User talk:Sargias Corvath

Hi @Sargias Corvath:, having just read of your intention to update the White-headed langur page - thanks for your help! The article could certainly use the attention of an expert. However (I'm boldly assuming that you are new to Wikipedia editing), can I add two notes right away?

a) Please make sure to reference all information you add to the article, using <ref>...</ref> tags placed after the sentence or section. This is a crucial requirement - anything unreferenced will likely get deleted quickly. I noted that the bit of information you added in your last edit does not have a reference yet; please keep that in mind when you add more to the article.

b) Not that I have any reason to suspect you would necessarily do that, but please take great care to not add any kind of material that reads as if it was intended to advertise the Cat Ba Langur Conservation Project. Since you are personally connected with the topic you are writing about, you may find yourself tempted to insert biased information due to a conflict of interest. People will be watching like hawks for any signs of advertisement, whitewashing or spin-doctoring, and things tend to get deleted wholesale if that suspicion crops up.

This purely as cautionary comments. Happy editing, and I look forward to your material! Cheers -- Elmidae 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Elmidae:. Thanks for the feedback on edits to the White-headed langur page.

Several things: yes, I am new to editing Wikipedia and any advice or tips are appreciated.

Second. One of the problems with this species is that there is very little published information out there and most of what is published is either wrong (for a variety of reasons, some political, some due to lack of resources at the time of initial studies, some due to improper study techniques), extremely outdated, or refers to the related species that is found in China, not this species found here in Vietnam. This had been an ongoing issue and one that I have been working to correct since taking over the director position for the project.

In all honesty, there are several citations in the current article that should be completely discarded, but I did not touch those yet.

The accurate information is what I have in the office in the files we keep that I have been going through and analyzing. In a normal citation process this would count as "personal communication" but that doesn't seem appropriate when I am the person making the edits.

Lastly, I am very careful to be neutral in presenting information, but it is a bit of an awkward situation in that the Cat Ba Langur Conservation Project is the organization doing the conservation work (and has been since 2000, not 2002 as the article originally said), thus we are the ones with the information, and even putting things in neutral language it's easy for someone to make a false claim of promotion.

Sargias Corvath (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. The state of knowledge/information about the species and the project may actually be a problem in the context of Wikipedia. Nothing should be added that cannot be verified, and all Wikipedia does is summarize information previously published by a reliable source. That means that if e.g. a specific item of research has not been publicly published (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, but failing that, at least on an official website or similar), it cannot be included in an article. You may want to have a look here for more on this basic rule. A sometimes paradoxical result of this is that verifiability is more important than truth: if there is a verifiable, reputable source referenced that says X, while you yourself know that is in fact Y but have no such published backup, then we report X, even if there is no reason to doubt you personally.

Referencing something as 'pers. comm.' or similar - which I am making liberal use of myself when publishing; ecology is a messy business - is thus not acceptable on Wikipedia, Any edits you make will have to have a basis in published information. (This, by the way, is something that many articles fail to do properly, very likely even THIS article, but that just means that stuff slips through the cracks, and every editor is asked to tidy up whatever instances they find.) You'll have to get it published first, then it can go on WP. Them's the breaks :/ -- Elmidae 14:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Elmidae:, this is one of the ongoing issues I've been facing since taking over the position of director. Much of the past information is worthless, or nearly so, and we are working hard with a small team to actually get real conservation work done rather than spending our time and resources in publications. We have technical papers and other missives that go out to those within the field who need to know what is happening and such, but they are not peer reviewed papers... this is actually quite common in conservation work as it is a very different beast than academia. Realistically, we don't have the time and have too much real-world work to do (especially considering how small our staff is) to deal with the peer-reviewed process when we can be getting real conservation results instead.

The ironic thing here is that I, personally, am the "verifiable, reputable source referenced that says X". I am the person whom people call or email to find out what the actual facts are on this species and with biodiversity as a whole on Cat Ba Island. This includes researchers, reporters, the various politicians who have a stake in this species, the heads of a variety of international NGOs, grant funding organizations, and reporters. In point of fact, the Mongabay article included as a reference (for a tiny part of the article) is one of my interviews and uses my photography.

In the meantime there are sources like this Wikipedia page that contain both incorrect information and badly misinterpreted information (easier to correct as that is often due to misunderstanding of the original articles by non-native speakers) that keep being used as references, perpetuating the spread of bad information. I've been asked to rewrite the IUCN RedList description as well, and am running into similar problems with incorrect information that is more than a decade out of date being taken as gospel.

You'll find that this is a common issue in conservation, especially when dealing with the less well-known species.

Sargias Corvath (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you were to update the IUCN assessment, that would be an excellent source to use in the article - we are referencing the Redlist in practically every species article. Technical papers, work group reports etc. are also perfectly fine, as long as they can be found somewhere (I assume those do make it onto a website). - I work with African penguins, and I'm certainly using more "unpublished data" and "pers. comm." sourced to busy conservation officers than I'm strictly comfortable with; but as you say, a priority on management actions vs publishing is a necessity with rapidly declining species. It just may mean that the Wikipedia article has to wait a bit longer, too. -- Elmidae 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sargias Corvath, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sargias Corvath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)