User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A thoughtful researcher I admire

Thanks to all of you for the interesting conversations that occur here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's discuss how to improve as many of the 4,554,339 articles on Wikipedia as we can. Tips from Wikipedians on how to edit better, and on where to find resources for sourcing better edits, are always appreciated. I see other user talk pages have announcements about where each editor will reply to posts. Usually I will reply to your comments to me, posted here, right here on this page. I'll do my best to learn to follow to where you want me to read your posts, and where to reply to them, if you have a differing preference.

Please see my how I edit page for a detailed discussion of my approach to editing Wikipedia. Note that I am rigid and inflexible in respecting the core Wikipedia content guideline of respecting reliable secondary sources, so I read actual books and review articles rather than blogs or fringe websites when searching for information for updating Wikipedia articles. Experience has taught me that it is pointless to prefer the world of blogs for information in an era when academic libraries are woefully neglected. Professional academic librarians (who are severely underpaid, in my opinion) are well qualified to advise you on what sources are reliable and what sources are laughable in the opinion of thorough, thoughtful scholars. I should not be doing their work for you for no pay at all.

Please note. Somehow some editors have been disregarding the immediately preceding paragraph here, so let me be especially clear. I happen to work on pages that are subject to active arbitration remedies, and the related ArbCom case included site bans for some editors who have returned to Wikipedia as puppets. I cannot always be sure that comments posted to this page are posted by someone who had nothing to do with the case that triggered those remedies. Therefore I will make full use of my right to remove comments from my own user pages. "The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." I have the right to clean up my own user talk page and will do so. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we may as well remember that it's always hunting season for that kind of duck.

GOCE Invitation[edit]

Writing Magnifying.PNG

There are currently
2,266 articles in the backlog.
You can help us! Join the
September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles.

Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars
A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

November copy edit drive[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive!
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue.

Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page.

Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Awards and barnstars

A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page.

Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive!
The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Editing statement[edit]

Terrific statement; hope all is going well for you on Wikipedia. I tend to check and verify sources, too - especially to see if they are being used correctly. Parkwells (talk) 22:11, 22

GOCE March drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
Writing Magnifying.PNG

GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.

Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.

Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

You have a reply at Talk:Genius (eom)[edit]

You have a reply at Template talk:Human intelligence topics#Template redesign and move (eom)[edit]

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Michael A. Woodley - mainstream researcher?[edit]

Like in title, is M.A. Woodley a good researcher on topic of race and intelligence as well as psychometrics to cite for our articles? (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I read Woodley's articles, having lavish access to full-text journal articles, but I also read many, many better articles by other authors. More to the point, primary research articles in general are not good sources for Wikipedia editing in general by the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources, which says, in relevant part,

Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. ... Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

Moreover, the topic of human intelligence (and, for that matter, the topic of "race" in humankind) is largely a topic that needs to be sourced to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. That content guideline says, "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to 'debunk' or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, which are not a venue for open research." I have, alas, repeatedly seen articles on Wikipedia within the scope of the active arbitration remedies related to the topic of race and intelligence edited with too little regard for these important content guidelines, which are simply part of standard scholarly procedure for editing an encyclopedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and I am very familiar with reliable secondary sources on intelligence and reliably secondary sources on race from years of reading and writing about those topics with repeated visits to a huge academic library system at my alma mater university and extensive use of interlibrary loan services spanning an entire state of the United States. I take care to recommend to Wikipedians with intellectual curiosity and university-level reading ability sources that will show what the current scientific consensus is on contentious issues and what advanced textbooks and practitioner's handbooks record as established fact after multiple researchers have digested current research. I encourage you to read those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your painstakingly detailed response. I have a request for you, if it's not too much trouble, are there any papers that have been published in response to Woodley's paper? In particular, is there any response to a particular paper that Woodley published along with another individual by the name of Elijah Armstrong? If there are any, and you are able to link me to them, I will be truly grateful.

All the best. (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In your own words, why do you think this new paper is significant for editing any Wikipedia article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:28, 10 June determine)
I actually don't think as such, and that's what I want to determine, that whether these researchers are indeed mainstream or not, and I am humbly requesting your help since you have the means to find out as such. Other researchers I have come across, but am unsure of their view in the field include James Thompson and Gerhard Meisenberg. I cannot determine if these are researcher's whose views are mainstream, would you know about that? (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Any primary research scholar is mainstream to the degree, and only to the degree, that the scholar's primary research articles become reflected in standard, widely adopted textbooks and practitioner's handbooks and other reference books that are professionally edited for a learned readership. I'm about to buy a new book on IQ testing today, and I will check it and all the dozens of books I have at hand in my office as I continue to edit Wikipedia articles. In general, if I commit an edit to article space, it's because in my judgment there is no serious doubt that the factual statement I put in article space is a mainstream conclusion of scholars familiar with the relevant professional literature. (Correspondingly, if I remove statements from article text, that is to honor Wikipedia neutral point of view policy on giving due weight to varying points of view, and that is to reflect the sources.) I'll keep reading the writings of many scholars, both primary research articles and secondary sources of various kinds, as I make further edits to Wikipedia article text over the next several months and years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
So will you be able to report on whether the researchers that I referred to have been positively reviewed in secondary sources or negatively reviewed, or whatever else? Why I ask is because I am hearing about these hereditarian academics who seem very prolific but have no idea as per the validity and mainstream nature of their work, so I want to understand if they should be given any weight in articles. (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not an academic, but I've read some of the research by James Thompson along with people like Heiner Rindermann and found it riddled with motivated reasoning. These people look for data that will reinforce their prejudices while ignoring whatever doesn't. Then they present the data in a dishonest manner, sundered from all context and nuance, in an attempt to overwhelm their readers with spurious correlations.
I'll give one specific example, lest you think I'm trying to dismiss them unfairly, from Thompson, Rinderman, et al.
On the surface, this looks like a dispassionate scientific study. But read it carefully and you’ll find statements like this:
“Different from the SAS, Scandinavia reaches in the cognitive elite not such a good rank (11. Finland IQ 121, 12. Estonia IQ 121 [the Baltics are added here], 16. Sweden IQ 120, 25. Denmark IQ 118, 34. Latvia IQ 117, 38. Lithuania IQ 116, 39. Iceland IQ 116, 41. Norway IQ 116). Maybe a homogenizing educational policy furthering weaker but disadvantaging high ability pupils leads to a smaller standard deviation and lower values for a gifted subgroup. Better are the traditional Commonwealth countries”
In other words, Scandinavia performed worse than what their prejudices felt they should, so they invented an ad hoc environmental explanation for this (“homogenizing educational policy”). Weird how they don’t give other countries the benefit of the doubt.
And this:
“Kazakhstan seems to be too good in cognitive competence levels.”
In other words, the data do not confirm their prejudices.
And this:
“There are some anomalies in data like decreasing rates of patents in UK and Switzerland or years without patents in Norway (changed into missing values). Nobel Prizes also seem to be given with political considerations, e.g. there is a serious decline of Nobel Prizes for Germany starting with 1933 (Nobel Prizes are given for life’s work achievement and not for one single achievement in a current year); related to the population size persons from Sweden seem to receive a Nobel Prize more easily, US-Americans less easily”
What’s not an anomaly is the fact that these people obviously made up their minds beforehand and simply looked for data to give their prejudices the veneer of scientific objectivity, so they could strengthen their lame appeals to prejudice and parsimony. As I said, lots of this hereditarian research is loaded with motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. Once you look at ALL of the data impartially, not just the cherry-picked data from the hereditarians, you notice that the picture is far more complex than they paint it. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:58, 12 June 2014

Hi Weiji[edit]

Thanks for the link to your citation collection. The work you do with intelligent youth and all your contributions to wikipedia sound really interesting, and I'm glad that you're on board with the RUL project as well. I look forward to meeting you later this week. :) static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the project is off to a good start. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Weiji, any chance you could get around to expanding the Criticism section for Richard Lynn soon? I know you're familiar with the literature, and there's much more that could be added. I'm tired of encountering people who insist Lynn is an impartial and sound scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There is always more to do on Wikipedia, and that isn't my highest-priority project, by far (nor is that exactly how I would characterize how I would edit Wikipedia article content about Professor Lynn), but there are of course many sources about Lynn's life and work--pro and con--that are underused on Wikipedia, and as I increase my posting to Wikipedia article space more and more references to the reading I've been doing for more than two decades about human intelligence and behavior genetics, gradually a more balanced view of several of the more prominent current scholars on those topics will emerge. Do you have any particular sources to recommend? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic 2014 - Minnesota[edit]

Can you update Wikipedia:Meetup/Minnesota#2014 with provisional details, I guess for Como and July 6, so that we can properly schedule this on the national WP:Wiknic page.?--Pharos (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2014

Done. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you for your boldness.--Pharos (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WHOA!!!! that was fast!!!!!!![edit]

Thanks for helping me with that. (UT--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)you put pictures uphow do 'Bold text'''Italic text'''Bold text'--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)Italic text--Kleinzahnfischotter (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 17 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Duke TiP[edit]

I'll stop changing this, but honestly, I think it would be wiser to say 'southeast,' as some peoe take offense to the 'southern stereotypes' that exist in our country. Just because someone is from GA, for exams, doesn't mean that they are a 'southern' redneck or whatever. I'll stop changing the page, but those are my two cents. Also, why haven't you changed the caption of the photo? Look around. You shall see what I mean.

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a look. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I'm glad you understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgs17 (talkcontribs) 05:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


I reversed you comment again on basis of negative bias, and furthermore it says the same thing in the reviews. You furthermore havent debated the idea of adding it. DavidJac123 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I note for the record that the article lede is usually meant to summarize the article, and that the article has to reflect the several negative reviews the book has received to fit the Wikipedia core policy on neutral point of view. You and I don't get to make articles say what we want them to say, but only what the reliable sources say. I wish you well in learning how to create new sections on user talk pages, and I recommend that you read widely in reliable sources on the topic you are interested in for in-depth understanding of the issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Race and genetics[edit]

Dear WeijiBaikeBianji, it was kind of you to regarble the sentence because the previous word appears to you to be sourced. However, the sentence does not make sense "Different clines align around the different centers, resulting in more complex variations than those observed comparing continental groups." neither in the context of the header nor as a stand-alone statement. Maybe you'd be kind enough to translate it into English, and explain what continental groups are and how they relate to the different centers if you understand what the sourced sentence is trying to tell the reader.Barefact (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I read a lot of literature on this topic, and I'm sure what is meant there in the lede (and this should be clear from the cited sources in the body of the article) is that some scholars have supposed that "races" cluster by continents of origin, with Africans being systematically different from Europeans, and both different from Asians. In fact, what is observed (and, again, there are sources already cited in the article, although there should be more) is that local populations have a genetic resemblance to nearby local populations, even on different continents (e.g., across the Mediterranean Sea, or across the Red Sea) and somewhat less resemblance (within the overall human population framework of all of us being very closely related) to local populations far away on the same continent. That is what "clinal" variation is--variation that increases gradually, rather than abruptly, as distance increases. As the article points out in the immediate context, local geographical barriers like mountain ranges and rivers or deserts can matter, as can linguistic groupings as well. I think, based on your contribution history, which I looked up after my edit, that you would enjoy reading the bibliography Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, which I am planning to update later today. There is a lot of good research going on today about the inadequacy of the continental groupings of human populations to explain the observed population structure for Homo sapiens. Your point is well taken that that sentence could be a lot more clear, and indeed I have that article on my watchlist because it is in dire need of a top-to-bottom rewrite. (P.S. What's your native language? I used to have an interest in studying some languages from central Asia, but I ran out of time after I became absorbed in studying Chinese.) See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Related to previous edits[edit]

Hey Weiji, I have had a chance to look at your collections of resources related to race, intelligence, and genetics. I am leaving this message as a token of appreciation and as thanks for the good work you are doing in your research. It seems that the edits I had made earlier and ones I planned were problematic and based on a myopic reading of otherwise excellent mainstream sources. In the future I will make sure to use your excellent resources if I think I should make an edit on articles related to contentious topics of race and human intelligence, or if you don't mind, run my edits through you or other editors who frequently edit such articles. Once again, thanks. (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

An SPI you may be interested in[edit]

I reported DavidJac and our numerous IP friends here. Let us see what comes of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Library Interns[edit]

Hey User:WeijiBaikeBianji: I was very excited to discover Wikipedia:GLAM/Rutgers and thought I would point you to Our new Library Interns resource page. If you have access to a student hire/intern, it would be great to get them involved in it! Sadads (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Does mental retardation prevent carrying out the death penalty in the US?[edit]

You might correctly say that mental retardation is supposed to prevent carrying out the death penalty, and should prevent that, but, as an example, the state of Texas executed a mentally retarded man in 2012. See The statement in the Wikipedia article Flynn Effect currently says that "... in the United States a diagnosis of intellectual disability prevents execution." But as we see from the Texas case, it did not actually prevent execution. Therefore my edit ought to be restored. Dratman (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write the previous sentence (and wouldn't have written it that way), but I can rewrite the article text per what the current Supreme Court holding is. The term "mentally retarded" is now obsolete, as the relevant Wikipedia article was updated this year to reflect. Thanks for pointing to the news link (from the notoriously unreliable Russia Today, but I'll read the link anyway to see what it says). See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)