User talk:Andreescul

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Andreescul. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Plagiarism, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I do not have an external relationship - I have an internal one. The reference is to my own published academic work. I think it's a fair reference, since my articles - cited multiple times - are directly relevant to the subtopics / subsections in the article where the efforts were made. Of course there is a potential conflict of interest, just a there is one where Einstein quotes his previous work (pardon the example). But I think your role is to arbitrate that potential CoI by judging the substance of the edit, not the identity of the editor.

Best,

LA Andreescul (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS That said, I should apologize for not disclosing my potential CoI to the editors. I was not aware of the procedures - and that's my bad. /LA Andreescul (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note our WP:SELFCITE guidance. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the material. I still do not understand where the problem is, beyond the fact that I should have disclosed that the editor (me) cited himself. I failed to do so out of ignorance of the wiki standards, and I apologized for it. But, by your own standards:

- The material is relevant to (right on the topic, in fact, including the subsection topics);

- It is not excessive (I cited my work twice, I think, in an article with well over a hundred references);

- I referred to myself in the third person, as per guidelines;

- I did not quote self-published work, but one that has been peer reviewed by academics and was published in a reference work by one of the world's most reputable academic publishers.

Also, and ironically, my username is explicit about who I am - it consists of my full family name and the initial of my first name (I assume this is how you recognized the connection between my name and my citation). I could not say the same about you, for example (I am not saying this to attack you in any way, but just to point out a strange disparity in standards).For all I know, behind the ZimZalaBim username there might be my greatest enemy (I don't have enemies; again, it's just an illustration of incomplete and maybe asymmetric standards).

I have no real interest in litigating this matter further, or in having my name on wikipedia pages. My views on self-plagiarism have been cited by academics, i.e., by people in my profession. But I still believe wiki's editors should reflect on what they do, not just act in knee-jerk fashion ("this guy cited himself, and that's unacceptable, and therefore what he says is irrelevant, and should be removed").

Thanks for taking the time to read all this, for letting me know about my mistake in failing to disclose a CoI as per guidelines, and for writing back.

LA Andreescul (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "litigating the matter". Rather, I simply pointed out a policy that might relevant for you to be aware of. Please assume good faith and recognize that reverting is common in a collaborative wiki-based project. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]