Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/References to own work

References to own work

(In English, so all can participate)

Bruger:Walpot and I disagree on the suitability of inserting references to ones own work in articles. I see it as self promotion, while Walpot sees it as an improvement. Can we get some further input from the community?

Details on Brugerdiskussion:Knud Winckelmann#Dear Knud... and Brugerdiskussion:Knud Winckelmann#Things are clearer now. Regards Knud Winckelmann (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 09:48 (CEST)

Danish Wikipedia has a clear policy on this subject: never references to own work. Never. best regards Rmir2 (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 09:57 (CEST)

If the author is respected in their field, and/or the information which they bring to wiki is true, I see no problem in this most of the time. If more official sources can be used, I would prefer that of course, but I see no harm in people using their own work, as long as that work is usable (ie either scientific work or uses sources too). mvh Tøndemageren (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 10:03 (CEST)

If the work is conducted in a scientifically correct manner and can improve the article I'd say to use it, if the work is recently published and/or difficult to come by for users, i.e. a book that can only be found in a library many hundreds of km away, or hasn't reached public libraries at all, the author of the work should refrain from using it himself, he could encourage others to write more on the subject matter though, or if possible make the material available for others to write the contribution. It's a huge grey area, and I think authors of works should be more critical than usual. Best regards Vrenak (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 10:15 (CEST)

No. We have cases, where a scientist has tried to promote own work through wiki. This is not acceptable. Until now the rule is, that only if somebody else read that work and refer to it, it is acceptable. And I think that we shall keep it in this way. best regards Rmir2 (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 10:37 (CEST)

I agree with Rmir2 to promote own work through wiki. This is not acceptable., greeting -Zoizit (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 11:54 (CEST)

I think Danisk Wikipedia is not ready for such a challenge. As it is, there is a policy claiming the pathological - i.e. incurable and fundamental - disability for persons to write anything about what pertains to their personal or professional life (WP:SB). For English Wikipedia, and generally, I would recommend an open attitude, but that there might be done some work on formulating guidelines concerning such rare cases. Sechinsic (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 15:23 (CEST)

Flyttet fra diskussionside

To be honest - this is going to be very silly. I have been warned that Danish wiki-administration is a bit like German "Verwaltung" was 30 years ago. Let's face it: I am allowd to write an article with the help of - let's say my own works - because there's - let's say - nothing modern or even nothing at all written on the Danish West Indian Army, the Schleswig-Holstein Army etc. by other authors than myself. So I may use my own work but shouldn't be allowed to give it as a note, as a "further reading" for those interested in more details (an idea obviously not part of Danish wiki-community? I see many articles without any notes). Janteloven at it's best...

Regards,

Walpot (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 12:18 (CEST)

Though you do raise a valid point about the limited sources on the subject available anywhere, you should still be wary of using your own work, if someone else had used it as a reference it wouldn't be seen as promoting your work. The limited scope of the subject matter, limitd resources, limited people who know enough to add anything at all, on the other hand proves a total ban without any exceptions on authors adding is a moronic idea. Authors of works such as these could perhaps encourage scholars in their field to read their book and take a look at the articles on wiki that might need an update, this would eliminate the author adding material him/her-self, but this would slow down additions to wikipedia considerably. Best regards Vrenak (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 15:21 (CEST)

Dear admins,

thank you for your advice. I think I got the message now. Any point I will throw into the discussion is less worth than your dogma, that a contributor may do almost everything, besides using his own scientific work and citing it. My - simple - point of view is, that Wikipedia and its administrators should do almost everything to encourage people to contribute and NO do everything to make it impossible. The information I added were not false or fake, they are part of a scientific work and its value could have been easily approoved. My postings were deleted by Knud Winckelmann appr. 2-5 minutes after being posted - was that time enough to find out if they were helpful or irrelevant? - I think you know the answer. I come from an culture where you don't hide your own work when you think it has been done well. Everybody may criticize this work - but that's impossible if a rigid censorship end discussion before it could start. The idea that access to knowledge - and bibliographic notes are the entrance to more knowledge - could only be reached by accident and second hand (somebody who surprisingly finds my work and posts it) is ridiculous and absurd. Avoiding people who simply like to read their names on wikipedia is a good point - but it seems to have become an "idee fixe" here on the Danish sites when you're not able to distinguish between obsessive self-promoting and the intention to share knowledge. My work is known to Danish historians, but to much lesser or even no extend to other interested people in Denmark. Wikipedia - in other countries - is a way of giving everybody an idea, about what he could read to get information which is new to him: it's the idea of inter-national enrichment of knowledge which led my first steps into Danish wikipedia. I simply started with the information I could easily provide: my written contributions to Danish and Schleswig-Holstein history. Texts should have followed (my Danish isn't that great to be honest). But I think you've already noticed: this will never happen.

Regards,

Walpot (diskussion) 20. maj 2016, 17:32 (CEST)

Dear @Walpot:: I more or less agree with you - we should view every information as information, not as something biased because of the author. If whats written is POV, then there might be a problem, but if it is perfectly neutral, I see no problem. But I do know, that is not generally acceptable in all of da.wiki. I still hope, that you would love to contribute to this wiki - I'm sure it would be beneficial for us :) mvh Tøndemageren (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 10:32 (CEST)

There are no reasons to lessen the policy, quite in opposite. There are already way to many people, who only writes about themselve. They all claim it to be information, but in reality their only interest is to promote themselve. Furthermore you can't be neutral regarding yourself. People tends to overestimate themselve and writes a lot of biased texts. And some times we have people, who get very negative, when they can't get their way. --Dannebrog Spy (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 13:01 (CEST)

Just to clarify this is about using the material published by a researcher, not about the researcher himself. Furthermore the subject at hand has very few resources available, so finding other sources is not really much of an option. Best regards Vrenak (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 13:06 (CEST)

But we have measures to take, if we think the written article/text is promotion rather than encyclopedic. Sometimes, we actually could just rewrite what they have written, because some of those who do that, are in fact notable. And the question in hand, is not whether or not you should write about yourself, the question is, should you be able to use yourself as a source. And cannot see why that is a problem... it would be great to get leading scientist to write about their field too, even if they would have to use their own scientific articles to do so. mvh Tøndemageren (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 13:09 (CEST)

if Walpot had written something in the various articles, and not just put his own books under the sources or literature, it might been looked at in a different way (for eksempel)---Zoizit (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 13:18 (CEST)

That, of course, is promotion in more or less it purest form, which of course is not allowed. Had the user written something, where it would be appropriate to use the books as a sources, that would be a different matter. mvh Tøndemageren (diskussion) 21. maj 2016, 13:21 (CEST)