On 10 July 2014 17:51, Pau Cabot <paucabot@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-07-10 18:17 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Gristock <gristock@me.com>:

I would be much obliged if those who agree with Pau could +1 his email (or this one) so that I can be sure that the whole system I am attempting to design, - which involves academics and their students contributing information from their own research and citing it - does not by definition forbidden because of COI.

In addition: I think researchers have a great field to contribute which does not involve citing their own references. If you're an expert in organolithium chemistry, you could write about that without having to cite your own works, writing articles slightly related to the purpose of your research. I think that it is possible, and It's the fairest way to do it.

Alternatively, you could cite your own work if it's the only source that states one specific fact (and maybe explaining it at the discussion of the article).

Surely anyone editing Wikipedia can cite their own work, if everyone else would cite it there also.

I think there needs to be a bit of context also, though. If you choose to start an article on a topic that is rather specialised, so that to develop it anyone would have to rely on your publications, then you need to be somewhat careful. If the broader topic or topics that would include what is in effect your particular speciality are already covered, then it may well be OK. If you are defining a topic too narrowly, then it may not be OK: for example it may look like a section split out of an article that shouldn't be split out. (Discussion here can go via summary style.)

There is nothing inherently wrong on Wikipedia with a very zoomed-in topic (a particular gene, for example); and I have sat beside a professor and expert at a workshop, improving exactly that kind of article from an incorrect stub.

Charles