User talk:Chembio1000
WP does not really seek primary references ...[edit]
Hi, perhaps as someone a little new here, you might not know the Wikipedia guideline WP:SECONDARY that indicates a preference for secondary sources (reviews and books) not primary references (journals). Some journal references are often inevitable, but tens of thousands of journal articles appear each year. So there is almost zero interest in such. Furthermore, many journal citations from new editors represent an unintentional conflict of interest, see COI. So to follow an encyclopedia's style, the best Wikipedia articles tend to have "digested" references that give readers more perspective, less newsy insights (WP:NOTNEWS). Although difficult for younger editors, replacing journal cites with reviews and books is a sign of good scholarship. Happy editing, we need good chemists. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi I saw your note. Thank you for being communicative. No big deal, I was just trying to remind you that references to books and reviews are most sought. If you know the area reasonably and think your ref is valuable, then revert my edit (undo what I did). You are correct that many articles here are filled with primary references. That situation is not desirable but it is a stage in the early evolution of Wikipedia Chem. Eventually, mature articles will be mainly based on secondary references with a few primary ones that mainly mention discovery papers.
- My main message is that we have all messed things up here, so don't get hung up on being perfect. We need chemists. WIth best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Smokefoot. Makes perfect sense. Secondary refs probably provide an additional level of refereeing, but sometimes it might be inevitable to use primary ones, mightn't it? Anyway, I think it's great that WP edits are also "refereed" by people like yourself and you're doing a great job. --Chembio1000 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Chembio1000, note that journal articles are in fact secondary sources! There is no point in creating an encyclopedia by copying another encyclopedia (tertiary source). Keep up the good work! V8rik (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi V8rik, makes good sense. The choice of refs probably boils down to the audience you are targeting. A professional chemist surely prefers a reference to the original paper whereas a "hobby chemist" might be happy with a tertiary ref. What is actually the target audience of WP Chem articles? --Chembio1000 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with my colleague V8rik on the advisability of citing journals heavily. In my experience in WIkipedia, those relying on primary journals are often (i) inexperienced (they dont know enough to cite the reviews and books), (ii) citing themselves (common in Wikipedia), or (iii) those who wish they could publish in real journals. The aspect that weighs on Wikipedia is that impossibility (in my view) of accommodating the hundreds of thousands of articles that have been published and allowing the reader find the core info. I think V8rik sees things differently because he likes to cite primary journals. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Smokefoot and V8rik, This is a rather interesting discussion. Re (i): unlikely -- if you know the primary ref, then it's easy enough to find a review that cites the primary one, if such a review exists. Re (ii): possible, but also happens when experts write reviews for journals, doesn’t it? Again, it’s important that WP edits get refereed. Re (iii): unlikely, because this does not provide any personal benefit. Instead, editing WP articles takes time and effort. It is very desirable though to encourage more people that do actually publish regularly in international journals (like ourselves, I believe) to contribute to WP. I think making contributions to WP can be fun, but you guys should ensure that it stays that way. I guess that high quality information and verifiability on WP are crucial to create credibility and trust and to encourage people to use it -- if I am given a secondary reference on WP, then I will have to look it up, find the information I want (might be just one sentence), look up the primary ref and verify. Looks a bit long-winded to me but I also understand that using reviews and books provides additional levels of refereeing. It might be extremely difficult to implement/maintain, but would it be possible to have a WP “professional” version that targets the professional/expert, provides specialist information and allows the use of primary refs and a WP “layman” version which is more general and permits only secondary refs?--Chembio1000 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with my colleague V8rik on the advisability of citing journals heavily. In my experience in WIkipedia, those relying on primary journals are often (i) inexperienced (they dont know enough to cite the reviews and books), (ii) citing themselves (common in Wikipedia), or (iii) those who wish they could publish in real journals. The aspect that weighs on Wikipedia is that impossibility (in my view) of accommodating the hundreds of thousands of articles that have been published and allowing the reader find the core info. I think V8rik sees things differently because he likes to cite primary journals. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hi V8rik, makes good sense. The choice of refs probably boils down to the audience you are targeting. A professional chemist surely prefers a reference to the original paper whereas a "hobby chemist" might be happy with a tertiary ref. What is actually the target audience of WP Chem articles? --Chembio1000 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)