User talk:Hubbardaie

SqueakBox 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rules about Neologisms
If you read Wiki guidelines on neologisms, you see that it recommends against using neologisms in an article:


 * "Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people"

This refers, of course, to the use of neologisms IN the article. This makes sense, given that neologisms, by definition, are often poorly understood. However, guidelines are further refined when the topic of the article is iITSELF a neologism:


 * Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:


 * The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
 * The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Regarding the first issue, the Applied Information Economics article is not merely defining the term. It explains some key components of the theory behind it. Regarding the second issue, AIE has been widely used in other publications (as any google search would point out). By "publications" I mean printed magazine articles not blogs. Also, a google search should turn up university classes taught by that name and use of the term by authors other than Hubbard. The simplest evidence of the verifiability criterion would have been the citation of the book "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business" but, lacking that, other sources can easily be found.

Conflict of interest
Hubbardaie, Wikipedia has a conflict of interest guideline because it's very difficult for authors to be neutral about their own work and the terms they use in their own work. From your perspective, "applied information economics" and your book related to this are very important, as they should be. Others are likely to recognise the importance of your book and this term. Notability is a Wikipedia policy for including articles. There's more to it than Google hits. Take a bit of time to read the policies and discussions, and I think you'll realize that if Wikipedia were completely open to any and all edits by anyone, your own book and "applied information economics" would be lost in a sea of other terms and books -- and nobody would be the wiser. Read WP:NOT to understand that Wikipedia is open to editing, but there are rules to be followed.

The rule about advertisements includes self-promotion. Self-promotion is very important in many areas of life, but it's not encouraged in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a record of others' recognition of your work. This doesn't happen overnight. But when it does happen, it's much more satisfying. Please have patience. --SueHay 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. But AIE is simply an alternative to balanced scorecard and analytic hierarchy process.  In those articles, specific persons and books are cited as well.  It appears that the COI assertion has been based on nothing more than my username.  But I've been honest about my identity.  It would not be possible to prove that others were equally honest in writing those other articles.Hubbardaie 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Internal spam
When I first posted the article, a header appeared saying it was an "orphan" and needed links from other articles. I went out and started to make links wherever it looked appropriate only to find out that this is called "internal spam". Which of these guidelines do I follow?

Its not vandalism
You recently incorrectly identified my entry to the investment management column as vandalism. It is not. See the article's discussion.
 * I didn't remove your edit - I removed the edit after yours, which was an anonymous user adding a bunch of 888s to a link. Compare the history and you'll see what I mean. Sidasta 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out. My apologiesHubbardaie 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process
You seem to be running into the same problem that is discussed HERE. IMHO it is an important problem without an apparent solution. Lou Sander 15:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the article on my watchlist, and I look at it from time to time. I don't have an opinion about who is right. Some anon made some recent changes and I left a message on his/her talk pages to the effect that controversial changes should be discussed on the article's talk page before they are made in the article. Lou Sander 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category
Sorry, what I meant was that you had an uncategorised tag on your user page which was putting it in the category of uncategorised pages. This is only meant for articles so I removed it from your user page. Davewild 07:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A comment
I just made an extended reply to you on my page. --Rinconsoleao 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process
You persist in mangling the meaning of the first paragraph of the Criticisms page by deleting perfectly good, evenhanded material and substituting a seriously distorted version of what Schenkerman said. Please stop doing that. When you have something to say, please say it without destroying the work of others. Good Cop 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There is a big difference between what the guy actually said, "...the decision maker relying on AHP or these variants can be seriously misled." and "The resulting decision errors cause AHP users to be seriously misled."


 * 2) Nobody has an intrinsic objection to the guy's ideas being presented in a truthful, in-context manner, as is done later in the section. Many object to somebody turning "can be" into "are", then substituting the twisted version for an evenhanded, recent statement about the status of AHP criticisms. Please stop doing that. Good Cop 13:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the article page regarding the article (where this discussion belongs). I responded on your talk page about rulez you need to review.Hubbardaie 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Guess who?
Actually, you do know me. I'm Erin O. Here I thought you looked so busy and it was Wikipedia. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ERosa (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Idon't believe I know anyone named Erin. Are you located in the Chicago suburbs?Hubbardaie (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Confidence interval
You wrote in a recent edit comment: "This entire section is in error and the examples are flawed. The random variable is about the measurement error and that suffices for randomness."

Would you care to expand on that by starting a new section on the article's talk page, as requested by the usage guidelines of one of the templates you added? I'm not at all clear what you mean by your second sentence above. Confidence interval could probably be expressed more clearly, but it's trying to explain why misinterpreting confidence intervals to mean e.g. "θ has 90% probability of being between 80.4 and 83.6" is incorrect. The fact that that's a misinterpretation is not controversial, though maybe it could be explained better. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I do agree that the article in general and this section in particular could do with more citations. Unfortunately I'm away from my textbooks at present – otherwise I'd try to find and add some myself. Qwfp (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comment on my talk page. Qwfp (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Applied information economics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Applied information economics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Applied information economics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ploni (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Re Comments at AfD
Hello Mr Hubbard -- You asked what objective standards articles on authors are held to. The most relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR, which states (among other things) that: This is usually fulfilled by at least two authored books, which have received a minimum of around four reliable independent full reviews, preferably from different sources. Academic publishers and national newspapers are considered reliable, blogs are not. Hope this helps. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors [this isn't easy to quantify] or
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique [again, difficult to prove] or
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews


 * Thank you. Yes, I saw that guideline, but it still lacks specifics.  I have written four books, and multiple articles including peer-reviewed journals.  The books and articles have, in total, been cited by other authors and researchers over 2000 times.  The books are used in multiple university courses at the undergraduate and graduate level and the first one is required reading for the Society of Actuaries exam prep.  By "objective standards" of "widely cited", I was looking for specific quantities.  800 citations was apparently enough to survive the first deletion nomination several years ago.  My number of books, articles, and citations have only increased since then.  This is easily verifiable by anyone with access to resources like ResearchGate.  If I provide these sources in the article myself, I suppose that would be a COI, but they are easily verifiable by anyone who looks.  What would be the appropriate way to show how all of these standards are met? 213.239.67.126 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to sign in. That comment was me. Hubbardaie (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)