912:"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge.
1431:
to encourage. As for wikilawyering, that cuts both ways; as someone pointed out above, the current wording encourages trolls to go around deleting the contributions of experts writing about their own fields, without forcing them to justify themselves with specific objections. Ultimately, I've dealt with plenty of trolls, and there is no wording of the policy that they will not abuseāKnowledge policies depend on interpretation by reasonable editors who can outweigh the trolls. The problem with the current wording is that it actively discourages expert contributions, not trolls.
157:
think we need to say something about it, and I think it needs to be short and clear. Perhaps the wording can be improved. I think the key is to keep it short and sweet: all appropriate sources should be cited, even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not however abuse the openness of
Knowledge, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works. IsnĀ“t this fair?
1030:- "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge
212:- "No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge
31:
853:", as Dunc suggests, ther editors would edit those comments out as they would any another objetcionable post. Why would we want to make a rule that can so very easily be circumvented? Does anyone know who I am? Of course not. But then, I'm not an expert in anything, just some guy who likes to write about the few things that I do know about. I think that we should welcome those add properly cited published material -- which is sorely lacking on Knowledge -- even if it is their own work.
643:"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as their knowledge is verifiable. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but also because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge
1116:
consensus, and it's not clear that there is a consensus here). Most importantly, the content. I don't agree with "it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes". Sure, that's better in some cases, but in other cases nobody is really watching the talk page and it's better to be bold and add references to yourself. --
310:"Elitist"? There is an occasional need for technical expertise--I sure want a neurosurgeon to do my brain surgery. Second, even if experts were willing to vet their research publications with the vanity police, how is anyone to judge? Not even another person with the same expertise could make this kind of judgement about ideological purity. This is opening a can of worms. Remember, the guidelines are just that, guidelines.
1038:. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Knowledge can
939:("one can'o'worms at a time"), I haven't really looked at this section yet. My general take on questions like this is guardedly conservative (conservationist? conservatorial?) in the sense that we ought to start with SAPs (standards and practices) that are already present in the Real World, and carefully consider any temptation to deviate from that, as those SAPs are likely to be far more sapient than we might guess at first.
220:. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge. If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Knowledge can
573:
even if written by a wikipedia contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of
Knowledge, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works." I think either iof JitseĀ“s two alternative suggestions would follow nicely from the preceeding. Anyway, in general I support what Jitse wrote.
1086:'s concerns are not that of a troll seeking pointless changes but that of a philosopher and scholar who contributes to philosophy related articles, some of which require quotes from primary sources to clarify key points because secondary sources are out of date with regard to recently published papers or are lacking due to a lack of interest or other reasons. I also use primary sources in my
1082:'s concerns will not change the meaning of the policy in the slightest, but will merely make it more clear by talking about what the policy is about (the content of Knowledge) rather than other related things (whether the contributor is an expert or not, what is or is not his "knowledge") that have no need to be brought up (but were because of the context that created the original concerns).
483:
practice. Most experts are naturally reluctant to cite their own work and vanity guidelines are not necessary for them, but (again from my own experience) the extra scrutiny is unfortunately needed in some cases (this is not meant as a comment on your conflict with Dunc, which I haven't looked into). I don't know what prompted your comments of "elitism" or a "lowest-common-denominator veto".
255:
Pproctor's characterization of the change, but nevertheless I think the suggestion that experts take the matter to the talk page is too strong. I suggest something like rewording it to "ā¦ it may be better in some cases to suggest ā¦", or "Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead." --
513:
not been "legal", the way he did this (no discussion on talk pages, etc.) is totally against the guidelines. The problem is, when you micromanage this way, you open the door to more stuff like this. This is because the issue, "vanity", is so totally subjective. And with out any possible gain, since the
Knowledge rules guarantee anonymity.
651:. They must cite reliable, third-party publications and may not use their unpublished knowledge, which would be impossible to verify. We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Knowledge.
193:
tell, there is nobody here that this rule would have the slightest effect on, except myself. I welcome further examples. Furtherance of personal feuds in not a very good reason for changing a basic
Knowledge guideline in a way that will only further discourage participation of those "skilled in the art".
1057:
Similarly, why change a long-term policy guideline when it has works just fine. The initiator of the proposed change wants the change merely because the existing rule prevents him from harassing another editor in a personal feud. And yes, I originally "assumed good faith". Which is why I gave my real
441:
I am currently a physician in private practice. I do not understand how posting a biography of the person who essentially invented the "plastic transistor" benefits me in any way, just because I am coauthor on some old papers with him from when I was a grad student. The original developer of the PC
431:
is credited in a recent definitive history of the field (which I directly quote) with inventing the first organic electronic device, among other things. More recent examples include the color display in your phone. If that is not "notable", then nothing is. Yet Dunc in his malace and/or zeal put
1430:
Any opposed citation will obviously be discussed in talk, just like every other controversial change to an article. We don't need a special rule for this. And self citation is almost inevitable for any expert writing extensively on topics in his/her own field of expertise, which presumably we want
1151:
If an "expert" overcites himself, that is best handled under WK:NPOV and not under "Vanity", which is too subjective. Similarly, unlike WK:NPOV and everythig else on
Knowledge, "vanity" can be argued just by assertion and is thus an anomaly. Also, "vanity" seems to be aimed at more extreme and
1115:
Style problems: what Jon said ("their knowledge is verifiable" should be "their contributions is verifiable"), and what
Slrubenstein said (it's repetitive in that it says three times that it should be verifiable). Point of order: What Pproctor said (A policy should not be changed as Dunc did without
917:
If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Knowledge can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on
751:
If I recall correctly, the phrase "clear and convincing evidence" does not appear anywhere in any of the policies or guidelines mentioned by
Pproctor. Adding a new standard for inclusion or removal (I'm not sure which Pproctor had in mind) that only applies to contributions from expert editors would
572:
Like Jitse Niesen I am a self-identified academic so this issue relates to me too. I have no problem at all with the current wording, except that, well, it is a little wordy. What I wrote above still represents my best attempt to state the issue concisely: "all appropriate sources should be cited,
482:
Pproctor, I know quite a number of expert (in the
Knowledge sense) editors in maths and physics, some of whom go by their real name, including myself. In my experience, they all understand that citing their own work will be viewed with suspicion. In my opinion, the extra sentence merely conveys that
254:
For comparison, the proposed change is to add the sentence: "However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes." I don't agree with
178:
The traditional guideline listed below makes this essentially impossible. First, any citations of ones own work must be completely at arms length and subject to all the usual restrictions. So any "vanity" effects would be minor, at best. A legal maxim goes "The law does not concern itself with
494:
The old issue. Who shall guard the guardians? You all are lucky you did not cross someone like Dunc. I edited on Wiki for years, without problems. I revealed my name, as do many. I also made the horrible mistake of tussling on a controversial issue with Dunc, who continually expresses his
455:
that got me into this tussle with Dunc. What I saw and heard from Dr. Damadian did not exactly correspond to Dunc's ideas. BTW, I before I get a WP:NOR cite, there is a limited license to use personal communications from the subject of a bio, which this was. I suppose Dunc will also now try to
144:
Sorry for the obvious hyperbolie. The issue is not the guidelines, it is the potential abuse of the guidelines. I was the victim of an admin asserting the vanity guidelines against me because I had cited my own publications. This was in order to justify his deleting or reverting all my postings
1332:
I've added a link to WP:VAIN; that's an easy fix. As several people have pointed out, a general recommendation that self-citations go into Talk is impractical, imposes a pointless burden on expert editors who choose to contribute under their real names, and is completely ignored in practice. I'm
1068:
JA: I didn't get the program for this one, so I can't really tell the home team from the visitors, nor do I care to know. But it should be clear that the case of "knowledge" is exactly parallel to the case of "truth", neither of which words are legit to use in these policies. Just as a practical
512:
by systematically deleting my postings on other pages. This was under the excuse that citing my own work, published in major journals, was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I had done this in good faith under the present rule, which Dunc now attempts to change. BTW, even had my posting
192:
Further, in the real world, the anonymity of
Knowledge makes this rule doubly impossible to enforce, except if some expert is dumb enough (as I was) to reveal his true identity. It is also against a fundamental policy to demand a person on Knowledge to ID themthelves. In fact, as far as I can
126:
No, it does not. I defiy you to find the passage in the policy which insists that an expert citing his (or her) own published work "check with the "People's Vanity
Commissar" before doing so." The current wording is simply a caution and a suggestion, there is NO prohibition, moreover the vanity
156:
Okay, I think we need to tread carefully here, that is all. There really should be no obstacle to experts adding citations to their own research when appropriate. I agree fully on this. However, there really have been abuses of the wiki nature of the project and vanity projects is an issue. I
622:
I somehow missed that the text that Slrubenstein repeats just above here was meant as a proposed text for the policy page. I actually prefer that text above my proposal. I also agree that the current text is rather wordy. For instance, it says three times that contributions of experts should be
296:
policy are manifold. First, technical experts are not going to follow the changed guideline, should it go thru. Nor, with anonymous postings, etc. do they need too. That is, this change in the guidelines makes Knowledge even more uninviting to the very people it needs (on technical issues
121:
As a practical matter, the proposed rule change (which has been frozen in its changed form) recommends that every expert citing his own published work should check with the "People's Vanity Commissar" before doing so. This change is very much against the long-term wikipedia tradition and will
1273:
Uniquely for Knowledge, the "vanity" guidelines are entirely subjective and open-ended. "I know it when I see it". NPOV and NOR at least require something besides "Personal Opinion", which is otherwise anathema on Knowledge as "original research". Hopefully, you-all can see the paradox.
685:) should be cited, even if written by a Knowledge contributor. Expert contributors however should not abuse the openness of Knowledge, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing vanity pieces or coopting existing articles to promote their own career and works.
1407:
with them, so giving them a completely free hand to self-cite is IMHO a recipe for trouble. Don't make the "go to talk" cast-iron policy (as it is unworkable), but make it atleast a mild suggestion, and particularly if the citation is opposed. It probably needs to cross-reference
1402:
On where to state self-reference, I disagree. I think wikiquette requires it (though others may disagree), especially in marginal cases. Also I think self-citation is so rare that any restriction on it would have little practical effect. Rules should be made so that trolls can't
495:
strong "antielitist" prejudices and who shows no particular tendency to adhere to the posted guidelines, even after an admonition. Such have have and will misuse this rule to pursue their own adjendas. Knowledge is not antielitist, it is neutral, as the rules should be.
840:
It does seem that the easy way around the proposed "vanity" restriction is for expert editors to post anonymously or not reveal their identities. Then then could freely post their own properly-cited work without being harassed by cerain editors. If they go on "to violate
1177:, which addresses all my concerns and, in my opinion, does not change the policy. However, it's a fairly big change for such a well-established policy and it hasn't received much support, so I suppose it's not going to happen. Hence, what I intend to do is to revert the
890:
are held too, nobody would know if an editor is self-citing. So why is a clearly-organized group of editors so virulent about imposing it? Makes one wonder about hidden agendas or maybe they are so mad about being challenged that they have abandoned perspective.
557:
PS added after I got an edit conflict with Gerry: Of course, and I consider some parts of the vanity guidelines as rather bad in this respect. But they do exist, they are obviously related to this section of WP:NOR, which makes it naturally to refer to them. --
145:
elsewhere on Wiki, apparently for crossing him. Difficult to beleive and totally against the rules, but it happened. He stopped when I cited the present rule allowing me to do this. His next step was to come over here and propose the rule be changed.
365:
One's motives are usually identifiable from one's behaviour. If one writes articles about all of one's coworkers, citing papers jointly written with them, but fails to contribute anything else, then that is suspect. If one further goes on to violate
1249:
This sounds the appropriate notes of caution while not going overboard (and I think that recommending self-citations to go in Talk is overboard), and does not substantively change the policy. As an added benefit, it is shorter. Do others agree?
1346:
It is a very common failing for authorities to attack sins by attacking things associated with them. But this is wrong. It is 'guilt by association.' Knowledge's founder, for all his and its good qualities, has made the same mistake with the
1090:
contributions. I prefer CIDRAP, CDC, and WHO but they don't always include details an encyclopedia should have; instead they sometimes concentrate on what a newspaper would cover. I have no intention of waiting for Britannica to cover it.
541:"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better in some cases for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
1291:
I don't have any problem with reverting to the version before the "self-citations in talk" recommendation was added, either. Do you agree that both the old wording, and the above suggestion, are better than the present wording?
1000:". WP policy can require of IP-sources of texts nothing more than the verifiability of statements in them, and WP editors can check nothing more than this. References to Person and Knowledge are out of bounds for WP policy.
533:"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes."
995:
JA: The problems are (1) the word "their", whose antecedent is "persons", and (2) the word "knowledge". To put it idiomatically, WP has no truck with either. WP simply has no way to verify anything as real and big as
691:
I've no problems with Gerry's text, and I'm quite happy to have it instead of the last line in my proposed text, but what I like about Slrubenstein's text is that it gives a fair warning about the "vanity police". --
1228:"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions are
673:"No original research" does not prohibit experts on a specific topic from adding their knowledge to Knowledge. On the contrary, Knowledge welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions are
1019:
First, this is not the "current version" but a rather modified version of the long-term policy that was posted without discussion and then got frozen before anyone could change it back. Nice try, though. The
1240:) should be cited, even if written by a Knowledge contributor. Expert contributors, however, should not abuse the openness of Knowledge, and should know that other editors are vigilant against experts writing
1101:
Exactly. Why micromanage a WP:NOR policy guideline for "Expert editors" which works and which has generated no previous problems? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and "The Best is the Enemy of the Good".
764:"Vanity" is completely subjective, undefined and open to abuse. If it can be abused (say) to bully an expert, it will be and (in violation of the present rule) has been. So it is reasonable that
669:
must be borne in mind and it may be better for the expert to suggest on the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.
549:"However, vanity guidelines must be borne in mind. Editors should refrain from adding references to their own publications if this is disputed, and argue their case on the talk page instead."
601:
Expert editors may find it difficult to judge whether citing their own work would lead to overemphais of one subtopic within the article, and should seek advise on the talk page if in doubt.
1138:
Exactly. Occasionally reality intrudes. Look how many entries have nothing on the talk page or no talk page at all. Even on fairly busy talk pages, there may be months between posts.
351:
questioned is quite another matter. One reason for the extreme variation in the quality of Knowledge entries is that experts go where they are welcome and sheer away where they are not.
1013:
1424:
1326:
930:
1073:
1004:
964:
943:
1254:
1095:
1206:
952:
On beginning my scan, the 1st problem I see is with the qualification: "as long as their knowledge is verifiable". This is far too broad. WP users cannot require that any
427:
It is true that I have posted biographies of a couple of my mentors and coauthors on some decades-old papers, mostly done when I was a grad student or post-doc. E.g., one
1386:
You really seem to sound as tho you see no connection. All I can prescribe is rest, contemplation, and coming back to it when you are in a more appropriate frame of mind. --
903:
610:
581:
567:
165:
1274:
Further, nobody seems to have come up with a single instance where the present rule has not proved adequate. Just restore it. "The best is the enemy of the good".
772:
is a reasonable one, but ths is naturally open for suggestions. OTOH, WP:NPOV etc. (as in the present rule) can be more easily established by (e.g) countercites.
113:
978:
473:
279:
264:
1062:
442:
is now also a private physician-- would it also be "vanity" for him to post a biography of his computor geek buddies from the 1970's? That was then, this is now.
273:
I agree that something would be helpful along those lines, primarily to ensure that what's being added really is relevant, as well as carefully written and cited.
1194:
1156:
1125:
756:
517:
197:
149:
989:
873:
460:
355:
1435:
1337:
1278:
1106:
1264:
1296:
895:
788:. Someone who has spent a couple of decades in the study of a given subject, and is so arrogant or deluded as to think that counts for a hill'o'beans in WP.
1390:
1355:
997:
1069:
matter, it would be a mistake for WP policy to let itself be entangled and paralyzed by the tricky wikits of epistemology and personal identity.
701:
135:
97:
89:
84:
956:"knowledge" be verifiable. WP is prohibited by its founding policies from policing persons at all. WP users can only make efforts to verify
861:
815:
806:
405:
248:
72:
67:
59:
835:
776:
743:
239:
883:
293:
887:
733:
707:
I suggest one more addition, which the above tacitly assumes, but should be restated, so there is no question. This is that:
469:
If I may continue Dunc's statement, ā¦ and so that (3) the policy does not have a chilling effect on worthwhile contributions. --
508:
To summararize the situation again, after I abandoned the field and fled, Dunc vindicatively continued a dispute on one page
712:"The standard of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. Editors disputing expert contributions must also adhere to
47:
17:
1152:
clear cases of spamming. The best thing is to just simply restore the original guideline when the page gets unfrozen.
918:
the talk page of the article that his/her own references are added so that other editors can make the suggested changes.
794:. Someone who has spent a couple of years hanging about WP and uses administrative privileges as a tactical nucular
1223:
proposed above. To repeat it here (with a couple of punctuation corrections, and one parenthetical clarification):
781:
JA: By way of cutting to the crux of the above discussion, I think that a couple of definitions might pave the way:
653:
If an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, Knowledge can
393:
Herein lies the problem; policy should be worded so that it is (1) not contradictory and so that (2) trolls cannot
1237:
1047:
725:
682:
662:
229:
729:
985:
Solution2: change to " as long as their statements are published in an already existing verifiable source."
1182:
1232:(not based on unpublished work). All sources which are appropriate in view of Knowledge's policies (like
970:
Solution: change to " as long as their knowledge is published in an already existing verifiable source."
666:
1233:
721:
678:
38:
1310:, and the suggestion of taking it to talk should also be made, though I can understand making it as a
554:
Same question for you, Slrubenstein. Of course, anybody is most welcome to propose other formulations.
1039:
654:
221:
451:
Similarly, it was attempting to post to the bio page of a more casual aquaintance from the '70's
1035:
713:
674:
648:
217:
1190:
1121:
975:
927:
697:
578:
563:
260:
162:
132:
105:
858:
1421:
1323:
402:
323:
Further, this change allows a lowest-common-denominator veto on a very subjective issue.
277:
8:
717:
387:
122:
seriously discourage experts from contributing. I favor the old guideline, which reads:
1333:
curious to see how many other editors agree with you that such a suggestion is useful.
922:
What are the remaining objections to this text, and what are the suggsted alternatives?
1173:
In the interest of moving forward, I proposed an alternative text in my 26 Aug edit in
1043:
1010:
658:
225:
1220:
1186:
1117:
971:
923:
868:
820:
753:
693:
607:
574:
559:
470:
327:
256:
158:
128:
882:
Exactly. The rule change is easily circumvented by staying anonymous. As long as
854:
623:
verifiable. So, perhaps we should use the occasion to cut down on words. Therefore
509:
452:
394:
1368:
I really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please stay on-topic?
1417:
1319:
1215:
A number of people have made reasonable objections to the current wording in the
1083:
1079:
1070:
1001:
961:
940:
812:
803:
398:
274:
245:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1307:
1261:
1241:
1092:
842:
428:
383:
367:
347:
questioned by anonymous strangers can be an interesting exercise, having one's
1275:
1153:
1103:
1059:
986:
892:
846:
832:
773:
740:
514:
457:
379:
371:
352:
236:
194:
146:
1181:
section (and that section alone) to the status quo ante, which I take to be
1432:
1409:
1387:
1369:
1352:
1334:
1293:
1251:
1009:
It looks fine me. I'm not finding the objections compelling or meaningful.
677:. All sources which are appropriate in view of Knowledge's policies (like
324:
850:
375:
1404:
1229:
114:
Knowledge talk:No original research/archive9#Editors citing themselves
1244:
or co-opting existing articles to promote their own career and works.
1219:
oneself section. For the record, I strongly prefer the version that
867:
I agree with the eminently good sense of Ground Zero's comment. --
633:(The conflict is about the last sentence which was recently added)
530:
Dunc, as I said before, I'm not happy with the sentence you added:
244:
JA: I think we should probably tackle one can'o'worms at a time.
343:
Technical experts put up with a lot here as it is. Having one's
1185:. That revision has stood for a couple of months, it seems. --
1306:
I don't like this. You absolutely need to cross-reference
1087:
330:
about this and how it damages the credibility of Knowledge.
1348:
1058:
name and thus opened myself up to harassment from Dunc.
1416:
may be more notable than an essay on their website. ā
904:
Do we still have any conflicts over this one section?
908:
Here is the current section in the current version:
179:trivialities", except on Knowledge, naturally.
1351:policy, and the rest of you are merely led. --
382:is stretched to say the least. When one adds
297:anyway), without having much practical effect.
127:guidelines are pretty vague and general too.
950:Problem 1. "Knowledge" not verifiable here.
112:This is a continuation of the discussion at
802:JA: I hope that clears a few things up.
798:dictum to push a personally favored POV.
292:The problems with changing the existing
827:editors", we should title the section "
14:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
25:
1174:
23:
18:Knowledge talk:No original research
1078:I believe dealing adequately with
24:
1447:
1207:Proposed alternative wording for
849:and insists that one deserves a
811:JA: Moral? Don't Be A Dictum.
374:and insists that one deserves a
29:
1412:as well, as someone's paper in
726:Knowledge:Neutral Point of View
235:What does eveyone else think?
896:20:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
730:Knowledge:No original research
13:
1:
736:, and all other guidelines."
456:get this guideline changed.
7:
1436:17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1425:17:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1391:19:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1356:16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1338:16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1327:14:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1297:16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1279:14:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1265:06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1255:20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
1195:13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
1157:04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1126:02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1107:00:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
1096:22:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1074:19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1063:18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1014:17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1005:17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
990:18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
979:16:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
965:16:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
944:16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
931:15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
874:12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
862:10:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
836:02:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
816:01:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
807:01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
777:21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
757:23:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
744:23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
702:04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
611:15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
582:15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
568:14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
518:15:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
474:14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
461:16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
406:14:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
356:17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
280:05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
265:03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
249:01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
240:23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
198:13:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
166:20:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
150:20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
136:16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
10:
1452:
960:that are added to pages.
829:Pointy headed-intellectual
722:Knowledge:Reliable Sources
1024:"current version" reads:
935:JA: On the rule of 1COW@t
538:What do you think about
432:a delete petition on it.
1046:and complying with our
714:Knowledge:Verifiability
661:and complying with our
228:and complying with our
1238:Neutral point of view
1042:while writing in the
683:Neutral point of view
657:while writing in the
224:while writing in the
42:of past discussions.
1027:== Expert editors ==
770:Clear and convincing
208:== Expert editors ==
718:Knowledge:vandalism
388:baldness treatments
386:to advertise one's
1433:āSteven G. Johnson
1370:āSteven G. Johnson
1335:āSteven G. Johnson
1294:āSteven G. Johnson
1260:Looks good to me.
1252:āSteven G. Johnson
1034:such knowledge is
998:personal knowledge
768:standard be set.
647:such knowledge is
216:such knowledge is
821:A modest proposal
689:
688:
667:vanity guidelines
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1443:
1234:Reliable sources
1040:cite that source
679:Reliable sources
655:cite that source
626:
625:
510:Raymond Damadian
453:Raymond Damadian
222:cite that source
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1213:
1175:#Expert editors
938:
906:
823:: In place of "
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1449:
1439:
1438:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1341:
1340:
1314:rather than a
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1268:
1267:
1247:
1246:
1217:Citing oneself
1212:
1209:Citing oneself
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1179:Expert editors
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1110:
1109:
1066:
1065:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1028:
993:
992:
982:
981:
936:
920:
919:
914:
913:
905:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
877:
876:
800:
799:
789:
762:
761:
760:
759:
738:
737:
709:
708:
687:
686:
671:
640:
639:
634:
632:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
604:
603:
602:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
555:
552:
551:
550:
544:
543:
542:
536:
535:
534:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
487:
486:
485:
484:
477:
476:
466:
465:
464:
463:
446:
445:
444:
443:
436:
435:
434:
433:
429:John McGinness
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
285:
284:
283:
282:
268:
267:
210:
209:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
171:
170:
169:
168:
153:
152:
139:
138:
119:
118:
107:
106:Expert editors
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1448:
1437:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1298:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1280:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1245:
1243:
1242:vanity pieces
1239:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1210:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:20:45, 18 Aug
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1158:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1011:FeloniousMonk
1007:
1006:
1003:
999:
991:
988:
984:
983:
980:
977:
973:
969:
968:
967:
966:
963:
959:
955:
951:
946:
945:
942:
933:
932:
929:
925:
916:
915:
911:
910:
909:
897:
894:
889:
885:
881:
880:
879:
878:
875:
872:
871:
870:Donald Albury
866:
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
814:
809:
808:
805:
797:
793:
790:
787:
784:
783:
782:
779:
778:
775:
771:
767:
758:
755:
752:be unwise. --
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
684:
680:
676:
672:
670:
668:
664:
660:
656:
650:
646:
642:
641:
638:
637:Proposed text
635:
631:
628:
627:
624:
612:
609:
605:
600:
599:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
583:
580:
576:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
556:
553:
548:
547:
545:
540:
539:
537:
532:
531:
529:
528:
527:
526:
519:
516:
511:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
472:
468:
467:
462:
459:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
440:
439:
438:
437:
430:
426:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
404:
400:
396:
391:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
329:
326:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
281:
278:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
242:
241:
238:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
207:
206:
199:
196:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
167:
164:
160:
155:
154:
151:
148:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
134:
130:
125:
124:
123:
117:
115:
110:
109:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1413:
1401:
1315:
1311:
1305:
1248:
1227:
1221:Jitse Niesen
1216:
1214:
1208:
1187:Jitse Niesen
1178:
1118:Jitse Niesen
1077:
1067:
1044:third person
1036:unverifiable
1031:
1021:
1008:
994:
972:Slrubenstein
957:
953:
949:
947:
934:
924:Slrubenstein
921:
907:
869:
839:
828:
824:
819:
810:
801:
795:
791:
785:
780:
769:
765:
763:
754:Gerry Ashton
739:
694:Jitse Niesen
690:
665:. However,
659:third person
652:
649:unverifiable
644:
636:
630:Current text
629:
621:
608:Gerry Ashton
575:Slrubenstein
560:Jitse Niesen
471:Gerry Ashton
392:
364:
348:
344:
325:Larry Sanger
257:Jitse Niesen
243:
234:
226:third person
218:unverifiable
213:
211:
159:Slrubenstein
129:Slrubenstein
120:
111:
78:
43:
37:
1316:requirement
1048:NPOV policy
855:Ground Zero
851:Nobel Prize
796:ex cathedra
663:NPOV policy
598:How about:
376:Nobel Prize
230:NPOV policy
36:This is an
1405:wikilawyer
1312:suggestion
1230:verifiable
1084:Jon Awbrey
1080:Jon Awbrey
1071:Jon Awbrey
1002:Jon Awbrey
962:Jon Awbrey
958:statements
941:Jon Awbrey
831:editors".
813:Jon Awbrey
804:Jon Awbrey
675:verifiable
275:SlimVirgin
246:Jon Awbrey
98:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 12
85:ArchiveĀ 11
79:ArchiveĀ 10
1388:londheart
1353:londheart
1262:WAS 4.250
1093:WAS 4.250
397:them. ā
395:WP:LAWYER
345:judgement
73:ArchiveĀ 9
68:ArchiveĀ 8
60:ArchiveĀ 5
1276:Pproctor
1154:Pproctor
1104:Pproctor
1060:Pproctor
987:Wjhonson
954:Person's
893:Pproctor
833:Pproctor
774:Pproctor
741:Pproctor
515:Pproctor
458:Pproctor
353:Pproctor
237:Pproctor
195:Pproctor
147:Pproctor
1414:Science
1308:WP:VAIN
1211:section
884:WK:NPOV
843:WP:NPOV
786:Elitist
384:WP:SPAM
368:WP:NPOV
349:motives
294:WS:NPOV
39:archive
888:WK:NOR
847:WP:NOR
825:expert
792:Expert
734:WK:AGF
380:WP:AGF
372:WP:NOR
328:warned
1410:WP:RS
1318:. ā
16:<
1418:Dunc
1320:Dunc
1236:and
1191:talk
1122:talk
1088:H5N1
1022:Real
976:Talk
948:JA:
928:Talk
886:and
845:and
766:some
698:talk
681:and
579:Talk
564:talk
399:Dunc
390:...
370:and
261:talk
163:Talk
133:Talk
1349:NOR
974:|
926:|
577:|
546:or
232:.
161:|
131:|
1193:)
1124:)
1050:."
1032:if
857:|
728:,
724:,
716:,
700:)
645:if
606:--
566:)
378:,
263:)
214:if
94:ā
64:ā
1422:āŗ
1420:|
1324:āŗ
1322:|
1189:(
1120:(
996:"
937:0
859:t
732:,
720:,
696:(
562:(
403:āŗ
401:|
259:(
116:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.