User talk:Friend of Alice

Blocked as a sockpuppet
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Friend of Alice, do you have a conflict of interest that you would like to declare? Have you edited in any way that promotes yourself? Are you working in tandem with others in editing this article?


 * Berean Hunter my user account got tangled up in this editing dispute that I had nothing to do with. I started editing the article during my grad studies in instructional design, so my interests are purely academic and educational.Friend of Alice (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Friend of Alice


 * For any reviewing admins, there was a second SPI case that is related to this and determining which meatpuppets were with which group is a knot left with some tangles.
 * This edit is clearly self-promotional. ($45 for a 125 page paperback? Robbery) <== clearly you have financial interests that are NOT "purely academic and educational". The "Author Info" section has "She is a member of the Inanimate Alice team,...".
 * Another self-promo edit
 * Promoting this blocked meatpuppet's site.
 * This article that you wrote ties you in with blocked sock EdTechUSA.
 * Here you state "...I recently became involved with the Inanimate Alice team, a wonderful transmedia storytelling project."
 * Here you state "Am currently working on a book about transmedia storytelling, and am working with the team of Inanimate Alice to bring the transmedia storytelling project into classroom and libraries in the US."
 * In case anyone is worried that we might be getting close to outing, please check the Metadata section for this file uploaded by Friend of Alice who declares that they are the author. The author is clearly stated.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew all of this before I asked you whether you had a conflict of interest or not. I would have liked to have gotten the truth. I will let other admins review your appeal if you decide to file another.


 * LOL, I do admit that I got involved with the team of Inanimate Alice as a student. Not a paid team member, mind you. Purely a volunteer. That handout was from a conference (you see, I am a SCHOLAR). I am sorry if you think adding the book (which is a scholarly publication, if you don't know how that works, look it up) was self-promotion. Actually, the book is about transmedia storytelling in a broader aspect. If I had wanted to advertise it, I would have created a separate Wikipedia article about it. At this point, the article has been ruined beyond recognition. And I had nothing to do with that. My last update was in July. The dispute took place in August as far as I can tell. You should also be aware that that handout that was listed was never actually posted to the article (as far as I know, anyway). So, if academic interest in using Inanimate Alice as a learning tool and posting stuff to the article thereof is a "violation" of Wikipedia rules, so be it. I can tell you this: you have given me a golden opportunity to address the faults and foibles of using Wikipedia next time I offer a PD class for teachers. It will keep them thinking twice about using it as a public scholarship forum for their students.


 * You should also be aware that Inanimate Alice is a free digital novel (though I believe they will charge for the upcoming episode). Directing Wikipedians to the web site, and showing teachers how it can be used doesn't make a lick of money for ANYONE. It really is purely academic and educational. At least my interests in it anyway.


 * Conflict of interest affects voluntary work as well as paid work or receiving dividends. It would probably apply to involuntary work such as that done by a now escaped or released prisoner, but that's a bit unlikely to find here. Peridon (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting, and good to know. So if a leading scholar on a specific topic wants to correct or create a Wikipedia article on said topic, that would essentially be a conflict of interest. Or if a professor directs his or her students to edit a Wikipedia article on a topic related to the professor's scholarly research area as a classroom project, and his or her work is cited in the process (that happens all the time in academia, since we tend to have scholarly research niches), that's considered self-promotion. Wow. I will definitely be bringing this up in my next PD session with academic librarians because that has serious implications for using Wikipedia as a scholarly forum in higher education -- and certainly kills the concept of authority (most students already know not to cite Wikipedia anyway, but this goes beyond that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friend of Alice (talk • contribs) 18:06, October 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * A professor adding his/her own work could fall foul of Original Research WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research - we aren't a scientific publisher. We would go for reviews of the professor's work, but people other than the authors of the papers can link to them. Unpublished papers aren't suitable for Wikipedia to use, although they can be used in academia, so far as I know. If a prof directs someone to cite his work, that's meatpuppetry in a way. Wikipedia doesn't follow the principles of academia - this is an encyclopaedia for general use, not an academic forum or a university. Students shouldn't cite Wikipedia, that's quite right. They are OK to use it to find sources that they can cite, and possibly to get an understanding of things as worded in a simpler way than some professors do... Wikipedia is not a reliable independent source for things on Wikipedia. A leading scholar can add to or correct an article on his speciality, but should cite other sources than himself/herself for those edits. Conflict of interest in editing isn't totally forbidden. It's not recommended, and people with a COI should edit carefully and neutrally. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, and referring to a comment of yours above, you might be surprised to know how skilfully people slip advertising links into things, or create apparent articles (known here as 'artspam') that give a lot of neutrally worded info before getting to the commercial link. A bit like the 'word from the sponsor' that seems to be (or have been) the thing in American broadcasting (but without the disclaiming intro). Spam is one of my main areas of work here. It can get quite funny. One article about a company was so stuffed with buzzwords that I never even found out what they actually did. Come to think of it, perhaps they were in SEO and PR. I didn't get a reply from the author about that. Might have offended him. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that any of these things occurred here in your case but instructors should use the Education noticeboard to notify the project when working with classes or other groups of students to avoid problems such as sockpuppetry. I checked that while investigating this case, btw. Please see Student assignments for more on that subject. If a class ends up promoting an instructor's work, we would likely block the lot. That instructor would need lessons in ethics and yes, conflict of interests...er, rather this article link as it pertains to real life.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When I asked you whether you had a COI, you didn't volunteer that you had worked as a volunteer with the team, or that you had written material and were linking to it. Your reply, "...my user account got tangled up in this editing dispute that I had nothing to do with" also doesn't have this secondary line of defense that you are trying now. Make sure at your meeting that you point to this precise talk page so they will know what you are referring to. Any experienced Wikipedian among them should be able to explain it to you.


 * Seriously? I did not realize that COI meant academic conflict of interest. I genuinely thought you meant financial conflict of interest, of which I have none. My connection with the team basically began when I wrote a blog post about the project, stemming from a course I took in my IDT program. The producer then made contact with me, and since then it's been pretty much a relationship built on academic interest. Even had I never met with anyone related to the project, I would still be writing and speaking at conferences about it because it's a cool tool for technology integration. I'm not making a cent off any of this, it's simply a passion of mine --scholarly publications, of which mine fall into don't generate income (really, I wish they did!). And I happen to be one of the few scholars exploring the project from a literacy and learning perspective, hence the self cites. Do you have ANY idea how many scholars out there are editing Wikipedia about their own research and scholarly interests like myself? If you did, you'd have to block a whole lot of users! Look, I really don't care any more whether you block me from this article, but if you are going to block me from ALL of Wikipedia, I expect a better excuse than "sockpuppetry," again which I'm not. And I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this: "Make sure at your meeting that you point to this precise talk page so they will know what you are referring to." ???????Friend of Alice (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Friend of Alice


 * Okay, maybe I need to clarify "Your reply, "...my user account got tangled up in this editing dispute that I had nothing to do with" also doesn't have this secondary line of defense that you are trying now." because you had me confused. I actually didn't have anything to do with the editing dispute in August, didn't even know it was going on, whether you believe it or not. By team, I don't mean "corporate team" or something like that. We're a bunch of people scattered all over the globe who have a singular interest in Inanimate Alice, sort of a participatory culture so to speak. Some are teachers, some librarians, some in other educational roles, but we have all made connections in an effort to bring IA into schools and classrooms, not for profit or fame, but out of a genuine love for the project. I don't know all them or most of them for that matter. Some of us write about the project. others present at conferences and the like. There is a creative team, if that's what you are thinking of. That, I think, is what the editing dispute stemmed from. I'm not part of the creative team - and yes, those individuals get compensated. I never thought of myself as having any COI with the article because I was just trying to put together a full scale source of all things Inanimate Alice. That of course, includes my own stuff, but is certainly not limited to it.Friend of Alice (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Friend of Alice

Speedy deletion nomination of File:STEAM-Based activities handout.pdf


A tag has been placed on File:STEAM-Based activities handout.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)