Talk:Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh/Archive 1

Archive 1

COI

Per the connected contributor box above, the subject of this article has written most of it. Needs to be reviewed by independent editors for NPOV before tag can be removed. My goodness. Research83 you must stop directly editing this article. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Categories were added as this was requested. A few selected books and articles (out of a total of 16 books and more than 160 articles by the person described) were added; note that such selections are included in many other Wikipedia articles on scientists, so the article is perfectly consistent with these. Finally, one sentence was added on two coined terms by the person, with a reference. It is overdone then to start questioning the neutrality of the article. It is not a surprise that many scientists are disappointed about how Wikipedia treats articles about living scientists. A lot of detail on football players, writers and actors (also mediocre ones), and very limited info on scientists. Most articles on scientists don't provide any interesting, non-trivial information. For some reason you don't allow that their work and essential contributions are explained - but this is surely what readers would like (and deserve to) know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.118.119 (talk • contribs)

Your response is not responsive to the problem. The problem was explained at WP:COI/N and at User_talk:Research83, and I've been something of a defender of your contribs so far. You'll lose the ally you have if you don't even acknowledge others' attempt to define the problem. While we try to refrain from biting wikipedia editor newbies, they are expected to be responsive to behavioral feedback as well as content feedback. I concur with your description of your contribs, but their quality has no bearing on the problem others' have articulated. Try again? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the response (which I also assume is Research83) is not on point and additionally, does not accurately reflect the contributions, which can be seen here. Research83, who is the subject of the article per the dif in the connected contributor box above:

• created the article
• has contributed 92% of the content
• and made 87.4% of the edits.

This is a massive violation of COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

However, if the overall project is improved, then our policy to WP:Ignore all rules should probably trump the lesser behavioral guideline covering WP:Conflict of interest, and I'd change "should probably" to "definitely" if the doc decides to build the encyclopedia by working on the subject matter and not just his autobiography. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. There is no COI when an expert adds well-sourced, NPOV content about work in their field, citing themselves rarely if ever. That kind of editing behavior would be very welcome, and would not violate COI. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE 2: Thank you for your extended reaction. But I find it difficult to understand. Perhaps because I am a newcomer to Wikipedia editing. Despite my experience as an academic editor and author, I haven't seen such abstract, cryptic reviews before. You suggest you try to "refrain from biting wikipedia editor newbies", but the treatment applied strikes me as sharp. I am in doubt whether I am expected now to make further changes in the article, or stop editing it (as suggested in the first set of comments). If the first, should I then delete the lastly added sentence in the article? Or why don't some of you edit the article - I thought this was the idea of wikipedia, rather than limiting or forbidding others to make changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.118.119 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me make this perfectly clear.

1) read WP:COI to which you have already been pointed many many times.

Here I will fucking quote it for you, and will put lots of space around it, so you can focus on it.

• "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends."

here is another quote for you:

• "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

That is plain mother fucking English.

2) FOLLOW IT.

It is not rocket science. Read it. Follow it.

As an academic scientist you can only be fully aware of what "conflict of interest" is, and of the importance of managing COI in any scholarly endeavor. Yet you have been flagrantly blowing off Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline.

If you continue to violate the COI guideline, I will seek a site ban. I am disgusted, and am done here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) striking, shouting was bad, and i apologize - see below Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog,

WP:Please don't shout

Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

While you're at it, compare WP:Civility and WP:WikiBullying, then ask if you're citing WP:COI in a civil manner, or citing it to defeat the spirit of WP:Civility, which is what a WP:wikilawyer would do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That is awesome! I had no idea that you could multiply bigs like that. Thanks for showing me that. I am happy to work with people who try. And I fully understand that Wikipedia can be bewildering for new editors. However, response #2 was utter bullshit; and if there is one thing that ends my patience sharply, it is arrogant bullshit. Well, that, and lazy arrogance. how many fucking times do people have to say, "hey pal you have a COI issue" before you actually fucking stop and read about what that means, where you are? What got his attention, was power. I said he would be blocked if he didn't start responding. So he responded. (weak applause) And showed zero evidence of giving a fuck about COI much less having read it, much less caring about the integrity of WP. Academic scientists know what COI is - they have to fill out disclosure forms all the time, including when they publish papers. Done, and fucking done. I am going to start working on cleaning up the shitpile of an article. We cannot have shitpiles littering Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC) (striking, per below Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC))

Surprising to read the “shouting” and strong language by Jytdog above. Never in my career (of more than 25 years) I have seen such an extreme over-reaction . I would like to think that Wikipedia editors are calm, reasonable and neutral. In the academic world, such behavior (even if corrected and apologized for as done below) would be the end of your career as an editor. It is difficult to believe then that this editor has afterwards made the drastic changes as s/he has done in an unprejudiced way. I had been revising this for a year now, trying to constructively respond to the various comments. And now I find that all the subtleties have been removed in one stroke by an editor who has no clear expertise on the person or area of research described in the article.

None of the previous reviewers/editors have stated that I could not make changes in the article. In fact, the tone was always that I should make changes in response to the comments, and so I did. This was the first time someone said I should stop making changes, and I immediately did. And I have no problem if my suggestions (when are deemed reasonable) are included through another editor. It is not fair then by Jytdog to suggest I was not open to this.

I, however, don’t question Jytdog’s editorial qualities and am happy that below s/he clearly motivated several (but not all) of the changes s/he made. I respond to these motivations immediately below each of them. Research83 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

do over

• (OK, so I have been reflecting on my behavior here. I regret having lost my cool and shouting and apologize to everybody who has had to read that. I am ashamed of that, and I apologize. I should have said the exact same thing, much more calmly. So, I am striking what I wrote above, and saying it again here, in a way that I can stand behind.)

Research83, you are an academic and you understand what "conflict of interest" is - you have had to make COI declarations when you have submitted papers, and you have written about it in at least one paper. You have been pointed to WP's COI guideline many times and you have not responded. Here and here, the latter of which referred you to here. it was only after i noted that you could be site banned if you continue to ignore our efforts to call your attention to COI (here and here) that you finally started talking back above.

So. You need to deal with your conflict of interest, and Wikipedia's guidelines for COI and the WP's policy on self-promotion. Ignoring those things, and ignoring people trying to talk to you about it, is not OK.

1) Please read WP:PROMO, which is Wikipedia policy. Every single edit you have made, (and I reviewed them all) has been to add content about yourself to WP.

2) Please also read WP:EXPERT, especially #5 under "advice" We greatly value experts, but not when they come here to use to WP for self promotion.

3) please read WP:COI.

Here are two key quotes from it for you:

• "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends."
• 'Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

4) So... follow the COI guideline, and do not continue to use Wikipedia for self-promotion.

If you continue to violate the COI guideline and to abuse Wikipedia for self-promotion, I will seek a site ban. That would be a shame, as you are an accomplished economist, and we can always use more expert contributors. But if you continue to show that you are not here to build an encyclopedia then you will lose your editing privileges.

I hope that is clear to you now.

To answer your questions directly:

a) if you want to see changes to this article, you should suggest them on this page, for other editors to implement. (This process is described in the WP:COI guideline, which is part of the reason why I have urged you to read it.)

b) about the " abstract, cryptic reviews ".... these are not "reviews", they are comments of people trying to talk with you. If you decide to stick around (and although it might not seem that way, I hope you do, albeit it only if you behave in a different way) you will find people responding to you and to what you write, and citing guidelines and policies by linking to them. You need to read what is linked to. That is how we communicate information about policies and guidelines here. It does make communications appear brief and somewhat cryptic, but we are all volunteers and the policy/guideline documents are well thought out and explain what you need to know. Bottom line is that you need to read links that other people embed in their comments to you. We have lots of policies and guidelines but the one that rules them all is WP:CONSENSUS - we talk to each other. That is how we collaborate and work things out.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

coinings

article said he coined "GDP paradox", apparently based on his 2009 paper. I found no secondary source to confirm that, and while searching, found this from 2008. So I took that out. He also claimed coining "agrowth" based on his 2011 paper (although he has an earlier paper from 2010) but again I found no secondary source confirming that, and also found a blog about sustainability in ag using the term that started in 2008. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

“GDP paradox” in the blog mentioned is just an ad hoc title of a short essay in an unknown blog. Moreover, this title is not repeated in the article itself, and the paradox is not well explained. Instead, the van den Bergh article was published in a serious refereed academic journal with an impact factor, offers a very clear and unique explanation of the paradox, and among his articles represents one of the most cited per year. Moreover, this article was submitted in July 2008 as it says in the published version. “Agrowth” has been commented upon in various websites as a relevant and innovative notion (I had included references to these websites). Research83 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

here is the original text with its sourcing:

He coined the notions of GDP paradox and agrowth, the latter denoting a third position next to the polarized pro- and anti-growth views, suggesting to focus on effective public (e.g. environmental) policies and not worry about their impact on economic growth.

References

the only support offered for the coining, were van den Bergh's own papers, which cannot be sources for the claim that he coined the term. I found no secondary source supporting that claim. Would be happy to see any. Jytdog (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)