User talk:Bapopik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] your recent edits
 |
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! You recently added an external link to a blog in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information. |
(also, this is obviously YOUR blog as you share the same domain name. this is a faux-pas on wikipedia: it is impossible to honor NPOV when this is the case. sorry.) JoeSmack Talk 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Barry. The reason I reverted your link was a) because it was a blog and not a more reliable source, like say, a peer reviewed journal or historical document, which are far more empirical and reputable (verifiable, objective, etc). b) is that the web link you provided was barrypopik.com while your user name is Bapopik. I think I presumed correctly that you are affiliated with the source in question, which runs into a conflict of interest. As you might imagine, people the world over love to use wikipedia to promote themselves in one way or another - and I'm not saying thats you - but it means we have to keep a no-exceptions-policy on content of this nature being added to wikipedia; it just can't be held in a neutral point-of-view, a pillar wikipedia is founded on. If you have a more primary source other than your website (and by your pedigree I'm guessing you do), that would be perfectly fine to cite and add such information. Any other questions, feel free to contact me. (WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:5P). JoeSmack Talk 18:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and the original research-policy sums up more of this situation too. JoeSmack Talk 18:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- And again, more info, pulled directly from the original research policy, which I think is the most poignant:
Citing oneself: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.
-
- I still don't know what Wikipedia article you're referring to. My website is a collection of historical citations. They were found by me, analyzed by me, and usually peer-reviewed by other scholars. Again, other people have credited me, and it is insane that I cannot credit myself for my work.Barry
-
-
- If you cite the historical citations instead of your own work (far more WP:NPOV) then it would be fine. The links on wikipedia to your website/blog (you can see all of them here: [1] - kinda neat feature) should actually probably be substituted with more primary/reliable sources than a webpage in a similar manner. Again, for crediting yourself, see the policy on neutral point-of-view, conflict of interest and original research and I think you'll find the answer. If you'd like in depth questions about the policies, their respective talk pages are an excellent place for this too. Hope I've helped! JoeSmack Talk 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
-
No, you haven't helped at all. You've discouraged me from editing the Wikipedia, and hundreds of entries on food and drink and slang (all my specialties, where my scholarly expertise is well known) remain incorrect and incomplete.
For example, Paul McFedries does a website called "Word Spy." It's cited on Wikipedia 128 times. His site is not "peer reviewed," but few doubt that it's a good source for new words. The same is the case for Grant Barrett and Double Tongued Word Wrester. Are you saying that it's OK for other people to cite Word Spy and DTTW, but McFedries and Barrett can't do that themselves, even though they're recognized scholars? Yes, I guess that's exactly what you're saying. Or you're saying that they should condense their work into the Wikipedia (for free, without credit) and just give selected historical citations from their websites, not the full story? Either way, it makes no sense and you have not helped anyone at all. Barry
Ok, listen. I'm not here to be a bad guy. I'm not a cop. I'm not some guy sitting in an ivory tower on a throne. I have just as much power, authority and whatever as you and everyone else. I'm just trying to help keep 1.5+ million articles from being full of spam, unencyclopedic, and other nefarious links. Sometimes people get reeeeally upset that their links don't conform to the WP:EL policy, and I can understand that. I'm not trying to piss anyone off or keep their stuff away from wikipedia because of some stupid reason - it's just policy. I'm just as frustrated as you.
I'm not saying anyone else's links couldn't be wrong and getting away with it. I'm not saying that you aren't an expert historian/etymologist/philologist (I read a lot of the site, interesting stuff). All I'm saying, is that if you can link to the primary sources (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:V) as opposed to your website (WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:EL) it would be best. I won't intervene any further, because I've told you all there is to know about the situation, and I trust you. Really.
I'm sorry I haven't been helpful, but you can still contact me with questions or what have you on my talk page any time. JoeSmack Talk 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you an example. You took off my work on "Sloppy Joe." The "Sloppy Joe" entry sucks. There are two links--to unreliable, commercial sites. That's great? That can stay?
I had posted my "sloppy joe" work to the American Dialect Society and my Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink colleagues, and you know what? I was wrong--"sloppy joe" is cited in 1940 and I had 1941. So I corrected my work. But it's not going to appear anytime soon on Wikipedia, because that would be self-promotion?
Again, thanks a lot for de-linking my work and leaving the commercial sites. I'm a penniless food scholar, and you sure made things better, didn't you? Barry
