation in order.


 * The key point is that an encyclopedia is not a place for organizations, or people, to tell the world about themselves. There are plenty of sites for that, like Myspace, LinkedIn and Facebook, but Wikipedia is trying to do something different.


 * The problem with allowing unrestricted editing by users with a conflict of interest is that they tell the story their organization wants the world to hear. Experience shows that, with the best will in the world, COI users write PR-speak and present a whitewashed view. Often they are quite unaware of that, and indignantly deny that they are being promotional. One said to me "This is written with no promotional tone" about a text which included "phenomenally successful... obsessive and extensive knowledge of fashion design... revered for his rare ability... an arbiter of taste... his inventive images... " but that is only a rather extreme example.


 * Articles for Creation is a relatively recent system. Before that, people simply put articles straight in, and unsuitable ones were promptly deleted. AfC provides a gentler introduction for new users - an unsuitable article will be declined, but with advice which allows the author to continue to work on it, without it being exposed to view as part of the live encyclopedia. AfC also makes it possible to say to a COI editor "We would rather you waited until someone independent thinks you/your company/whatever interesting enough to write about: but if you want to go ahead, this is a way to submit a draft for someone uninvolved to check."


 * There is certainly no guarantee that people affiliated with institutions have not contributed or edited their articles, though with experience COI editing is often easy to detect. (A more dangerous threat is the commercial PR spammers who take money to write articles puffing their clients). One difference from the "noticeboard" sites like Myspace is that a Wikipedia article is not "owned" by anyone, not its first owner and certainly not its subject. If you contribute an article about AICPT other people can and will edit it, and you will not be able to insist on your preferred version. If you click "View history" at the top of any major article, you will see that it is the result of hundreds of edits by dozens of editors. The recent changes and new article feeds are watched by numbers of volunteers, and undue puffery or article whitewashing are likely to be detected.


 * You say "Logically, no one will want to participate or contribute if it is not related to their professional membership status". That's quite wrong: from a standing start in 2001, Wikipedia now has over 4,400,000 articles in English, and as many again in over 200 other languages. 130,000 registered users have contributed to the English Wikipedia in the last month (see WP:STATS). Certainly, many of those were trying to promote something, but a large majority of edits are made by people wanting to contribute on subjects they are interested in (I don't mean a COI interest) or to contribute to the behind-the-scenes work necessary to keep the site running.


 * There are certainly problems, and there is a lot of waste motion and argument, and a lot of trivial or silly articles, but there is quite a useful encyclopedia in there as well, and on the whole we manage to keep to the policy of WP:Neutral point of view. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)