Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 10

Expert editors

 * This is a continuation of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive9.

As a practical matter, the proposed rule change (which has been frozen in its changed form) recommends that every expert citing his own published work should check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so. This change is very much against the long-term wikipedia tradition and will seriously discourage experts from contributing. I favor the old guideline, which reads:


 * No, it does not. I defiy you to find the passage in the policy which insists that an expert citing his (or her) own published work "check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so."  The current wording is simply a caution and a suggestion, there is NO prohibition, moreover the vanity guidelines are pretty vague and general too. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the obvious hyperbolie. The issue is not the guidelines,  it is the potential abuse of the guidelines.  I was the victim of an admin asserting the vanity guidelines against me because I had cited my own publications.  This was in order to justify his deleting or reverting all my postings elsewhere on Wiki,  apparently for crossing him.   Difficult to beleive and totally against the rules,  but it happened.   He stopped when I cited the present rule allowing me to do this.  His next step was to come over here and propose the rule be changed. Pproctor 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think we need to tread carefully here, that is all. There really should be no obstacle to experts adding citations to their own research when appropriate.  I agree fully on this. However, there really have been abuses of the wiki nature of the project and vanity projects is an issue.  I think we need to say something about it, and I think it needs to be short and clear.  Perhaps the wording can be improved.  I think the key is to keep it short and sweet: all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor.  Expert contributors however should not however abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works.  Isn´t this fair? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The traditional guideline listed below makes this essentially impossible. First,  any citations of ones own work must be completely at arms length and subject to all the usual restrictions.   So any "vanity" effects would be minor, at best.   A legal maxim goes "The law does not concern itself with trivialities",  except on Wikipedia,  naturally.


 * Further, in the real world, the anonymity of Wikipedia makes this rule doubly impossible to enforce,  except if some expert is dumb enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity.  It is also against a fundamental policy to demand a person on Wikipedia to ID themthelves.  In fact,  as far as I can tell,  there is nobody here that this rule would have the slightest effect on, except myself.  I welcome further examples.   Furtherance of personal feuds in not a very good reason for changing a basic Wikipedia guideline in a way that will only further discourage participation of those "skilled in the art". Pproctor 13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

- "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the  third person and complying with our  NPOV policy.
 * == Expert editors ==

What does eveyone else think? Pproctor 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I think we should probably tackle one can'o'worms at a time. Jon Awbrey 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For comparison, the proposed change is to add the sentence: "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." I don't agree with Pproctor's characterization of the change, but nevertheless I think the suggestion that experts take the matter to the talk page is too strong. I suggest something like rewording it to "&hellip; it may be better in some cases to suggest &hellip;", or "Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that something would be helpful along those lines, primarily to ensure that what's being added really is relevant, as well as carefully written and cited. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problems with changing the existing WS:NPOV policy are manifold. First, technical experts are not going to follow the changed guideline, should it go thru.  Nor,  with anonymous postings,  etc. do they need too.   That is, this change in the guidelines makes Wikipedia even more uninviting to the very people it needs (on technical issues anyway), without having much practical effect.


 * "Elitist"? There is an occasional need for technical expertise--I sure want a neurosurgeon to do my brain surgery.  Second,  even if experts were willing to vet their research publications with the vanity police,  how is anyone to judge?  Not even another person with the same expertise could make this kind of judgement about ideological purity.   This is opening a can of worms.  Remember,  the guidelines are just that, guidelines.


 * Further, this change allows a lowest-common-denominator veto on a very subjective issue.  Larry Sanger warned about this and how it damages the credibility of Wikipedia.


 * Technical experts put up with a lot here as it is. Having one's judgement questioned by anonymous strangers can be an interesting exercise, having one's motives questioned is quite another matter.  One reason for the extreme variation in the quality of Wikipedia entries is that experts go where they are welcome and sheer away where they are not. Pproctor 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One's motives are usually identifiable from one's behaviour. If one writes articles about all of one's coworkers, citing papers jointly written with them, but fails to contribute anything else, then that is suspect. If one further goes on to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize, WP:AGF is stretched to say the least. When one adds WP:SPAM to advertise one's baldness treatments...

Herein lies the problem; policy should be worded so that it is (1) not contradictory and so that (2) trolls cannot WP:LAWYER them. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc.  E.g.,  one John McGinness is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device,  among other things.  More recent examples include the color display in your phone.   If that is not "notable",  then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put a delete petition on it.
 * It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc.  E.g.,  one John McGinness is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device,  among other things.  More recent examples include the color display in your phone.   If that is not "notable",  then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put a delete petition on it.


 * I am currently a physician in private practice. I do not understand how posting a biography of the person who essentially invented the "plastic transistor" benefits me in any way, just because I am coauthor on some old papers with him from when I was a grad student.  The original developer of the PC is now also a private physician-- would it also be "vanity" for him to post a biography of his computor geek buddies from the 1970's?  That was then,  this is now.


 * Similarly, it was attempting to post to the bio page of a more casual aquaintance from the '70's Raymond Damadian that got me into this tussle with Dunc.  What I saw and heard from Dr. Damadian did not exactly correspond to Dunc's ideas.  BTW,  I before I get a WP:NOR cite,  there is a limited license to use personal communications from the subject of a bio,  which this was. I suppose Dunc will also now try to get this guideline changed. Pproctor 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may continue Dunc's statement, … and so that (3) the policy does not have a chilling effect on worthwhile contributions. --Gerry Ashton 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pproctor, I know quite a number of expert (in the Wikipedia sense) editors in maths and physics, some of whom go by their real name, including myself. In my experience, they all understand that citing their own work will be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion, the extra sentence merely conveys that practice. Most experts are naturally reluctant to cite their own work and vanity guidelines are not necessary for them, but (again from my own experience) the extra scrutiny is unfortunately needed in some cases (this is not meant as a comment on your conflict with Dunc, which I haven't looked into). I don't know what prompted your comments of "elitism" or a "lowest-common-denominator veto".


 * The old issue. Who shall guard the guardians?  You all are lucky you did not cross someone like Dunc.   I edited on Wiki for years,  without problems.  I revealed my name,  as do many.   I also made the horrible mistake of tussling on a controversial issue with Dunc,  who continually expresses his strong "antielitist" prejudices and who shows no particular tendency to adhere to the posted guidelines,  even after an admonition.   Such have have and will misuse this rule to pursue their own adjendas.  Wikipedia is not antielitist,  it is neutral,  as the rules should be.


 * To summararize the situation again, after I abandoned the field and fled, Dunc vindicatively continued a dispute on one page Raymond Damadian by systematically deleting my postings on other pages. This was under the excuse that citing my own work,  published in major journals, was a violation of the vanity guidelines.    I had done this in good faith under the present rule,  which Dunc now attempts to change.  BTW,  even had my posting not been "legal",  the way he did this (no discussion on talk pages,  etc.) is totally against the guidelines.   The problem is,  when you micromanage this way,  you open the door to more stuff like this.   This is because the issue, "vanity", is so totally subjective.   And with out any possible gain,  since the Wikipedia rules guarantee anonymity. Pproctor 15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunc, as I said before, I'm not happy with the sentence you added:
 * "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
 * What do you think about
 * "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better in some cases for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
 * or
 * "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind. Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead."
 * Same question for you, Slrubenstein. Of course, anybody is most welcome to propose other formulations.
 * PS added after I got an edit conflict with Gerry: Of course, and I consider some parts of the vanity guidelines as rather bad in this respect. But they do exist, they are obviously related to this section of WP:NOR, which makes it naturally to refer to them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like Jitse Niesen I am a self-identified academic so this issue relates to me too. I have no problem at all with the current wording, except that, well, it is a little wordy.  What I wrote above still represents my best attempt to state the issue concisely: "all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor.  Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works."  I think either iof Jitse´s two alternative suggestions would follow nicely from the preceeding.  Anyway, in general I support what Jitse wrote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:
 * Expert editors may find it difficult to judge whether citing their own work would lead to overemphais of one subtopic within the article, and should seek advise on the talk page if in doubt.
 * --Gerry Ashton 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I somehow missed that the text that Slrubenstein repeats just above here was meant as a proposed text for the policy page. I actually prefer that text above my proposal. I also agree that the current text is rather wordy. For instance, it says three times that contributions of experts should be verifiable. So, perhaps we should use the occasion to cut down on words. Therefore

I've no problems with Gerry's text, and I'm quite happy to have it instead of the last line in my proposed text, but what I like about Slrubenstein's text is that it gives a fair warning about the "vanity police". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest one more addition, which the above tacitly assumes,  but should be restated,  so there is no question.  This is that:

Pproctor 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The standard of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. Editors disputing expert contributions must also adhere to Verifiability, vandalism,Reliable Sources, Neutral Point of View, No original research,WK:AGF, and all other guidelines."


 * If I recall correctly, the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" does not appear anywhere in any of the policies or guidelines mentioned by Pproctor. Adding a new standard for inclusion or removal (I'm not sure which Pproctor had in mind) that only applies to contributions from expert editors would be unwise. --Gerry Ashton 23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Vanity" is completely subjective, undefined and open to abuse. If it can be abused (say) to bully an expert, it will be and (in violation of the present rule) has been. So it is reasonable that some standard be set. Clear and convincing is a reasonable one, but ths is naturally open for suggestions. OTOH, WP:NPOV etc. (as in the present rule) can be more easily established by (e.g) countercites. Pproctor 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: By way of cutting to the crux of the above discussion, I think that a couple of definitions might pave the way: JA: I hope that clears a few things up. Jon Awbrey 01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Elitist.  Someone who has spent a couple of decades in the study of a given subject, and is so arrogant or deluded as to think that counts for a hill'o'beans in WP.
 * 2) Expert.  Someone who has spent a couple of years hanging about WP and uses administrative privileges as a tactical nucular ex cathedra dictum to push a personally favored POV.

JA: Moral? Don't Be A Dictum. Jon Awbrey 01:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal: In place of "expert editors", we should title the section "Pointy headed-intellectual editors". Pproctor 02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that the easy way around the proposed "vanity" restriction is for expert editors to post anonymously or not reveal their identities. Then then could freely post their own properly-cited work without being harassed by cerain editors. If they go on "to violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and insists that one deserves a Nobel Prize", as Dunc suggests, ther editors would edit those comments out as they would any another objetcionable post. Why would we want to make a rule that can so very easily be circumvented? Does anyone know who I am? Of course not. But then, I'm not an expert in anything, just some guy who likes to write about the few things that I do know about. I think that we should welcome those add properly cited published material -- which is sorely lacking on Wikipedia -- even if it is their own work. Ground Zero | t 10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the eminently good sense of Ground Zero's comment. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The rule change is easily circumvented by staying anonymous.  As long as WK:NPOV and WK:NOR are held too,  nobody would know if an editor is self-citing.  So why is a clearly-organized group of editors so virulent about imposing it?  Makes one wonder about hidden agendas or maybe they are so mad about being challenged that they have abandoned perspective. Pproctor 20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we still have any conflicts over this one section?
Here is the current section in the current version:
 * "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.


 * If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.

What are the remaining objections to this text, and what are the suggsted alternatives? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: On the rule of 1COW@t0 ("one can'o'worms at a time"), I haven't really looked at this section yet. My general take on questions like this is guardedly conservative (conservationist? conservatorial?) in the sense that we ought to start with SAPs (standards and practices) that are already present in the Real World, and carefully consider any temptation to deviate from that, as those SAPs are likely to be far more sapient than we might guess at first. Jon Awbrey 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: '''Problem 1. "Knowledge" not verifiable here.''' On beginning my scan, the 1st problem I see is with the qualification:  "as long as their knowledge is verifiable". This is far too broad. WP users cannot require that any Person's "knowledge" be verifiable. WP is prohibited by its founding policies from policing persons at all. WP users can only make efforts to verify statements that are added to pages. Jon Awbrey 16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Solution: change to " as long as their knowledge is published in an already existing verifiable source." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Solution2: change to " as long as their statements are published in an already existing verifiable source." Wjhonson 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The problems are (1) the word "their", whose antecedent is "persons", and (2) the word "knowledge". To put it idiomatically, WP has no truck with either. WP simply has no way to verify anything as real and big as "personal knowledge". WP policy can require of IP-sources of texts nothing more than the verifiability of statements in them, and WP editors can check nothing more than this. References to Person and Knowledge are out of bounds for WP policy. Jon Awbrey 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine me. I'm not finding the objections compelling or meaningful. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, this is not the "current version" but a rather modified version of the long-term policy that was posted without discussion and then got frozen before anyone could change it back.  Nice try,  though. The Real "current version" reads:
 * == Expert editors ==
 * - "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Wikipedia can  cite that source while writing in the  third person and complying with our  NPOV policy."
 * Similarly, why change a long-term policy guideline when it has works just fine. The initiator of the proposed change wants the change merely because the existing rule prevents him from harassing another editor in a personal feud. And yes, I originally "assumed good faith". Which is why I gave my real name and thus opened myself up to harassment from Dunc. Pproctor 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I didn't get the program for this one, so I can't really tell the home team from the visitors, nor do I care to know. But it should be clear that the case of "knowledge" is exactly parallel to the case of "truth", neither of which words are legit to use in these policies. Just as a practical matter, it would be a mistake for WP policy to let itself be entangled and paralyzed by the tricky wikits of epistemology and personal identity. Jon Awbrey 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe dealing adequately with Jon Awbrey's concerns will not change the meaning of the policy in the slightest, but will merely make it more clear by talking about what the policy is about (the content of Wikipedia) rather than other related things (whether the contributor is an expert or not, what is or is not his "knowledge") that have no need to be brought up (but were because of the context that created the original concerns). Jon Awbrey's concerns are not that of a troll seeking pointless changes but that of a philosopher and scholar who contributes to philosophy related articles, some of which require quotes from primary sources to clarify key points because secondary sources are out of date with regard to recently published papers or are lacking due to a lack of interest or other reasons. I also use primary sources in my H5N1 contributions. I prefer CIDRAP, CDC, and WHO but they don't always include details an encyclopedia should have; instead they sometimes concentrate on what a newspaper would cover. I have no intention of waiting for Britannica to cover it. WAS 4.250 22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Why micromanage a WP:NOR policy guideline for "Expert editors" which works and which has generated no previous problems?  "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and  "The Best is the Enemy of the Good".  Pproctor 00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Style problems: what Jon said ("their knowledge is verifiable" should be "their contributions is verifiable"), and what Slrubenstein said (it's repetitive in that it says three times that it should be verifiable). Point of order: What Pproctor said (A policy should not be changed as Dunc did without consensus, and it's not clear that there is a consensus here). Most importantly, the content. I don't agree with "it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes". Sure, that's better in some cases, but in other cases nobody is really watching the talk page and it's better to be bold and add references to yourself. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly.  Occasionally reality intrudes.  Look how many entries have nothing on the talk page or no talk page at all.  Even on fairly busy talk pages,  there may be months between posts.


 * If an "expert" overcites himself, that is best handled under WK:NPOV  and not under "Vanity", which is too subjective.  Similarly, unlike WK:NPOV and everythig else on Wikipedia,  "vanity" can be argued just by assertion and is thus an anomaly.  Also,  "vanity" seems to be aimed at more extreme and clear cases of spamming.   The best thing is to just simply restore the original guideline when the page gets unfrozen. Pproctor 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the interest of moving forward, I proposed an alternative text in my 26 Aug edit in, which addresses all my concerns and, in my opinion, does not change the policy. However, it's a fairly big change for such a well-established policy and it hasn't received much support, so I suppose it's not going to happen. Hence, what I intend to do is to revert the Expert editors section (and that section alone) to the status quo ante, which I take to be 20:45, 18 Aug. That revision has stood for a couple of months, it seems. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed alternative wording for Citing oneself section
A number of people have made reasonable objections to the current wording in the Citing oneself oneself section. For the record, I strongly prefer the version that Jitse Niesen proposed above. To repeat it here (with a couple of punctuation corrections, and one parenthetical clarification):


 * "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions are verifiable (not based on unpublished work). All sources which are appropriate in view of Wikipedia's policies (like Reliable sources and Neutral point of view) should be cited, even if written by a Wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Wikipedia, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works.

This sounds the appropriate notes of caution while not going overboard (and I think that recommending self-citations to go in Talk is overboard), and does not substantively change the policy. As an added benefit, it is shorter. Do others agree? —Steven G. Johnson 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. WAS 4.250 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uniquely for Wikipedia, the "vanity" guidelines are entirely subjective and open-ended. "I know it when I see it".  NPOV and NOR at least require something besides "Personal Opinion",  which is otherwise anathema on Wikipedia as "original research".  Hopefully,  you-all can see the paradox.  Further,  nobody seems to have come up with a single instance where the present rule has not proved adequate. Just restore it.  "The best is the enemy of the good". Pproctor 14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with reverting to the version before the "self-citations in talk" recommendation was added, either. Do you agree that both the old wording, and the above suggestion, are better than the present wording?  —Steven G. Johnson 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this. You absolutely need to cross-reference WP:VAIN, and the suggestion of taking it to talk should also be made, though I can understand making it as a suggestion rather than a requirement. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to WP:VAIN; that's an easy fix. As several people have pointed out, a general recommendation that self-citations go into Talk is impractical, imposes a pointless burden on expert editors who choose to contribute under their real names, and is completely ignored in practice.  I'm curious to see how many other editors agree with you that such a suggestion is useful.  —Steven G. Johnson 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a very common failing for authorities to attack sins by attacking things associated with them. But this is wrong. It is 'guilt by association.' Wikipedia's founder, for all his and its good qualities, has made the same mistake with the NOR policy, and the rest of you are merely led. --londheart 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please stay on-topic?  —Steven G. Johnson


 * You really seem to sound as tho you see no connection. All I can prescribe is rest, contemplation, and coming back to it when you are in a more appropriate frame of mind. --londheart 19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On where to state self-reference, I disagree. I think wikiquette requires it (though others may disagree), especially in marginal cases. Also I think self-citation is so rare that any restriction on it would have little practical effect. Rules should be made so that trolls can't wikilawyer with them, so giving them a completely free hand to self-cite is IMHO a recipe for trouble. Don't make the "go to talk" cast-iron policy (as it is unworkable), but make it atleast a mild suggestion, and particularly if the citation is opposed. It probably needs to cross-reference WP:RS as well, as someone's paper in Science may be more notable than an essay on their website. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Any opposed citation will obviously be discussed in talk, just like every other controversial change to an article. We don't need a special rule for this.  And self citation is almost inevitable for any expert writing extensively on topics in his/her own field of expertise, which presumably we want to encourage.  As for wikilawyering, that cuts both ways; as someone pointed out above, the current wording encourages trolls to go around deleting the contributions of experts writing about their own fields, without forcing them to justify themselves with specific objections.  Ultimately, I've dealt with plenty of trolls, and there is no wording of the policy that they will not abuse&mdash;Wikipedia policies depend on interpretation by reasonable editors who can outweigh the trolls.  The problem with the current wording is that it actively discourages expert contributions, not trolls.  —Steven G. Johnson 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)