5 ms·

The part that never made sense to me is that the exact same content on Wikipedia is proscribed, but if you put it somewhere else and someone else links to it, i

The part that never made sense to me is that the exact same content on Wikipedia is proscribed, but if you put it somewhere else and someone else links to it, it somehow becomes OK. From where I'm sitting, the content is either fine or it's not. A variant of this: you do the research, cite your findings with presumably reliable sources and post it somewhere like a personal blog. Wikipedia doesn't like directly linking to it [0], but if an editor writes the same content and cites the same sources, that's also OK, even though I'd argue that's plagiarism. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...

yreg 3y ago
Makes perfect sense to me. You are not supposed to write Wikipedia articles on your original research. If you want to help Wikipedia, feel free to write articles based on work that other people did in your field. Don't add any conclusions of your own. Let someone else write the articles on the research that was done by you. I think that is a very reasonable tradeoff. —- > if an editor writes the same content and cites the same sources, that's also OK, even though I'd argue that's plagiarism. An editor should not copy your blog post. They can describe whatever you wrote about and cite your blog post as a source. Or, they can go after the same original sources you have cited and write their own summarizing article (but not copy the blog post, and they also can't add any of their own conclusions).
- classichasclass 3y ago
  > Or, they can go after the same original sources you have cited and write their own summarizing article (but not copy the blog post, and they also can't add any of their own conclusions). That's my point: you've done the legwork, but you don't get credit for it, and as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, can't. They aren't supposed to cite your blog as a source, because it's self-published. I've seen many edits citing what I thought were well-researched entries get reverted because "it's a blog."
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    The Wikijournal effort https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group is supposed to plug that gap. If you think you have worthwhile primary research that is up to academic standards, it can be published in WikiJournal after review, and that information can then be referenced in a Wikipedia article.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  I don't believe wikipedia considers blog posts published sources (probably because of bitrot). I believe the easiest way to get any specific conclusion/belief/opinion into wikipedia, is to get it published as a book. Then it can be cited as "alternative" theory or whatever.

yreg 3y ago

Makes perfect sense to me. You are not supposed to write Wikipedia articles on your original research. If you want to help Wikipedia, feel free to write articles based on work that other people did in your field. Don't add any conclusions of your own. Let someone else write the articles on the research that was done by you. I think that is a very reasonable tradeoff. —- > if an editor writes the same content and cites the same sources, that's also OK, even though I'd argue that's plagiarism. An editor should not copy your blog post. They can describe whatever you wrote about and cite your blog post as a source. Or, they can go after the same original sources you have cited and write their own summarizing article (but not copy the blog post, and they also can't add any of their own conclusions).

classichasclass 3y ago
> Or, they can go after the same original sources you have cited and write their own summarizing article (but not copy the blog post, and they also can't add any of their own conclusions). That's my point: you've done the legwork, but you don't get credit for it, and as far as Wikipedia's policies are concerned, can't. They aren't supposed to cite your blog as a source, because it's self-published. I've seen many edits citing what I thought were well-researched entries get reverted because "it's a blog."
- zozbot234 3y ago
  The Wikijournal effort https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group is supposed to plug that gap. If you think you have worthwhile primary research that is up to academic standards, it can be published in WikiJournal after review, and that information can then be referenced in a Wikipedia article.
Supermancho 3y ago
I don't believe wikipedia considers blog posts published sources (probably because of bitrot). I believe the easiest way to get any specific conclusion/belief/opinion into wikipedia, is to get it published as a book. Then it can be cited as "alternative" theory or whatever.