7 ms·

check his Wikipedia edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotrophic_electrode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotrophic_electrode > In Neural Signals' implan

check his Wikipedia edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotrophic_electrode https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotrophic_electrode > In Neural Signals' implantations of six people, only one had a short lived episode of focal motor seizures and brain swelling leading to temporary weakness on the contralateral side of the body. > That person was me, Phil Kennedy. And here I am writing this addition to the Wikipedia

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_electrode&diff=prev&oldid=1004041998 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_elec... (the IP has more edits like that to that article)
saghm 5y ago
Doesn't this violate the rule about "original research", or is that more of a meme and the actual policy more nuanced
- lima 5y ago
  Yes. Good thing there's a Wired article now! Someone already fixed it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_electrode&diff=1075842755&oldid=1015705137 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_elec...
- sp332 5y ago
  There are mods who would delete that in a heartbeat if they saw it.
  - markdown 5y ago
    Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, have him publish it in an article, and only then am I worthy of sharing my knowledge on wikipedia. I've seen absolute hogwash in wikipedia articles about my field (not really picking coconuts lol) but I can't correct them because I can't find an article where someone else has written about the topic.
    - ciphol 5y ago
      How do you distinguish between genuine personal experience (even assuming personal experience is reliable) and lies invented to promote an ideological narrative? Generally they can't be distinguished. Thus Wikipedia disallows both.
    - dorfsmay 5y ago
      True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently.
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        > True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently. To sometimes very very mixed results (at best).
    - wpietri 5y ago
      The number of people who think themselves world experts in something is truly enormous. Wikipedia needs to be maintainable by people who aren't topic experts. They can't just go around anointing people that sound expert-y to them, as that would introduce far more bias, western and otherwise. Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.
      - markdown 5y ago
        > Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere. Citation needed.
        ericye16 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
        mardifoufs 5y ago
- BalinKing 5y ago
  I feel like this is probably a violation? I've edited out the first-person language and added a reference to the Wired article.
  - ushakov 5y ago
    also he has some personal comment in the last section somebody gotta explain him Wikipedia ain't a personal blog
    - tux3 5y ago
      Ironically, had he published on his personal blog under his name and credentials, it could have been accepted as a reliable source. (Though a Wired article is even better)
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
        Wikipedia insists on secondary sources. Primary sources are not considered acceptable IIRC.
        tux3 5y ago
        Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable: i.e. anyone can't just write a web page or a book and start quoting themselves on Wikipedia. That's clearly objectionable! Recognized domain experts who are routinely published in respectable journals is one of the main exceptions. Some relevant policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self...
        lmm 5y ago
        You can use primary sources. There are rules about them and a preference for secondary sources, but no blanket ban.
rvbissell 5y ago
... and it's gone.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_electrode&diff=prev&oldid=1004041998 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_elec... (the IP has more edits like that to that article)

saghm 5y ago

Doesn't this violate the rule about "original research", or is that more of a meme and the actual policy more nuanced

lima 5y ago
Yes. Good thing there's a Wired article now! Someone already fixed it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_electrode&diff=1075842755&oldid=1015705137 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotrophic_elec...
sp332 5y ago
There are mods who would delete that in a heartbeat if they saw it.
- markdown 5y ago
  Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, have him publish it in an article, and only then am I worthy of sharing my knowledge on wikipedia. I've seen absolute hogwash in wikipedia articles about my field (not really picking coconuts lol) but I can't correct them because I can't find an article where someone else has written about the topic.
  - ciphol 5y ago
    How do you distinguish between genuine personal experience (even assuming personal experience is reliable) and lies invented to promote an ideological narrative? Generally they can't be distinguished. Thus Wikipedia disallows both.
  - dorfsmay 5y ago
    True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      > True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently. To sometimes very very mixed results (at best).
  - wpietri 5y ago
    The number of people who think themselves world experts in something is truly enormous. Wikipedia needs to be maintainable by people who aren't topic experts. They can't just go around anointing people that sound expert-y to them, as that would introduce far more bias, western and otherwise. Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.
    - markdown 5y ago
      > Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere. Citation needed.
      - ericye16 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
BalinKing 5y ago
I feel like this is probably a violation? I've edited out the first-person language and added a reference to the Wired article.
- ushakov 5y ago
  also he has some personal comment in the last section somebody gotta explain him Wikipedia ain't a personal blog
  - tux3 5y ago
    Ironically, had he published on his personal blog under his name and credentials, it could have been accepted as a reliable source. (Though a Wired article is even better)
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
      Wikipedia insists on secondary sources. Primary sources are not considered acceptable IIRC.
      - tux3 5y ago
        Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable: i.e. anyone can't just write a web page or a book and start quoting themselves on Wikipedia. That's clearly objectionable! Recognized domain experts who are routinely published in respectable journals is one of the main exceptions. Some relevant policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self...
      - lmm 5y ago
        You can use primary sources. There are rules about them and a preference for secondary sources, but no blanket ban.

rvbissell 5y ago

... and it's gone.