User talk:Manliket
Welcome!
[edit]
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Tariq Jamil
[edit]My friend Riyaz Timol, you simply cannot do what you did: insert a substantial amount of what Wikipedia doesn't like: promoting your own research. I've added your article to the Wikipedia page, as you requested, but you cannot give your own article undue weight by overturning what has become an editor consensus on key points. You will be accused of a self-promotional intention if you persist. If you think the page contains a factual error, and that your own article shows the error, you can make a thorough explanation on the Tariq Jamil talk page and see what other editors think. But please don't do again what you did. I'm trying to help. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi George Custer's Sabre - thanks for your message and for adding a link to my article. With all due respect, I was not adding original research directly to a Wikipedia page (which I understand would be a contravention of the guidelines). Rather, the original research has already been published in an independent academic journal having passed through a rigorous peer-review process; therefore, it is a perfectly legitimate source which can (and indeed should) be used to update the existing Wikipedia entry. I am not interested in self-promotion (and other editors should assume good faith on my part), but rather in ensuring that the entry reflects the latest scholarship in the field. As it stands, the page - more than factual errors - has several glaring factual omissions and I (acting in good faith) can only assume that the current editorial consensus is not au fait with the latest publications on the topic, of which my own article is only one among several that are conspicuous by their absence. As you advise, I will make some suggestions on the Tariq Jamil talk page to address these lacunae to see what other editors think before proceeding. Thank you for taking the time to engage and for offering your advice! Best wishes, Manliket (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you are seen to be promoting your own scholarship your edits won’t survive, so please reflect on how you go about making recommendations on the talk page. My advice is to be up front that this is your work, that in your view it may correct errors on the page, and that this is your sincere intention. Then wait and how how editors engage with your research. This is just advice. But I’ve been editing Wikipedia every day for well over a decade and have a good sense of how it works. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, out of interest have you been editing Wikipedia every day for over a decade in a paid or voluntary capacity? Manliket (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unpaid, naturally. I am disabled, but enjoy contributing to something so valuable each day. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wow - that demonstrates some serious dedication which is admirable!
- I'd be grateful if you could please comment on MrOllie's summary assertion that "MDPI is a predatory publisher" below, as I note that he has removed all reference to my paper from the Wikipedia entry on this basis which I find quite flabbergasting. I have taught at two universities neither of which would accept a citation from Wikipedia from any of their students as a reliable source, though peer-reviewed journal articles via a MDPI journal are absolutely fine; yet, ironically, it appears that some editors on Wikipedia are applying more exacting standards than UK universities!
- Actually, the reasons I consciously chose to publish via a MDPI journal are because A) the article is part of a broader Special Issue edited by a respected international expert in my field (hence I know too well the rigorous peer-review it passed through) and B) MDPI is the largest publisher of 'open access' research papers in the world and I am a firm believer in not keeping scholarship locked behind expensive paywalls which are inaccessible to non-academics without institutional log-ins.
- I'm afraid I don't have time to familiarize myself with the labyrinth of policies and guidelines that seem to underpin Wikipedia editorial processes and so, if my article is not accepted on Wikipedia as a legitimate source due to the extremely tenuous (in my opinion) assertion that MDPI is a "predatory publisher", then I will simply delete my newly-formed Wikipedia account and walk away. That would be a shame as I have long admired Wikipedia's stated vision of an open, democratic knowledge-sharing platform though the achievement of this, in practice, sadly appears to be impeded by some Wikipedia editors who I sense become rather territorial over content and resent the intervention of 'outsiders' like me.
- Best wishes Manliket (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Manliket, thanks for your reply. I do not have subject-matter expertise or factual evidence with which to refute MrOllie's statement that MDPI is a predatory publisher. It may be that he's correct. When I posted the article I did so as a non-expert in journals in this field. So my advice is to either (a) re-engage with MrOllie to see if you can persuade him, or (b) abandon the idea of updating the Tariq Jamil page with your research. Wikipedia works on good-faith editing, with editors seeking consensus wherever possible. The system works well. But occasionally an editor will be left feeling disappointed or frustrated. I've sometimes feel both. But I know that I don't own any of the pages I edit, so sometimes I have had to just accept that I did not succeed in making the changes I wanted. I'm sorry you are feeling disappointed. Very best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is not simply me that would need to be convinced - there have been several community discussions about MDPI, which are linked in the table entry at WP:MDPI. That Wikipedia-wide community consensus would have to be changed. It is true that there is no 'blanket veto' of MDPI, but this is also a biographical article, and Wikipedia reserves some of its highest sourcing standards for biographies. MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, MrOllie, but it was you, not me, who has said that this particular publisher is predatory, even though the disagreeing editor asked ME for my opinion. The publisher does not appear to be on Beall's List, and WP:MDPI only concludes that "Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable." As you said, there is no blanket prohibition. So it seems reasonable for the diagreeing editor to engage with you, rather than with me, given that you made the call. No-one denies that, if it is predatory, it should not be on Wikipedia. Best wishes and many thanks, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, this appears at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I didn't make this up on my own. A discussion would probably need to be opened up at WP:RSN. Even if I were convinced personally, someone else would come along eventually, see MDPI, and simply remove it again. MrOllie (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, I agree that Manliket certainly should, if he wants to proceed, take the issue to WP:RSN. Best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is no clear consensus that "MDPI is a predatory publisher". @MrOllie You have made this claim, therefore the burden of proof rests on you. Further, your claim that "We should not use it on biographical articles" is your subjective interpretation. You have acted on the basis that this is established fact by removing the inclusion of a MDPI reference by two separate editors which, in my opinion, is unwarranted. You cannot impose your subjective opinion on others, in the absence of a clear consensus. What may or may not happen in the future is a matter of speculation and bears little relevance to the point under discussion. I would therefore respectfully request you to revert your removals of the reference from the page and, should you still feel it should not be cited, open up a discussion. Should the editorial consensus subsequently form around the citation being removed, I will be happy to proceed on that basis. Best wishes, Manliket (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also to reiterate (as I allude to below) that MDPI is a multi-disciplinary umbrella consortium operating 400+ journals so inevitably there will be a level of disparity in terms of quality control and editorial processes. MDPI has published in excess of 1 million articles and so any blanket statement about such a large enterprise would need to be hedged in with nuance, context and caveats. As WP:MDPI itself suggests, a judicious and cautious engagement with specific journals and papers on a case-by-case basis is the best praxis for operation. Thank you. Manliket (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I absolutely can and will edit according to my 'interpretation' of WP:RS and WP:BLP. I will not reverse myself at the demand of a single purpose editor with a clear conflict of interest. You may escalate this to a noticeboard if you must (though I fully expect you would not reach the outcome you would like there), but you are not entitled to keep your citation in the article in the meanwhile. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Editor Manliket, if you want to proceed, please take the issue to WP:RSN. It is a fair, transparent and positive process. Best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I absolutely can and will edit according to my 'interpretation' of WP:RS and WP:BLP. I will not reverse myself at the demand of a single purpose editor with a clear conflict of interest. You may escalate this to a noticeboard if you must (though I fully expect you would not reach the outcome you would like there), but you are not entitled to keep your citation in the article in the meanwhile. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Also to reiterate (as I allude to below) that MDPI is a multi-disciplinary umbrella consortium operating 400+ journals so inevitably there will be a level of disparity in terms of quality control and editorial processes. MDPI has published in excess of 1 million articles and so any blanket statement about such a large enterprise would need to be hedged in with nuance, context and caveats. As WP:MDPI itself suggests, a judicious and cautious engagement with specific journals and papers on a case-by-case basis is the best praxis for operation. Thank you. Manliket (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, this appears at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I didn't make this up on my own. A discussion would probably need to be opened up at WP:RSN. Even if I were convinced personally, someone else would come along eventually, see MDPI, and simply remove it again. MrOllie (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, MrOllie, but it was you, not me, who has said that this particular publisher is predatory, even though the disagreeing editor asked ME for my opinion. The publisher does not appear to be on Beall's List, and WP:MDPI only concludes that "Publications in MDPI journals are considered questionable." As you said, there is no blanket prohibition. So it seems reasonable for the diagreeing editor to engage with you, rather than with me, given that you made the call. No-one denies that, if it is predatory, it should not be on Wikipedia. Best wishes and many thanks, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is not simply me that would need to be convinced - there have been several community discussions about MDPI, which are linked in the table entry at WP:MDPI. That Wikipedia-wide community consensus would have to be changed. It is true that there is no 'blanket veto' of MDPI, but this is also a biographical article, and Wikipedia reserves some of its highest sourcing standards for biographies. MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dear Manliket, thanks for your reply. I do not have subject-matter expertise or factual evidence with which to refute MrOllie's statement that MDPI is a predatory publisher. It may be that he's correct. When I posted the article I did so as a non-expert in journals in this field. So my advice is to either (a) re-engage with MrOllie to see if you can persuade him, or (b) abandon the idea of updating the Tariq Jamil page with your research. Wikipedia works on good-faith editing, with editors seeking consensus wherever possible. The system works well. But occasionally an editor will be left feeling disappointed or frustrated. I've sometimes feel both. But I know that I don't own any of the pages I edit, so sometimes I have had to just accept that I did not succeed in making the changes I wanted. I'm sorry you are feeling disappointed. Very best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unpaid, naturally. I am disabled, but enjoy contributing to something so valuable each day. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- MDPI is a predatory publisher (see WP:MDPI). We should not use it on biographical articles (see WP:BLP). - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging this. I wasn't aware of these claims nor are my colleagues many of whom have published with MDPI, and are respected experts in their fields. Having perused the links you kindly included, it appears that claims of 'predatoriness' are far from established; the term itself is in fact contested. The claims arise from the fact that MDPI was temporarily included in a third-party list published on a blog 8-9 years ago, though a MDPI journal did successfully reject a fake paper submitted as part of the sting operation 'Who's Afraid of Peer Review?' in 2013. MDPI is a multi-disciplinary umbrella consortium operating 400+ journals so inevitably there will be a level of disparity in terms of the quality and content of individual journals and papers (as, indeed, there is for Wikipedia entries). Wikipedia guidelines clearly do not endorse a blanket veto of MDPI but suggest a judicious and cautious engagement of papers and journals publishing under the MDPI umbrella on a case-by-case basis which appears a reasonable praxis for anybody involved in editorial work in a professional capacity. In any case, the revisions to this page I am suggesting are not based solely on my article but a collectivity of recent scholarship & publications. Manliket (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, out of interest have you been editing Wikipedia every day for over a decade in a paid or voluntary capacity? Manliket (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you are seen to be promoting your own scholarship your edits won’t survive, so please reflect on how you go about making recommendations on the talk page. My advice is to be up front that this is your work, that in your view it may correct errors on the page, and that this is your sincere intention. Then wait and how how editors engage with your research. This is just advice. But I’ve been editing Wikipedia every day for well over a decade and have a good sense of how it works. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)