Content from Talk:Duke Mathematical Journal

COI?

User C S put a Conflict of Interest tag on the article, with the comment to "see talk", but doesn't seem to have explained it here. I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I left a note at his talk asking him to explain here. Pete St.John (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (Duke alumnus, '78)[reply]

I don't know what conclusions you would jump to other than the obvious: COI tags are used to invite uninvolved parties to come take a look. I think that's the best course of action here. "See talk" was to explain to anybody that wants to get involved to take a look at the discussion first. --C S (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want other editors to get the wrong idea from this. COI tags are not the first-line in requesting third-party attention to an article or section. That is best served by a "Request for comment". Edit Centric (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of removing the COI tagging from the article. C S, what I would suggest is that you research and implement the Request for Comment process instead, therefore inviting third-party investigation and involvement. Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material on this page is a bit out of order, chronologically, but I'm content with the above, clarifying to C S that my merely having been a student at Duke University does not justify the COI tag regarding the Duke Math Journal, ab initio. However, there is no apparent recourse for eristic, unethical arguement as in this case. In any one particular, C S can be presumed to have been ignorant of the COI wording, for example, but all of the accusations, that one in particular, are vapid, vague, and contrary to consensus-building. In general this is a big problem; experienced editors using careful, wikilegalistic wording in a diffuse manner, to insinuate, obfuscate, and spam opposition. This does not build consensus but prevent consensus; it's arguing eristically, to win, not collegially, to get at the truth (or in wiki terms, build consensus). I'm thinking a new policy or guideline might help, I've been thinking about this for a long time. Meanwhile most folks who follow enough of the details to realize what someone is doing, don't know what to do about it. No specific diffs make the case clear enough and nobody wants to follow long tedious threads about someone who obviously will never go away. Incidentally, a rumor distributed via email is particularly absurd, however, I very defininately prefer that all debate be open. This is about fair play in the Wiki venue, and that matters to all of us, even when it's too spammy or intricate or legalistic or sophistic to want to bother with. Pete St.John (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette mediation

Okay guys, let's start fresh here. As long as both editors can embrace the following suggestions, I think things can be reasoned out, as it seems that the parties concerned are well-educated;

No revert warring or edit warring.
Please be courteous, or at least civil.
Be clear and concise on what you would like to see for the article.
Approach edits and content from a neutral point of view.

I will take a "fly-on-the-wall" position on this, unless talks seem to be going in circles or stall. Edit Centric (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One item that I would like to pint out is the reference given for this statement: "Currently DMJ is ranked 10th in impact, among 170 mathematics research journals ranked by the Institute for Scientific Information." The source citation is invalid, in that it needs to point to a third-party site or documentation, not another unlinked statement. The DMJ page is not a valid reference for this statement either, as this would be a direct COI, NPOV and WP:RELY issue. Edit Centric (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only way of documenting it properly is a link to JCR, because the search result cannot be linked in a usable manner. The current guidelines for journal articles suggest including this information as basic content. But i strongly deprecate making a comparison with a specific other journal. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals for current practice and recommendations. DGG (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Edit Centric that the Duke Mathematical Journal's own web site is not a reliable source for its own impact factor. The impact factor could be cited from another reliable source, even a paper publication if necessary, but not to anything published in the DMJ. The mention of the impact factor, though legitimate if properly sourced, seems to overbalance the current article, which has little other content. If impact factors are discussed over at WP:AJ as mentioned by DGG, a more specific reference to the discussion may be needed, since I didn't spot it in a quick look. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're "starting fresh" then my objections are irrelevant. Pete St.John (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Pete, your objections are not irrelevant, as long as your position fits within Wiki guidelines. If it's outside the guideline or policy, then you're between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". At any rate, as long as the input is constructive and for the benefit of the article, then we definitely want to hear (read) it. Edit Centric (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objections weren't about the content, but the unethical editting practices employed. Starting from fresh, addressing the content, doesn't address my concern about ethical editting practices. That said, I happened to read your reply at the other talk page, and generally that was OK (a little left of center? um, OK). There's no relief for my being tagged as COI here but presumably active editors get that alot and it won't matter in the long run. As for the content, I don't give a rattus rattus's posterior for the impact schemes, as DMJ is editted by a Tar Heel now and it's basketball season. Pete St.John (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content discussion from User talk:C S

COI at Duke Math?

C S, you put a COI tag on the Duke Math journal article this diff with the note, "see talk". But you didn't put any explanation on the Talk. Please exaplain there. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the previous discussion. I think it's best to get some new eyes on this, which is what the tag presumably will do. Regards, --C S (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if there is something in the article that can be improved, I'd be glad to know it. The purpose of WP:NPOV is to deal with propaganda (etc) from COI. If there is nothing objectionable about the article then there is no COI. I assume you mean some particular, such as the significance of that ranking thing (whatever); if you specify some such question or objection, then anyone who does visit in response to your flag, will know what to look for. An alternative would be to simply ask at wikiproj math for fresh attention to an article that needs improvement on some grounds, but it would still be helpful to mention what grounds you have in mind. Don't make us guess what your concerns are. Thanks, Pete St.John (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody scouring the COI tagged articles should be able to form an opinion on the basis of what's been discussed. I don't think it's necessary to lead anyone by the hand or repeat points/objections that were already made and clearly visible on the talk page. It seems from your response that you would like some new discussion for you to respond to. I'd like some too...from an uninvolved party that I don't feel is biased by a COI. --C S (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well it's good that the discussion moves to the article talk page, but my point for you is that it's not necessary to accuse me of COI, just to get help for the article. You let my last explanation go unanswered for 6 months; I had no idea there was a problem. If you have a content issue with the article, such as the notability of the metric cited, then ask for help with an RfC or just drop a note on any relevant project page; math, or academic journals, both seem good. It's not necessary to insult the person you disagree with to get outside help. Pete St.John (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, this is a discussion between only me and you. Do not copy over our conversation and address remarks to some invisible audience, especially since your comments thus far are only pertaining to me and my actions. In addition, do not make remarks that could infringe on my privacy (any of the invisible audience can easily see the sigs on the talk page and see it is a continuous discussion). Thanks. I find your explanation unsatisfactory, and I decided rather than refute you point by point, which is rather tiresome, I would ask someone uninvolved to take a look. I don't think it's insulting to do so, and I don't think it's insulting to point out that you may have a possible COI that is affecting your judgment. --C S (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy obliges me to inform you of this Wikiquette item. Pete St.John (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content from User talk:Edit Centric

your recent mediation

Hi. You asked that I email you to clarify one of my remarks. But I prefer not to do so as that would reveal my email address. Let me just say that if you look over the diff you will see a reference to something. Something that does not need to be discussed and draws attention to something I prefer to keep a low profile on. St. John apparently felt the need to draw attention to it in a more public forum than user talk. I don't know why for certain but I imagine it was to clarify/explain his behavior. That action in itself is strange, as he needed to only explain his behavior to me, and we were already having a one-on-one discussion. So I expect he was somehow seeking to document his excuse to the as-yet-not-participating Wikipedian(s). That also in itself is a bit odd and I found it rude. I think many other people would find that rude also. Probably you are right that there were better ways to handle the situation than a COI tag. But on the other hand, I think his entire reaction to this justifies my decision. It is a bit over the top. I know if someone were to "accuse" me of a possible COI I wouldn't be offended. After all, if I have no COI influencing me, then surely people would be able to see that. In other words, I think he's a bit too defensive about this whole thing. Then again, my decision to add a COI was not made lightly. I looked over his contribution history and found that Leonard_Carlitz was a bit too laudatory. The article he created on his sister also raised doubts in my mind about whether he truly understood COI. In any case, I wash my hands of this matter. Other people can handle this, I'm sure. --C S (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your recent mediation

Thanks for finally getting back to me on that, and I completely understand the reasons that you cited for not dropping me an offline email, although rest assured that divulging your email address to me would carry no consequences, as I do not re-post private e-mail addresses back to Wiki. (Doing so would be a major breach of the trust that I try to maintain with mediated parties!)

I've already handled the COI tagging, and there are a few other editors now looking at the article, that have also commented in talk space. As for the "privacy" issue, I personally can't see where his mention of your previous discussions violates your privacy. (Anyone with a weather eye can deduce from your talk page what he's referring to.) You might want to re-evaluate your position and expectations where they concern private info, and track and delete from your talk page (this is perfectly acceptable by Wiki policy!) any info that you deem sensitive. (I know I would in that instance.)

I find Peter's actions a bit "left-of-center", but not patently rude. Since the entirety of the discussion that he cross-posted had to do specifically with the article, it was within his purview (again a bit non-standard, but still cricket.) to cite that conversation.

I've also touched base with Peter regarding the appearance of COI, based upon his being a Duke alumnus. As you are an outside contributor (NOT a Duke alumnus!), I'd prefer that you excercise a bit of "stick-to-it-iveness", and keep contributing, albeit with a tad more objectivity. The key is Assume Good Faith, yet ensure that the info is accurate and can be sourced reliably. (Third-party references.) I wish you the best of luck. Edit Centric (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Ah. OK, first, copying from my talk page (I'll watch here):

COI at Duke Math Journal (from PSJ talk page, cross-posted)

As you state on your userpage that you attend or have attended Duke University, I think I see where C S is getting the idea of COI. However, I'd really appreciate your take on things over at the DMJ talk page. Please see the new section, entitled "Wikiquette mediation"... Edit Centric (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I'm looking at some of the other articles that you have contributed to, and I'm seeing a LOT of material that is not third-party sourced. I'm beginning to understand just why C_S felt that there was a definite COI issue, in that most of your source citations point back to Duke University sources. Pete, I know that you are an alumnus, and that in and of it's self is laudable. However, for Wikipedia standards, it's important that things can be independently backed up by sources other than Duke U. Edit Centric (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please point to a specific. Can you find my citing a Duke source for anything in the last few months? Pete St.John (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(end copy) Please pick an item that in your opinion violates COI; or rethink your position. I've apparently failed to communicate that I don't take this lightly. Please note in the COI (original emphasis): Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. My being my sister's brother, or my college's former student, doesn't make for COI by itself. I have to have editted badly. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, again cross-posted, but that's cool, as it makes it easier still. Building on that idea, let's take this one step better; I am now gathering up all threads having to do with this, and dumping them HERE. Any further discussions on this topic should take place at that link, so that all the info can be read on one page. Edit Centric (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that that's done, let's address your last message. Pardon me if I skip around a bit, but this should still be discernable.

First of all, with all due defference, I shouldn't need to rethink my position, as my statement was that I could "understand just why C_S felt that there was a definite COI issue...". That wasn't my position, it was his. My job here is to be able to see both sides of an issue, facilitate communication, and help resolve.
When I say "left-of-center", what I mean by that is that your cross-posting something from a talkpage discussion into article talkspace is not something that is normally done here on Wikipedia. However, I do see your reason for doing so, and disagree that it was rude, or even meant that way.
Your being your "sister's brother, or my college's former student" provides for people to make the assumption (yes, you and I BOTH know what they say about "assume"!) that there may be a COI issue with articles that you are the main contributor to, that have to do with these people / places / things.
As for the specific diffs, give me a bit (later this evening), and I'll tag the source diffs here for review. Right off the cuff, I'm noting stuff on the DMJ article from June mainly, also these "genealogy" sources. What do they have to do with the topic of the article? (Honest question, I might be missing something there.) Edit Centric (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way! In regards to your statement at the DMJ talk page (cross-posted above for our perusal) which read in part; "There's no relief for my being tagged as COI here...", there in fact was relief, I removed the COI tag, which accomplished two things:

Gives you the benefit of the doubt.
Refers C_S to the Request for Comment process.

Please also note that I discouraged other editors from using the COI as an easy way to bring attention to an article, that's not what it's for. Edit Centric (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, here are some suggestions: First, there are some Duke U source citations in the DMJ article. No, they weren't done within the past few months, but they were put there by Peter. What needs to be done is to find a reliable third-party source for the data, and re-direct to that source if possible. If no third-party source is available, then the content needs to be removed. As for DGG's mention of "the current guidelines for journal articles suggest including this information as basic content", um, DGG? There are no guidelines! I just looked at the WikiProject on Academic Journals, and do you know what I find there? This: "Guidelines = none". Not cricket, especially for something with such encyclopedic value. So, in the absence of any firm guideline from the WikiProject, then the editing rules, guidelines and policies revert to the ones that apply across all of Wikipedia. This means RTPS. If that chaps a few hides, so be it.

What I WOULD love to see are some guidelines, or at least a link to the guidelines at WikiProject:Academic Journals. If they exist, I shouldn't have to go hunting for them. (Yes, I'm a little miffed at this point regarding the citing of guidelines that are not put forth or mentioned by the WikiProject's main page. Why is this the case?) Edit Centric (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I would like to see guidelines about metrics like "impact factor" at Academic Journals. That would be great. But regarding the DMJ article citing Duke: of course it does. Many articles about subjects, cite the publications of the subject. Duke University, Duke University Press, and DMJ itself are all generally reputable sources. If I wanted to know how tall Duke Chapel is, I'd go look at the Duke site, right? I do try to broaden sources, so for example the Carlitz (duke mathematician, long dead) bio cites the Genealogy Project, whatever I could find that meets citable standards. Then finally, regarding the times: my objection that none of these things happened in the last few months, is to this point: there is no problem regarding any policy if there is no problem with the content. C S, who used a different signature at the time (people are welcome to change but it obscures the chronology of the discussion, in this case) had questioned the metric stuff. I had answered. There was no further discussion for months. So the COI tag had no context; what was wrong with the article? nothing that C S wouls specify, stating it was obvious. That's typical of unethical arguement, btw; refusing to cite specifics, other than cherry-picking wording from past material that on the surface sounds contray to one policy or another. It's not consensus building, it's eristic spam, and it's exasperating. Pete St.John (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]