User talk:Polymath9636

September 2018
I reverted your edit to Educational technology as it appears to contain original research based on primary sources. If you can find some secondary sources, preferably high quality ones (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles or books), feel free to add the information back to the article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am new to this so I am not even sure what I write will get to you. Are you saying that a secondary source is Better than a Primary Source?  I have never heard of that logic.  But for example, how can there be a secondary source to the fact that IBM wrote contracts for online learning writes.   They have copies as do the authors, but who publishes articles in peer reviewed or any other kind of journal about who writes what kind of publpishing contacts.  I actuall have copies of these contracts in my old files.  Meanwhile, their existance clearly shows that that existing article is incorrect about the first use of on line learning.  I was invited be IBM and Ernst Rothkopf to provide some advice on their effort and I personally witnessed the online learning well before the Supes example that is stated as the earliest in the article.  Moreover I personally observed two other online learning experiments before the Supes effort, but I need some time to see if I can get the details and times right, so I only included what I know to be true about the Rothkopf without more reseach


 * to further get back to the Rothkp[f work that is not in the existing articles. I personally wrote a letter to Rothkopf congratulating him on the demonstration I had observed the previous day, but I also made several suggestions on how better the computer can implement programmed pedagogical sequences.  This also went to his IBM supervisor and I am sure are still in the files including the justification of getting the subjects and scheduling the computer time which at that time was very expensive.  So I have no idea where to go from here as the existing article is absolutely wrong and I knew several witnesses still alive who can attest to that.  I thought Wikipedia was  primarily interested in truth and accuracy.  If some one, inadvertently, published a serious paper in which the fact that this was the first or later example had little or nothing to do with the subject and the author had no historical or sequential bonafides and that was a secondary resource becomes the highest level of truth seems silly.


 * I was thinking of writing some articles where there are holes in Wikipedia and in some of these they are at the cutting edge of mathematics and computer algorithm production, but these will not be in secondary research for months if at all. I use a set of algorithms for a project where not a single one has been published as a secondary peer reviewed article.  They have all been exchanged in e-mails, primary research notes, and most are exchanged at meetups and scientific meetings.  I gave such a presentation just last week and shared a new computer programming.  Other than the  approach to thousands of Federal Government computer engineers a few of whom are using it already..


 * So what do I cite if I do am article about these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymath9636 (talk • contribs) 19:25, September 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * First, it would be helpful if you would sign your posts. All you have to do is type four tilde symbols (" ~ ") and the software will automatically insert your username and a date/time stamp when you save the edit.
 * Second, I recommend you review our policy regarding reliable sources. I think that will answer many of your questions.  In brief, because we're a large community of strangers and we have no way of testing the credibility and knowledge of editors we rely exclusively on reliable, high quality sources.  To ensure that topics are of lasting interest and importance, we also try to avoid primary sources and use secondary or tertiary sources.  That also helps us avoid relying on editors having to interpret primary sources which is often quite tricky for non-specialists.
 * Does that help? I know that this is kind of a weird place with unusual policies and practices but writing an encyclopedia is complex and writing it with a massive group of diverse people who don't know one another is even more complex! ElKevbo (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I will certainly try to do the 4 tilde bit although in the websites we create we automatically know th identity and time stamp of every access to the site, so the manual sign in seems redundant but I am sure that you have good reasons for this. I will try and work within the primary secondary guidelines but I must confess that I have a mild distrust for the system that I know has inaccurate information because of some bureaucratic view of sources.

Regarding your edits to Arthur Koestler
Wikipedia articles are never appropriate sources on Wikipedia. Aside from the fact that Wikipedia is a user-generated source (not professionally-published), there's also the potential problem of circular sourcing (which is why we usually do not allow sources that cite Wikipedia, either).

Also, you do not sign your edits to articles. Talk pages and such, yes, but not articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And regarding your edits to March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and Educational technology -- you need to cite published sources. That's the biggest problem with the primary sources you've been citing, they're documents that almost no one has access to, not even theoretical access.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see that you added the material to Worm Runner's Digest that you were citing in Arthur Koestler. That's exactly the sort of thing that WP:CIRCULAR discourages. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment). In any case, the source needs to be published in some way that is at least theoretically accessible by a significant number of editors.
 * Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. This is intentional.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)