User talk:Martingoodson

Disclaimer : I am a founder of the data science consultancy Evolution AI. I am an expert in text data analysis. Martingoodson (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, per the note on your IP talk page, you need to reach agreement on the talk page to a contested change. Not simply say 'per talk' ----Snowded ^TALK 13:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Martingoodson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Some advise

Look you are a very new editor and in danger of getting caught up in all sorts of issues. Doug is a long term administrator and a member of arbcom. I've got ten years experience much on controversial issues, but I still pay a lot of attention to his contribution. Learning from experience is one of the ways you get to be a valued editor. In this case you have a very clear commercial interest in this and that could be raised as an issue in its own right. Some editors would refuse you the right to edit any page with that interest. If you really want to raise an RfC then you need to put some effort into drafting a question that does not provide a biased presentation and allows other editors to engage. I'm happy to help you draft that if you want as I suspect you haven't done it before. But at the moment you are digging holes :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate the advice. I am simply trying to improve the quality of the page: self-citation doesn't automatically make my motives suspect. I'm more than happy for you to help me draft the question - I'd appreciate it. I think we'll reach the best outcome for the page via discussion of the facts, not by appeal to authority or ad-hominem attacks.

I should add that I've been an editor for several years. I generally edit anonymously but have logged in on this occasion in order not to conceal any potential conflict of interest.

I'd log in all the time if I were you. A mixture creates concern especially on political articles. The issue isn't self-citation, the issue is that you have a commercial interest in promoting the consultancy firm you reference. That is deeply problematic in wikipedia terms. I can't directly edit articles covering my own work for example. I'll have a look at drafting something tomorrow ----Snowded ^TALK 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I understand your comments and concerns. The difficulty is that my article is the definitive reference on the matter - the economist article is really just a brief comment on my report.

That doesn't make a blind bit of difference. You have a COI so you are restricted in its use. It is also primary research which wikipedia doesn't like only secondary sources really count. I can forecast now that you won't get a direct reference to that work in the article, the best you can hope for is that people read the Economist report. Given that in in your shoes I would let it go - some battles are not worth fighting and the COI position weakens your position. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]