User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Closeness to colleagues

Hi MrOllie assuming Astor's reference is okay will I encourage Ireland to do something of a similar quality? He told me it would be months before he can get a paper out on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd Unctious (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:COI. You shouldn't be posting about Ireland, and if you encourage him to write something we should not use it on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the title of our discussion. The rules you are using are not definitive on what constitutes a colleague. If I replace the citations you deleted can they be Hassall et al., Newton or Davis. I've previously put links to their work and I see they are still there. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So, I can see you are happy with the edits I've made so far. Most of the time you have left the information intact. I'm sure you'll agree that it is important that we do support the information on Wikipedia with reliable sources; you have said as much in the documentation you shared yesterday. Are you going to replace yourself, do you intend to delete any remaining unsupported information or are you happy for me to continue adding scholarly sources such as Prof Hassall et al or Prof Davis where suitable? I don't want to waste the time of either of us.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not reviewed your latest edits, I may or may not be happy with them when I get around to doing so. MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see. Why would you be unhappy with them may I ask? I don't think you'll find journalists researching and writing about these topics. You are only likely to find them written by academics writing in peer-reviewed journals. As you will note from the documentation you shared, this is the standard we should be trying to attain here on Wikipedia.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea, since I haven't looked at them. I don't really care to speculate. MrOllie (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I've also reinstated some information you deleted with a new citation. It would be useful if you could take a look. We are going to be working in German for the next hour or do you do any work on there or can you suggest someone to reach out to? Todd Unctious (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I've searched for alternative verification of some of the information that no longer has a suitable citation but in vain; others I've found and edited in and remain, while others, which I've found from suitably distant colleagues, I don't have time to edit today. I asked above about the issue of information you have left without a citation but you have not responded. This is a specific question to you. Are you going to leave the information with no citation? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice; I don't want to take up too much of you time. Thank you in advance for your response. Todd Unctious (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing the previous comment. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I need to encourage someone to write about it. What can we do? Is the Astor Zhao one okay? Todd Unctious (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, it is also a blog. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, we lag behind the cutting edge on purpose. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Wait for someone completely unrelated to you to write about it of their own volition. MrOllie (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I just called him he says he can get a World of Science indexed paper on it out by around May. I told him not to ask me to post it but to speak to you about what to do. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What to do is nothing - this kind of thing runs counter to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please take some time to review Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:NOR, WP:COI, and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia isn't a venue to get the word out about the latest developments or to include your latest papers. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Really? I'll be honest with you. That is going to be a difficult thing to keep the lid on. While the publishers have Wikipedia in the journal metrics Universities are insisting that academics cite on Wikipedia. I know because I've attended workshops on it. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a huge problem. Everyone who is doing this is actually violating Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then you need to speak to the publishers about not including Wikipedia in the metrics. It's on an industrial scale. It used to be Linkedin but that is now out of most metrics. Now Wikipedia is without doubt top of the agenda when I attend research promotion workshops. I'm sure the only way you are going to solve the problem is by asking the publishers to stop. And what probably makes it worse for Wikipedia is that Twitter is another big one they use and we all know what's happening there.Todd Unctious (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand people are trying to change such things, but it is much like asking google to modify their search rankings to combat link spam - there is always going to be some motive or another for people or institutions to exploit and/or pollute common resources for personal gains. Tragedy of the commons. - MrOllie (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, but I am sure that if, for example, Wikipedia had a way of stopping Altmetric or PlumX using it then things would improve dramatically. You know there are teams working almost full-time on translating Wikipedia pages (not in any place I've worked I should add). Every time a Wikipedia article is translated it adds an extra count to metrics. As things stand any institution acting ethically in Wikipedia's eyes will definitely lose funding. Todd Unctious (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just on a break here and I've reread this. Are you saying that newspaper references are not acceptable? If so, there isn't going to be much left of the ChatGPT page once the newspaper entries have all been deleted. If Wikipedia "lags behind the cutting edge" then having been through and assessed it, very little should be left of the page. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, reliably published journalism is fine. Please read the policy links I gave earlier. MrOllie (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I have and in academia we class journalism as grey literature while peer-reviewed articles are definitely a much higher standard despite the unreliability of the peer-review process. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll find that standards on Wikipedia are very different from what you're used to in academia. MrOllie (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that but the documentation you have linked to seems to contradict what you are saying here. If you read what you have above it contradicts what is happening on the page itself. If you can't see that that is the case then no worries we can leave it there for now. I do fear you are fighting a losing battle though. Todd Unctious (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect, my user talk page isn't really the place to ask your general questions about how Wikipedia works. I suggest you look at WP:TEAHOUSE for that. MrOllie (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking general questions. I am however questioning your interpretation of the very documentation you are using to support the 'reliable journalism' that hold in such high esteem Todd Unctious (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Design-Build

Hello MrOllie,

I'm a hands on, in the field, boots on the ground construction guy. Who better to add an update to the Design-Build Wikipage, than a guy like me. I feel that my addition, benefits the definition by furthering the point of a seasoned contractor adding value to a project owner by bringing field knowledge to the table. Field knowledge that just can't be replicated by office professionals/engineers/architects that have never installed a roof (in this instance). I realize that I am affiliated with the roofing company I've used as a reference, but it shouldn't delegitimize my input, because there isn't anyone else in the world who would have bothered to make that worthwhile contribution/edit. It's a justifiable edit in my opinion, even though I'm affiliated with the roofing company. It's not an egregious overstep. It's a worthy edit and shouldn't be penalized. Dupont, National Coatings, Henrys and RIM Architects will be linking to my referenced blog from their websites with do follow links, so I'm not concerned with a nofollow from Wikipedia. I just wanted to tell my mom that I got on Wikipedia. Haha.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jon Tomas Vaughn (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia needs a citation to a reliable source (see WP:V, WP:RS). Your blog does not meet those sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Assisted Living

Hello! I can remove the citations that link to my work on the section I added today. I was practicing adding a section so that I could show my students how it is done for them to do for a homework assignment. I don't really care if my work is cited. All the other citations are not me or my colleagues though. So can I restore what was added but remove the "Marshall" citations to fix any COI? ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You should have a look at Wikipedia:Education program. Coursework that involves Wikipedia is generally supposed to go through a particular process. Turning a bunch of students loose on Wikipedia outside that process rarely works out well - either for the students or for Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm participating in a project listed below, just in case you weren't aware this was being marketed to Higher Ed to have students participate in the experience. Good educators utilize drafts and edits in the classroom before allowing anything to be published online, and students get a sense of value by providing something tangible rather than a paper that just sits on the teacher's desk. I notice that many of the wikipages regarding aging/Gerontology list that they need more citations and sources and I wanted my students to be able to transfer their knowledge in a meaningful way. But I want a good experience for my students, so instead I will have them create written educational materials to share within our local community.

This is the program I wanted to do. It is not just "turning students loose"...

"My name is Andrés Vera, and I am the Equity Outreach Coordinator for the Wiki Education Foundation, a small ten-person nonprofit that helps university/college instructors and students contribute to Wikipedia. Wiki Education's support is fully funded, and there are no fees to run a Wikipedia assignment." ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing on biomedical topics such as Gerontology has special requirements (WP:MEDRS) and generally makes for a poor experience for student editors. I'm quite surprised that whomever you are working with at Wiki Education didn't make you aware of that (and also that they apparently didn't make you aware of the conflict of interest guidelines). MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Zoom call is this week, so I'm sure I would have learned more. But I no longer plan to participate. While I value the importance of the information you are providing (and agree with COI, etc), the way in which feedback is given can most certainly be more positively worded. I would not want to put my students in a position to receive harsh feedback. We will have a more enjoyable positive experience providing knowledge to the community rather than on Wiki.

My work is in social wellbeing in older adults, not everything about older adults is medical...so not sure it would be considered "biomedical". But for what it's worth, I have a PhD.

No need to reply, I've just learned this is not the space for me. ProfessorMarshall (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit on CFA Page

I have attempted to remove a biased and opinionated piece of this article, which is somehow considered vandalism. The individual who brought up this ¨vassal state¨ claim is caught up in the Ukraine trend and is therefore plastering this junk on the article. I simply attempted to restore the article to its previous form. 76.181.241.214 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, and content deletion based on your politics are all disruptive. If you do not stop I am sure you will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ref spam

Hi MrOllie, would you mind taking a look at whether these are cases of WP:REFSPAM: [1], [2], [3], and [4]? They all involve papers by Jacob Stegenga. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a single purpose / spam account to me! MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You wrote, "Please don't chime in on unrelated discussions". However, you know very well that it is related. This all comes down to the actions of publishing houses and universities which you admitted in the discussion above as being the problem. Take the easy option, delete my voice and carry on as you are. Alternatively, stop, think and do something about it that will make a real difference and make your job so much easier. Todd Unctious (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)