User talk:PeopleScientist

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PeopleScientist! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! LR.127 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI

Hello PeopleScientist, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for trying to contribute. I saw that you added a full section on a single study by Stanek and Ones to the article Knowledge. Please be aware that this violates WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. You added similar texts to various other articles to popularize the works of Stanek and Ones. Please be aware that this violates WP:SPAM and WP:COI. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these and similar policies and guidelines before making more edits. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phlsph7,

Thanks for reaching out and for your vigilance against spam, conflicts of interest, and undue weight. I read through the policies and guidelines you shared, and I don't think the edits I made conflict with any of them.

For example, the relevant part of the spam page seems to be, "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references." However, none of the citations I added (not all of which were Stanek and Ones) were inappropriate. In fact, those authors recently published one of the world's largest sets of meta-analyses on any topic, which offered new facts relevant to several Wikipedia pages. When I looked at those Wikipedia pages, I found they referenced older meta-analyses and studies which are subsumed in the Stanek and Ones ones. Therefore, I made thoughtful updates. In some cases, there weren't sections already made, so I added sections.

Relatedly, my understanding is that "due weight" is about fairly representing viewpoints in proportion with their prominence. The Stanek and Ones 2023 publications are comprehensive, empirical studies of central topics (i.e., intelligence and personality) that incorporate evidence from thousands of researchers across disciplines, cultures, and schools of thought. I also checked Altmetric and the Stanek and Ones paper appears to be in the 99th percentile of attention for research outputs of similar age (https://pnas.altmetric.com/details/149160583/news). Therefore, I don't think it's undue that the findings from those publications would appear on multiple Wikipedia pages or get multiple sentences. I also tried to avoid giving them undue weight by adding them at the bottom (i.e., lower prominence) and in sub-sections that could accommodate other contributions. For example, on the Knowledge page I believe I created a section for Correlates of knowledge, which included personality but also allowed others to add additional subsections like education, SES, etc. that I'm less familiar with. I believe this is the nature of Wikipedia: knowledge is built incrementally over time by contributors who are experts.

Finally, you claim that I have a conflict of interest, but I disagree because I don't think I edited any pages about people, clients, employers, myself, or anything I have a financial relationship with. In contrast, I sincerely feel that I edited to, "summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably". If you believe any of the facts I added were not reliably sourced or were written in a biased way, please point them out specifically rather than deleting my edits.

Given the above, I hope you see that I have not violated the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and you reinstate my edits. PeopleScientist (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at these policies and guidelines.

from WP:SPAM: Citation spamming ... involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. In your case, the "single contributor" is you, the "particular citation or reference" was the work by Stanek and Ones and the "multiple articles" are most of the articles in your contribution history.
WP:UNDUE requires that positions should be presented in proportion to the prominence sources in the reliable sources. Knowledge is a vast subject so only the most important topics can be discussed and we have to be very picky about what information to include. High-quality overview source of knowledge don't give much prominence to the topic of your proposed section (as far as I'm aware, they don't even mention the novel claims presented in this recent study by Stanek and Ones). This strongly indicates that it does not deserve its own main section.
WP:COI is not limited to the cases you mentioned since Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Your attempts to popularize the work Stanek and Ones across multiple articles indicate a conflict of interest. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]