User talk:Hubbardaie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:13, 9 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from RichardWeiss! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome SqueakBox 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules about Neologisms

If you read Wiki guidelines on neologisms, you see that it recommends against using neologisms in an article:

"Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people"

This refers, of course, to the use of neologisms IN the article. This makes sense, given that neologisms, by definition, are often poorly understood. However, guidelines are further refined when the topic of the article is iITSELF a neologism:

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.

The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

Regarding the first issue, the Applied Information Economics article is not merely defining the term. It explains some key components of the theory behind it. Regarding the second issue, AIE has been widely used in other publications (as any google search would point out). By "publications" I mean printed magazine articles not blogs. Also, a google search should turn up university classes taught by that name and use of the term by authors other than Hubbard. The simplest evidence of the verifiability criterion would have been the citation of the book "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business" but, lacking that, other sources can easily be found.

Conflict of interest

Hubbardaie, Wikipedia has a conflict of interest guideline because it's very difficult for authors to be neutral about their own work and the terms they use in their own work. From your perspective, "applied information economics" and your book related to this are very important, as they should be. Others are likely to recognise the importance of your book and this term. Notability is a Wikipedia policy for including articles. There's more to it than Google hits. Take a bit of time to read the policies and discussions, and I think you'll realize that if Wikipedia were completely open to any and all edits by anyone, your own book and "applied information economics" would be lost in a sea of other terms and books -- and nobody would be the wiser. Read WP:NOT to understand that Wikipedia is open to editing, but there are rules to be followed.

The rule about advertisements includes self-promotion. Self-promotion is very important in many areas of life, but it's not encouraged in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a record of others' recognition of your work. This doesn't happen overnight. But when it does happen, it's much more satisfying. Please have patience. --SueHay 01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. But AIE is simply an alternative to balanced scorecard and analytic hierarchy process. In those articles, specific persons and books are cited as well. It appears that the COI assertion has been based on nothing more than my username. But I've been honest about my identity. It would not be possible to prove that others were equally honest in writing those other articles.Hubbardaie 01:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spam

When I first posted the article, a header appeared saying it was an "orphan" and needed links from other articles. I went out and started to make links wherever it looked appropriate only to find out that this is called "internal spam". Which of these guidelines do I follow?

Its not vandalism

You recently incorrectly identified my entry to the investment management column as vandalism. It is not. See the article's discussion.

I didn't remove your edit - I removed the edit after yours, which was an anonymous user adding a bunch of 888s to a link. Compare the history and you'll see what I mean. Sidasta 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. My apologiesHubbardaie 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic Hierarchy Process

You seem to be running into the same problem that is discussed HERE. IMHO it is an important problem without an apparent solution. Lou Sander 15:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article on my watchlist, and I look at it from time to time. I don't have an opinion about who is right. Some anon made some recent changes and I left a message on his/her talk pages to the effect that controversial changes should be discussed on the article's talk page before they are made in the article. Lou Sander 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

I just made an extended reply to you on my page. --Rinconsoleao 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic Hierarchy Process

You persist in mangling the meaning of the first paragraph of the Criticisms page by deleting perfectly good, evenhanded material and substituting a seriously distorted version of what Schenkerman said. Please stop doing that. When you have something to say, please say it without destroying the work of others. Good Cop 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 I just made an extended reply to you on my page. --[[User:Rinconsoleao|Rinconsoleao]] 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
+== Analytic Hierarchy Process ==
+You persist in mangling the meaning of the first paragraph of the Criticisms page by deleting perfectly good, evenhanded material and substituting a seriously distorted version of what Schenkerman said. Please stop doing that. When you have something to say, please say it without destroying the work of others. [[User:Good Cop|Good Cop]] 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:13, 9 November 2007

Welcome!

Rules about Neologisms

Conflict of interest

Internal spam

Its not vandalism

Analytic Hierarchy Process

Category

A comment

Analytic Hierarchy Process