Talk:Big Data to Knowledge

Self published content

Hello HeartBD2K. You just added a large block of content backed by self-published sources to this article. This article needs coverage of those projects, but the information must come from sources which do not have a directs financial interest in promoting these products. Mostly or entirely you cited the publications of the organizations themselves working in this space.

The information is workable, but to be included, can you please cite sources written by someone not employed by these projects? Please ask if you have questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bluerasberry. The content that I added comes directly from the publicly funded NIH BD2K homepage at [1]. Therefore, it ought to be left on the Wikipedia page that describes the publicly funded BD2K initiative. Thank you for your concern, and please allow me to revert your deletion of this valid content. HeartBD2K (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

HeartBD2K The content is valid, and publicly funded, and on the NIH website. We are in agreement about those things. The issue is that it is a WP:Self-published source and therefore not a WP:Reliable source because it is WP:PROMOTIONAL.

This content was written by people paid to promote it and I expect you also have a WP:Conflict of interest in posting this information to Wikipedia. I am happy to help you improve this article in ways that comply with Wikipedia policy. A good place to start would be in meeting Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, which this source seems to not do. Can you comment on that? I am reverting for now pending your answer. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

HeartBD2K (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Hello Bluerasberry. Let me address each of the WP articles you cited.

1. WP:Self-published source The content added is none of the following: "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets".

2. WP:Reliable source The content added IS "based on reliable, published sources"; it comes directly from the National Institutes of Health website and is most certainly verifiable. Please visit the NIH BD2K official page.

3. WP:PROMOTIONAL The content added is not promotional. It does not include "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." The content reports "objectively about such things" in that it describes the projects that are being undertaken by each of the groups within the BD2K initiative. There is no request for support of any kind, nor is there any content that is subjective or opinionated.

4. WP:Conflict of interest This article was not "written by people paid to promote it" and there is no conflict of interest. We are filling in missing information that more fully describes the aims and research efforts undertaken by the groups involved.

In light of this, do you have any suggestions to improve the content? Thank you for your comments and consideration. HeartBD2K (talk) 17 March 2015 (UTC

HeartBD2K I will call for other opinions before saying anything more. I care about BD2K and would like to work with you on this, perhaps by chatting with you by voice or video and giving you a tour of Wikipedia's health and data content as well as general policies. Before then though let me post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for opinions on how the source can be used, then consider where to go next. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC

Thank you for your input, Bluerasberry. We are eagerly awaiting your reply. We seek only to provide more information about the NIH BD2K initiative, as requested by the banner at the top of this talk page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Institutes of Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the National Institutes of Health on Wikipedia." HeartBD2K (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I called for another opinion. If you want to seek other opinions also then I could help you do that. A good place to go to get other opinions is the WP:TEAHOUSE, but let's see what happens now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

HeartBD2K There is one opinion below. I interpret it to mean that the content should not be included. Here are some options going forward:

1. I solicit another opinion
2. You solicit another opinion, perhaps at WP:TEAHOUSE, or I or others can help you find other ways
3. You and I talk this through, perhaps here or perhaps by voice or video if you Special:EmailUser/bluerasberry, and discuss wiki-compliant options for getting BD2K information on-wiki
4. Something else? You suggest and I will support

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

===Outside opinion===

The content Blue Rasberry reverted is basically spam. It gives the impression of a promotional brochure or company directory, as oppose to a serious historical reference work. It's cited exclusively to sources published by the article-subject, whereas the most basic principle of Wikipedia is that independent, secondary sources are the primary basis of our work here.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not currently allow for corporate accounts. HeartBD2K is making references to "we", suggesting they are editing on behalf of a group of people, which is not allowed. You are only allowed to speak for yourself personally. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Bluerasberry. I will send you an email to discuss this further.

Rewrite

I have just copied this version of the article to a page in my user space, to which I have invited people from BD2K to contribute. Of course, anyone else, including User:Bluerasberry and User:HeartBD2K, would be welcome too. COI note: I now work for Phil Bourne, who heads BD2K. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen Thanks I am watching there too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)