User talk:Heinzhausw
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with adding a scientifically published unified framework for "Artificial Intelligence" The Wikipedia article on "Artificial Intelligence" is semiprotected. My unified framework for "artificial intelligence in enterprise applications" has recently been published in a high-quality scientific journal (Scimago Q1), refer https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923474822000467. I wanted to contribute that framework (refer Figure 6 at the end of that journal article) for clarity and further cross-links with AI-related areas on Wikipedia. I published as Open Access and have approval from the publisher to post my framework on Wikipedia. The framework does not contradict anything in the existing Wikipedia article on "artificial intelligence". Moreover, it provides a visual integration of the current article's version. Being a scientific researcher, I am new to editing Wikipedia. Can you help me please? Kind regards, Heinz Herrmann Heinzhausw (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please go to Talk:Artificial intelligence to discuss what it is that you would like to do. Since it involves your own work, you should be aware of conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a conflict of interest for researchers to cite their own work. Refer Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing yourself
- In particular, my proposed (self-)reference has already been peer-reviewed by a highly reputable scientific journal, and no conflict of interest applied.
- So, which is the way for scientifically peer-reviewed researchers to propose Wikipedia edits for the benefit of enabling awareness of recent integrative research? In particular, when it adds to the current version of a Wikipedia article and providing further clarification in a much needed visualization of artificial intelligence versus challenging it.
- I am happy to declare my self-citation. There must be a way in Wikipedia for researchers to help Wikipedia stay up to date. Wikipedia has transparent editing processes, so why would researchers be excluded from editing? Heinzhausw (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for "enabling awareness" of anything; that's what social media or a blog is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing reliable sources. Your work being in a peer reviewed journal counts as such, but as the policy you cite notes, "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." To prevent grief on your part, I would advise you to use edit request process to propose your edit, even if technically you can make it yourself. Just my opinion, feel free to get others. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
- @331dot That is very helpful advice. Thank you so much! As I'm new to editing Wikipedia, I might ask you for further help if I get stuck and tap into your 10+ years of Wikipedia experience :) 120.17.130.49 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for "enabling awareness" of anything; that's what social media or a blog is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing reliable sources. Your work being in a peer reviewed journal counts as such, but as the policy you cite notes, "However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." To prevent grief on your part, I would advise you to use edit request process to propose your edit, even if technically you can make it yourself. Just my opinion, feel free to get others. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)