Wikipedia

Talk:OmniScriptum/Archives/2012

< Talk:OmniScriptum
Latest comment: 12 years ago by In ictu oculi in topic Wikipedia self-referencing

Negative POV ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This seems to be written to strongly criticise the company, AFAIK printing and selling Wikipedia articles in book form is a useful service (eg. for African schools and universities who might not have sufficient net access), and Wikipedia encourages such services from private companies to extend the readership of its Creative Commons articles. It's a similar model to making money by copying and selling tapes and CDs of GNU software, which was how GNU used to make its money in the days of tapes, and Linux magazines selling cover discs. (I'm not affillated with the company btw.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.205.196 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2012

I don't think that the point of view here is particularly negative. That section and most of the article sums up the information available about this publisher, and a great deal of the information available on the web is negative criticism, which this page should display by all means since it provides information about its methods. In fact, the section about duplication of Wikipedia articles, if anything, dedicates more words to publicize VDM's own words defending Alphascript than anything else.
Moreover, the page itself does not emit judgement on whether selling Wikipedia articles is right or wrong, it merely states that this practice has been criticized and the reasons why (excessive price of the books, insufficient warning about the nature of their contents, etc). It also states why this practice is defensible from the editor's POV, so in my view this is well balanced. Gadesio (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Over the past couple days, there has been repeated vandalism to this page, involving the blanking of large sections with no explanation. This has been done by 93.197.190.90 (nine edits on one occasion) and 93.197.188.168 (five edits on three occasions). The former also vandalized File:VDM Verlag.png. ‎ I have requested semi-protection for this page as a result. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection isn't really necessary. If IPs in that range make further disruptive edits drop me a note and I will range block them. Fences&Windows 02:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. The attack seems to have died down, and with enough eyes on this page I suspect all will be well. — Lawrence King (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about Wikipedia articles being published

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Total scam, http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Frederic%20P.%20Miller "Frederic P. Miller" as editor 17,658 let alone editing he couldn't even possible read the articles. I assume they didn't even publish all books but print on demand. The issue isn't about selling wikipedia on print, but not warning the readers about it and calling themselves as "editor" like they actually editing. We should alert wikipedia foundation immediately. There should be a limit about how the license is misused. Kasaalan (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alphascript Sources. Kasaalan (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Technically, discussion of the points you are making don't really belong on this page (see WP:Talk page guidelines), because they concern VDM Publishing itself, whereas this talk is for discussing the Wikipedia article about VDM Publishing. (A subtle distinction, perhaps, since the issue concerns Wikipedia itself.) Should this discussion be continued on Wikipedia:Alphascript rather than on this talk page, perhaps? Or, as you suggest, is this really a matter for the Wikimedia lawyers rather than the Wikipedia editors? — Lawrence King (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
We created a thread in Village Pump yet it is marked as resolved. Where we can discuss this matter further. Kasaalan (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't beat a dead horse. You can't force the Wikipedia community to become activists on this. Fences&Windows 20:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I inform wikipedia users about the case. Some get interested and will help, half of the discussing parties don't care and other half do care. The issue is some non-caring editors get frustrated since we care and making a discussion over it. Half of the answers are very useful. Kasaalan (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

The article is borderline an attack page, including NPOV use of "quotation marks" and criticism sections. Uncool guys. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It was much more neutral until recently. It's turned into a hatchet job. Fences&Windows 04:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep. This needs serious cleanup. The scare quotes, in particular, look very bad. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with F&W and with Gavia immer. I have removed several paragraphs that were clearly inappropriate (see the edit history). Still, even though this page is not yet NPOV, I don't think it reaches the level of being an "attack page", because there is an attempt to give both sides of the story -- we have an entire paragraph giving the company president's defense of the company's procedures and response to their critics. (Which, btw, is evidence that the accusations, even if false, are notable.) What I would like to see is additional material that supports "their side" of the story.
However, keeping this article NPOV in the long run will be a huge challenge. It's hard enough to keep an article about a politician NPOV, but we will usually end up with some editors who like the politician and others who dislike him, and that balance can help keep the editors honest. However, in this case, VDM / Alphascript has (allegedly) done things to offend Wikipedia editors in general. But that's all of us! In other words, nobody who edits this page can possibly be a disinterested party. So we all have to try to be as fair as possible.
OrangeDog, you specifically objected to having a "criticism section" on this page. What would you prefer? I created the criticism section because, before I did so, criticisms were sprinkled throughout this article, in every paragraph. I thought it would be more NPOV to move all the criticisms to one section, and include the president's response in that section as well. That section is called "Criticism and response". Isn't that a reasonable arrangement? (I'm not saying that all subsequent editors have stuck to this plan; I'm just asking if this plan is itself a good idea.) — Lawrence King (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
One more question. Is "spam" an intrinsically POV word? It seems pejorative, but I can't think of any other word that means "runs a computer program that searches college libraries for the names of thesis authors, seaches for those authors' email addresses, and sends thousands of duplicated emails to these people offering them a product or service". The fact that VDM does this is uncontested, but calling it "spam" might be seen as unfair. Thoughts? — Lawrence King (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Lawrence, your recent edits get a "thumbs up" from me on the NPOV front. In terms of basic style, it still has obvious issues, but there is an easy fix for that. In the long term, if we can find verifiable positive material, the probable best solution is just to have a section on their business model that lets the issues speak for themselves. If we say that they are charging $50 for material that you could also find by using the search box right here, we don't have to follow up with "That's bad!", because anyone reading this here (or in one of their cheesy compilations, even) can work out for themself that it is so. As far as the allegations of spamming, it's not clear to me that cold-calling people who want their material published with an offer to publish it is spamming in the same sense that random Viagra emails are; it needs to be treated neutrally. I think that in general having a section title without "criticism" in it would advance NPOV even if the content underneath it doesn't change. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a criticism section, but on an already POV-prone article it generally makes things look worse. Alternatives to "spam" could include "unsolicited marketing", "head-hunting" or "actively approach potential customers/clients/authors". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I created a customer complaints section with direct amazon customer reviews and complaints. I hide the fraud word until there is an agreement. Though it is a fact some customers over the internet called it that way, you may still claim RS. Kasaalan (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've reverted it, as I will anything sourced to blog comments. I have no doubt that some people buy these things and get pissed off - but Amazon complaints and blog comments don't establish the significance or even the verifiable truth of their assertions. Find a good secondary source discussing customer satisfaction issues, please, and use that. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
While I'm at it - I can find no evidence that the Guardian interview actually occurred, or least no evidence that it was ever published by the Guardian. this doesn't have acceptable sourcing either, so it needs to say out as well - unless you can find an acceptable source for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you didn't check rest of the references either. The fact is there are user complaints and serious ones even in Amazon site. I just provided links for complaints to exist. We sure complaints exist since they even put that question in the interview in their own page, though they did not replied it directly. Kasaalan (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I did check. There are angry complaints on Amazon, and I'm sure there are angry complaints elsewhere. These are primary source documents of unknown reliability, and not acceptable to support the language you have added to the article. Likewise, if you want to cover the supposed Guardian interview in the article, you need to establish that it actually occurred; it's not acceptable to source anything to material that might be a simple invention. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I meant did you check other article references. Read carefully, lots of previous references in the article are already blogs: http://htwkbk.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/wow-someone-wants-to-publish-me/, http://chrisnf.blogspot.com/2009/06/academic-spam.html, http://theprocrastinatrix.com/site/spam_spam_spam_spam/ and I did not add them.
That is 1st hand source for corporate's views, you cannot delete such info or strictly get reverted. Even if Guardian make an interview and not publish or they didn't and corporate lies, the info stays. Don't edit war when you are wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
So we shall remove those too. First-hand sources are not usually good enough, and unverifiable information will not be accepted either, even if it is true. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)To follow on to various things said above: I have removed all of the following: Assertions of spamming referenced to a selection of blogs; two completely unverifiable interviews, one of which had an apparently broken Webcitation link and no existing webpage and the other of which claimed to be an interview by The Guardian but doesn't ever seem to have been published by that newspaper; and a discussion of the publisher on "Writer Beware!", which is not a neutral source (I left in the substantially similar SFWA source, which is at least better than this). I am also concerned about the references to Wikipedia articles themselves; those aren't acceptable as they stand, and should be replaced by references to a permanently linked "oldid" version of the article (which is acceptable sourcing in these circumstances. I am quite concerned as well about the links to Amazon, for a number of reasons: The editor who introduced those links has a problem with Amazon selling these books, and he has attempted to add negative content sourced to Amazon customer reviews. Probably the material in question should be sourced to Google Books instead; [1] is a starting point for this. We are not a website for crusades against certain publishing businesses, but a neutral encyclopedia, and our articles must reflect this. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will sure revert you. Again as claimed above true so we can verify Alphascript claims they get interviewed by Guardian, we cannot be sure whether Guardian interviewed or not, yet we are sure Guardian did not publish such interview. Corporate's own site is acceptable primary source. Writer Beware is sponsored by SFWA or Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, and they are related. Official blog of an association is primary WP:RS. Check primary contributors to the blog if you like.
And yes we are an electronic encyclopedia, whose content is used to scam people, and referencing user complaints cannot be called as crusade whatsoever. I do not add, they are scammers in the article, I said many people claim they are scammed, which is an undeniable and verifiable fact. Also the blogs, mails etc. excerpted are fully supported by Alphascripts' own press releases and comments in their own website, where they strictly refuse to inform readers that they publish wiki articles before they buy. You try to delete that statements, which only results as a WP:CENSOR in practice. Kasaalan (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As others above have written, blogs are not good sources for this kind of critical material. I've removed them. I'm unsure about the use of the corporate site claiming to provide an excerpt of an undated Guardian interview that cannot be verified. I'm leaving that in, for now, as I mull this over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momma's Little Helper (talk • contribs) 05:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Another single purpose account [2] from VDM who tries to eliminate criticism claiming RS. Interestingly blogs are belong to academics, who VDM contacted to obtain their thesis.

So you basically try to contact them to publish their thesis since they are credible enough. Yet their blogs are not credible to criticize you. Guess who will allow you to remove academics' criticism in their blogs. Kasaalan (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to eliminate criticism, I am trying to ensure that this article is well written, and complies with wikipedia policies. Blogs are not reliable sources for critical information. (and not that this is in any way relevant, as VDM is not constrained by Wikipedia rules, but the material VDM seeks to publish by these blog writers is their academic wrok, not their blogs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momma's Little Helper (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Accusation that Momma's Little Helper is a single purpose account

No actually you have a Conflict of Interest with VDM. You only registered for VDM article. And you try to eliminate criticism by removing VDM's self statements.
An academic work is only as reliable as the writer, since VDM do not edit or proofread the theses, they cannot determine the credibility of the theses anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What Conflict of Interest do you imagine me to have with VDM? I am not affiliated with VDM in any way, nor do I have any personal or business relation ship with the company or anyone who works there. I am just trying to make sure this article is properly written. You seem to be very emotionally invested in this topic, and it is probably a good idea for you to step back from editing here, if you can't do so dispassionately. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Momma's Little Helper, I agree with you that Kasaalan is emotionally invested in this article. However, I do agree with him that your sudden arrival is a bit mysterious. This page has been repeatedly vandalized by anonymous IP editors from Germany [3] [4], and it's not unreasonable to suppose that these edits might have come from someone with an interest in VDM. After several of us editors agreed to watch for this in the future, a brand new account was created named "Momma's Little Helper" which then procedeed to remove all negative commetns [5]. So you shouldn't be suprised that many of us wonder if you are a single purpose account. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I must apologize for my previous edit to the page, which I have now undone [6]. Somehow I read the edit summary backward and thought that Momma's Little Helper had deleted the Tages-Anzeiger paragraph, when in fact he/she had added that paragraph. Therefore, I must also apologize to Momma's Little Helper for saying that I suspected he/she had an agenda to defend VDM, which was based on my incorrect reading of the edit history. Sorry about that! — Lawrence King (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One other point. One of the contributors to this page has apparently vandalized another contributor's user page [7]. That is completely unacceptable. Even if someone is convinced that another editor is acting in bad faith, or is a sockpuppet, or a single-purpose editor, or anything of that sort, the proper recourse is to submit an accusation to the Wikipedia admins, not to vandalize their userpage. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted :) I understand where the suspicions arose, but you have to start editing somewhere... For what it's worth, I am not editing from Germany. As you've seen, I have no problem with adding properly sourced criticism of VDM to the article. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a single purpose and COI account like johny89 [8]. There is nothing to argue here. Kasaalan (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Note inserted on 11 May 2010: Jonny98 alias 62.143.66.193, de:Johnny98, de:Jonny98 is currently active on the German Wikipedia and has created a page about "the head of global communication for the VDM Publishing Group" (see: http://www.vdm-publishing.com/index.php?act=nav&nav=10051). Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I ask you again - What Conflict of Interest do you imagine me to have with VDM? I am not affiliated with VDM in any way, nor do I have any personal or business relation ship with the company or anyone who works there. How do these COI accusations square with the fact that I have added the only well-sourced criticism of VDM to this article, criticism which describes their business practices as "bordering on deception"? Please, take some time to review what I have been doing on this article before repeating baseless accusations. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You just created account this single page only. You are affiliated with VDM. Now you are trying to disguise yourself with editing few other articles. You constantly try to remove self-published interview quotes from the context, simply because you think it will look bad on company.
Full text of the guardian interview was published once https://online.vdm-verlag.de/downloads/interview.pdf yet removed from VDM web site in a similar manner. But I have the full text anyway, after I examine fully I will add accordingly. Kasaalan (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
So, in order; I have edited multiple pages, not just this one, and I would find your accusations that I am editing other pages as a 'disguise' amusing, were they not accompanied by disruptive editing - removing everything I do with dubious justifications. why would I remove interview quotes that you think make the company look bad, but then turn around and add much stronger criticism from a reliable source? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
At least VDM brought some amusement to wikipedia for free. A few in-between editing for disguise, another Johny89 account, I am not a VDM customer so do not waste my time with arguments I do not believe. I do not care whether VDM think they look bad or not along with your accusations, as long as VDM keeps the interview, quotes stay end of discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In a word, no. That's not how wikipedia works, and if you continue this sort of disruptive editing, coupled with bad faith accusations, I'll take it up in the appropriate forums. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't even know how to sign your post 2 days ago, yet you do know how wikipedia works and what disruptive editing is. How wikipedia is to present facts, not remove them. Kasaalan (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Split VDM from Alphascript?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should we split this page into two separate articles, VDM Publishing House and Alphascript Publishing?

I think it might make managing this page easier. Both publishers are involved in controversies, but they are very different controversies:

  • VDM is accused of being an "author mill", which may be something unpleasant (although I'm unsure if it really is), but nonetheless is publishing books by real authors who have given full consent to their material being published. VDM's critics are worried that these books will not sell, and the authors are being given unreasonable hopes of making money on the deal.
  • Alphascript is publishing Wikipedia articles, and (allegedly) affixing names of authors who did not really write the material. Alphascript's critics are worried that these books will sell, allowing Alphascript to make money off things they didn't write.

The real reason I am suggesting this is to manage the page. Originally this page was about VDM, and it had a lot of criticisms. I split those into a "Criticism and response" section. Then someone added the "Alphascript and Betascript" section. That section now also includes criticisms. But those criticisms can't be added to the main "Criticism and response" section... if you see what I mean.

They are owned by the same company, so that would have to be noted on the page. But Wikipedia routinely has separate pages for companies that are owned by the same parent company.

Thoughts? — Lawrence King (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The real test here: do third-party sources generally lump these entities together, or do they generally treat them separately? We ought to follow whatever those sources are doing, assuming there's a clear preference one way or the other. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Alphascript (and Betascript) is an imprint of VDM Publishing, and so it should be covered here for the benefit of the readers. We shouldn't unnecessarily split pages. Also, Alphascript Publishing is important to Wikipedians, but probably not notable by itself. As for "Criticism and response", a neutral title for such sections is "Reception". Fences&Windows 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Redirects are better for now. Kasaalan (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if it is to remain a single page, should the infobox be split into two infoboxes -- one for VDM which begins at the start of the page, and one for Alphascript that begins in that subsection?
Also, if it is to remain a single page, we need to figure out what to do about the "criticism" section. I can see arguments for and against having such a section. (I myself favor it, assuming that the current edit war eventually dies down.) But it makes no sense at all to have three sections -- (1) VDM, (2) Criticism, (3) Alphascript -- where the Criticism section includes criticism of Alphascript. Of course, if the edit war ends with an agreement to remove all criticism of Alphascript this issue will be moot, but I suspect that someone will eventually find a solid source for such criticism and it will have to be in the article. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

VDM's business model

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Gavia immer, you suggested that a section on VDM's business model might be a good solution.

In your recent edits, you removed the following. (I am converting the ref tags to inline citations so they can be seen on this talk page.)

Unlike most print on demand publishing companies, it employs a team of acquisition editors that integrates electronic spamming into its methods to approach potential authors. [ http://htwkbk.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/wow-someone-wants-to-publish-me/ Dale Askey: Wow, someone wants to publish me! ] [ http://chrisnf.blogspot.com/2009/06/academic-spam.html Christopher Collins: Academic Spam ] [ http://theprocrastinatrix.com/site/spam_spam_spam_spam/ Rebecca Jee: spam spam spam spam]

I agree that the sources are blogs and therefore not legitimate sources. A quick search of the web [9] turns up dozens -- maybe hundreds of similar blog entries. This is not surprising. After all, VDM is spamming sending computer-generated emails to thousands of people -- apparently, everyone who has ever written a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation and whose college library has a web-accessible catalog. And as it happens, some of these people have blogs. So my first question is, even if we could identify thousands of individuals who have received these emails and written about them on their blogs, would that still violate WP:NOR as a source?

If so, I think someone here (I don't have time for it, sadly) should do a search and find someone in a newspaper who has written about it, and use that as a source. I do think that this odd business model is notable, but it needs to be sourced; and while I personally would like the NOR rule to be revised in certain ways, that's not my call and I think we need to abide by it. — Lawrence King (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The blogs are WP:RS for the context. Mainly because they are PHD or Masters thesis graduated, who get contacted by Alphascript for their thesis' copyrights. Academic circle blogs are reliable over whether they get contacted for their thesis or not. If we can use their thesis as WP:RS references for wiki articles, then we can use their blogs about the mails they received by Alphascript. Kasaalan (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The blog owners' opinion that VDM's solicitations were spam is NOT an acceptable source for the assertion that those solicitations actually were spam, because the individual blogs cannot document how many people had a less negative opinion, nor can they demonstrate importance of the particular authors' opinions on their own without context. This really needs a reliable secondary source, and my attempts at a websearch turned up a trend you can already see in the article - most of the existing discussion of VDM appears to be German-language sources. My German is terrible, unfortunately, so I'm not going to be much good at finding the wheat among the chaff there. Regardless of the fact that those blogs aren't acceptable in the article, I consider it established that VDM does cold solicitations of academics looking for publication - so I will look for a good source in that regard. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
See my discussion of the word "spam" above. I am not arguing that the word "spam" should be re-introduced into this article, since the consensus is that this word is pejorative. Moreover, I agree that "negative opinions" on blogs, no matter how many, are not valid sources. I was suggesting that the fact, not someone's opinions, of VDM's business model is encyclopedic. I think I must have phrased my comments above poorly, because I think you and I are on the same page: I agree 100% with what you wrote above. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess we are talking past one another, then - yes, I absolutely agree that discussion of their business model is appropriate - only, it must be neutral and verifiable. I've found dozens of blog posts and forum posts about their business practices, but so far the best neutral source is the SFWA, and it's already used as a source in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Sources: Story about a Nigerian author who can't afford to buy her own book:[10]. Here's the Google translation of a Swiss newspaper story about VDM:[11] It isn't complimentary: "Doch das Vorgehen des VDM-Verlags, der grösstenteils von Mauritius aus operiert, ist umstritten und grenzt an Täuschung" Translation: "But the actions of the VDM-Verlag, which is largely operated from Mauritius, are controversial and border on deception." I would imagine a trawl of German-language newspapers will find some more stories. Fences&Windows 18:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not state VDM scams people, which should be proven by court before we add. I stated lots of internet users who bought VDM Publishing's printed wiki articles, which are marketed without any notice as VDM officially accepts, claim/find the business model as scam, which is an undeniable proven fact with many forum and blog posts. So don't tell me "The blog owners' opinion that VDM's solicitations were spam is NOT an acceptable source for the assertion that those solicitations actually were spam" I never made such a claim anyway. I added they claim they are scammed as a neutral fact, which is supported by company's own press releases. Kasaalan (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Original research

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

The following section appears to be the work of a wikipedia editor conducting his own research on Amazon. I t may be correct, but I don't think we allow this kind of original research:

As of February 2010[update], there are 17,658 books by Alphascript Publishing listed in Amazon.com over broad diversity of titles, with Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome and John McBrewster listed as the editors of these books,[6] some with the similar titles to Wikipedia articles.[7][8] In some cases, the product description of these books on Amazon are copied from other Wikipedia articles.[9][10]

In fact, we don't allow it, a point that I've made above. However, Kasaalan insists on reinserting this whenever it's removed, regardless of policy. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Above search is a verifiable fact and not an OR. You claim even if it is true, you try to bring policies.
By the way I will not tolerate removal of company's self declared policies and fully revert. We have no obligation to summarize and remove quotes whatsover. Kasaalan (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I support inclusion of Kasaalan's proposed text. I understand the OR concern, but the information is a verifiable fact accessible to all, it reminds of the time I looked at a map and wrote "river x ends in y gulf" and was accused of OR. Even if it violated WP:OR, WP:OR should be bent slightly in this case. Secondary sources should be added if and when they can be found.--Milowent (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep the first half. The WP:OR policy states: Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Clearly, any "educated person without specialist knowledge" is capable of going to Amazon.com's advanced search panel and determining how many Alphascript books are listed there, and the names of their authors. Therefore, the first half of Kasaalan's text is certainly permissible.

    The second half (the sentences that include footnotes 20, 21, 22, 23 in this revision of this article) are also statements that can be verified by any person without specialist knowledge. However, unlike the first half of the paragraph in question, this qualifies
    as "a synthesis of published material to advance a new position", which is explicitly forbidden in the WP:OR policy. So this portion of the paragraph needs to be deleted, revised, or given a new source. — Lawrence King (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, it's worth pointing out that the second half of the paragraph is unneccessary. This article already states that Alphascript uses Wikipedia articles to make its books, and the source is a statement by the company itself. So there is no need to include Kasaalan's careful comparison of the Amazon blurbs with Wikipedia articles, even though I think he deserves thanks for having put so much work into this! — Lawrence King (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the results of a user's interactions with a transactional web site that performs queries against a database can be reasonably described as a "primary source". It is easy to see this, using the very example we are discussing here. The statement being attributed to this "primary source" is the following: "As of February 2010[update], there are 17,658 books by Alphascript Publishing listed in Amazon.com". But it is now March, and if I go and perform the very same search you describe, I get different results, which is to be expected, as more books were added or deleted in the meantime. It is further expected that as time goes by, the results will differ materially from what happened to be the results in Feb 2010 - and since there is no published record of those results, there is no way for anyone to verify if, in fact, they ever were 17,658. A "primary source" in this case would be a statement on VDM's web site, or a press release by Amazon, dated Feb 2010, stating they now have some 17,000 titles by VDM available on Amazon. But the query that Kasaalan performed is not a "primary source' - it is original research, and non replicable original research, at that. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
As of March 2010 number of freely avaliable wikipedia articles, offered in printed form via print on demand without any pre-notice through Amazon.com by Alphascript, is 17,682. So we can clearly tell As of 2010, the number of freely available wikipedia articles Alphascript offers as print on demand books are over 17.000, which priced between 6.81 US dollars Ecuador: History of Ecuador, Ecuadorian War of Independence, History of the Ecuadorian?Peruvian territorial dispute, Politics of Ecuador, Geography of Ecuador and 189 US dollars United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics: 2008 Summer Olympics, Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Archery at ... Baseball at the 2008 Summer Olympics. That is no OR but a clear fact. We may always round the number. The changed number of titles does not harm the fact that there were 17,658 books listed at the date I added the reference. We may clearly tell over 17.000 unless it reaches the 18.000. VDM, do not waste my time. Kasaalan (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that "original research" is somehow in opposition to "fact" the terms are not mutually exclusive. There is plenty of original research which is fact - but we may not post such original research here, until it has been published by reliable sources. I could go into my back yard, and measure the temperature, and it would be a fact that it is 54° - but it would be original research, and not suitable for publication here, because it is my research, unpublished by any 3rd party sources. I could repeat this every day for a year, and then tell you the average temperature for every month, but I could not go to the Wiki article about my city and add that to the climate section, because it would still be my unpublished original research, even though it is 100% fact. You would not be able to verify it, because no one but me published it. The same is true here - you are just substituting my thermometer for your interaction with the SQL query engine running on Amazon - but you are conducting original research just the same, and publishing it. This also touches on the topic of notability - it seems that no one but you thinks that the number of books by VDM available on Amazon is noteworthy - no seems to have written a single published word in reliable sources about it. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Likewise, adding a compilation of data points (book titles, Amazon comments) and asking the reader to draw a conclusion from them is original research, even if the conclusion you want them to draw is unmistakeably true. Find some acceptable source that just states the conclusion, instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean like "VDM Publishing self-claims to publish more than 10.000 new titles and thus claims to be "one of the leading publishing houses of academic research".[12] Don't worry unlike other editors I do make research. But also stating over 17.000 titles is not OR by anyway, it is a basic and factual info about company. If you draw conclusion by facts it is your own fault. By the way, more serious bookstores like Blackwell only lists VDM Verlag titles and no Alphascript title, guess why. Kasaalan (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
'Don't worry unlike other editors I do make research. ' - Glad to hear you admit it. We can't use that type of research here. If " stating over 17.000 titles is not OR" - can you show me where I can read this statement? Again, OR is not the opposite of 'fact'. Something can be a fact, but until it is published by reliable 3rd part sources, it remains original research. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way do not make assumptions you make a point with your backyard experiment example case. The issue is verifiability and notability. Noone cares and cannot verify your experiments, therefore it is unencyclopedic. VDM self-statedly praises itself by number of academic titles they publish as I referenced. And since it is a verifiable fact and a quantity which they like to show off by their own links through their own website, I veried and added the quantity. There is no consensus on OR, but your imagination.
VDM website links to its own titles to Amazon in its own pages, which clearly shows the number of titles they offer in Amazon. I will fully revert your subtractive editing again on interview, I do not neeed any preach from any Single purpose account by VDM. Kasaalan (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw it is OR. LK, below, agrees it is OR. Gavia agree it is OR. Even Milowent, who wants this material kept, agrees that it is OR. Consensus is clearly against you. You can refer back to the VDM web site - even though that is a primary source. You may not add your personal research. If you continue with your disruption against consensus here, I will take it up in the appropriate forums. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not OR, as I can tell. RA also reverted you. Lawrence supports keeping first part. So do not make up consensus out of nowhere. Kasaalan (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
MLH is correct that this is original research. But as I wrote in my "keep the first half" opinion above, the WP:OR policy does not forbid all kinds of original research. A small portion of the OR on this page is actually permitted in the policy. But most of it is not. In any event, unless the edit war ends, it doesn't really matter what the WP policies actually say. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a verifiable fact as you all know. Also Amazon is a Reliable and a primary source for number of titles it provide for the publishers they have a business partnership. Youtube is a primary and reliable source for view counts of videos they host, at least the non-controversial ones. You can always state, a video is viewed 2 million times according to youtube stats. You do not need any 3rd party who will do exactly what you do to get view counts, by simply clicking a link. Kasaalan (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Go VDM's own partners page check the links under amazon. VDM provided links themselves for advertising purposes. It provides links for its own Müller in Amazon.com 7,453 Results, VDM Verlag Müller in amazon.co.uk 12,709 Results, VDM Verlag German titles in amazon.de 13.866 results, VMD Verlag Müller English titles in amazon.de 9.803 results. So Müller "edited" and signed at least 12.000 titles only by himself, he may even apply for a Guinness Record for a groundbreaking accomplishement, why you try to hide such a fact anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As an indication of good will why don't you translate Berner Zeitung article titled The big money-with Thesis about VDM into English for wikipedia as a contribution. It is a perfectly RS. Kasaalan (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples for youtube view counts in wikipedia

[Original Research] policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived. The community even supplies some templates to help perform such calculations.

There are lots of other pages with youtube views counts, but 4 is enough, it is not OR to provide such a fact. Youtube is RS and main source for its view count, and Amazon is RS and main source for titles it provided. Kasaalan (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Industry

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I know what the Publishing industry is - I am not familiar with an industry called "edition". perhaps Kasaalan can explain what that industry is. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add edition myself, Lawrence did and you removed. I added both for you 2 to clarify things in debate in talk. It is same for 2 additional headquarters you added 2 more, Lawrence removed. your own edits So just debate and add whichever info is more accurate. Kasaalan (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in the history of who added it - I am asking what is the "Edition" industry? Can you explain? With regards to HQ, those are regional offices, they are not the headquarters Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ask to Lawrence, make a debate so we can finalize that sections. Unless you both make arguments I cannot decide which term is better. I added Publication/Edition and all 3 cities, until you have an agreement for the terms and headquarters. Kasaalan (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was Playmobilonhishorse who created the infobox, and he included "Edition" as the industry when he created it: [13]. Since then it has been changed several times. I myself am aware there is no such thing as an "edition industry". However, I would like to say two things about the overall argument here: (1) I think that Kasaalan's primary language is probably not English. The term édition in French means roughly what "publishing" means in English [14]. In this instance I think we need to cut Kasaalan some slack, because many extremely valuable Wikipedia editors are non-native English speakers who make certain linguistic errors but nonetheless produce valuable information (see WP:Speakers of other languages). (2) Since this page has degenerated into an edit war, we really need to sit back and find a consensus. Or else give up on this page and leave it to others; I am strongly leaning in the latter direction myself. I rarely see any point in trying to improve a page that's in the middle of an edit war, since anything I contribute will just be erased within a few hours anyway. I have better uses for my time. Heck, watching YouTube is a better use of my time. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing to accept that as the source of Kasaalan's confusion. But if that is the case, now that we've clarified it, can we remove the 'edition'? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker. As a policy, I try not to waste none of other editors efforts, even if I revert subtractive edits, I keep progressive ones. I am fine with whatever wording you agree on. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Also why did you add "Saarbrücken, Beau-Bassin, Chişinău" as corporate headquaters then removed yourself. Kasaalan (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not add those as corporate headquarters. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, play added it and you removed them. Main headquarters is in Saarbrücken, but most of the job is done in Mauratia since most of the company employees are Mauratian. Maybe it is better to leave Saarbrücken only. Is there any term for secondary headquarters in english. Kasaalan (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We can note, in the body of the article, that most of the work is done in Mauritius. But that is note a "secondary headquarter". Most of the work Nike, Inc. does is offshore in Asia, but its HQ is in Oregon. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are "secondary headquarter", "regional headquarter" and "Operational headquarter" terms. There is also Shared Services Center. Yet since CEO is in Saarbrücken we may also leave it as it is, since it is not a priority anyway.
On the other hand, won't you translate Berner Zeitung article titled The big money-with Thesis about VDM, as an indication of good faith. Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I've already done so, several days ago. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You possibly know German already. A full translation would be better. You don't have any actual edit in wikipedia than a paragraph addition. You may fully translate the article, since you mainly interested in editing VDM page. Kasaalan (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Kasaalan, you have no right to demand that Momma's Little Helper perform a task of your choosing "as an indication of good faith". Rather, you should assume good faith. Your edits have been consistently POV, always hostile to VDM Publishing, and often in violation of Wikipedia policies. MLH's edits have been sometimes "pro" VDM and sometimes "anti" VDM, but always in the pursuit of making this a better article in conformity to Wikipedia standards. As shown in the previous discussions, I haven't always agreed with every detail of MLH's edits, but I have come to respect his goals and efforts. Whereas, even though I originally was closer to your view in terms of substance, I have become extremely dismayed by your repeated rudeness and refusal to seek consensus on the discussion page before engaging in a revert war. — Lawrence King (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"MLH's edits have been sometimes "pro" VDM and sometimes "anti" VDM". Clearly wrong. So far the user only contributed 1 paragraph to wikipedia as a content addition, only 1, and that is it. So not sometimes, only 1 time contribution so-far. Rest of the edits are a few wikilink or similar edits to a few other articles, and subtractions or reverts in VDM page. You act emotional. But I provided why academic blogs are RS 1 by 1, so try not to assume my edits are related to any OR or I act emotional likewise. And the references were not even added by me yet are perfectly RS blogs as I proved. He accused me, threatened me with admin level actions, started and edit-war by reverting well referenced info I and other editors added by his own assumptions and misinterpretations, as a start to wikipedia while he couldn't even sign his comments and just after a single purpose account's edits. Still I did not fully engage in the edit war or fully revert any effort but just reverting the reverts while keeping the useful additions in article even though they are not sourced. Assuming good faith and losing good faith assumptions are 2 different things. I can debate further but I don't like to waste time on personal debates. I remain calm against rudeness, yet I do not tolerate any removal of well sourced info in articles. Kasaalan (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RS academician blogs that are removed by false accusations

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Lawrence when I will not debate for now, yet removing the well sourced additions is ultimate rudeness in wikipedia. I will provide WP:RS blog links that were removed arguably for being "unreliable", as proof of all my additions and reverts are justifiable. As I said I will not tolerate removal of well sourced info, and I am not the one who is starting an edit war by removing academicians blogs as non-RS. I added a few links to bunch of removed RS references myself, and added explanations with solid proof.

Blogs are belong to 1 professor, 1 librarian, 1 phd, 3 master student/graduates, 2 publishing professionals and 1 VDM author who VDM contacted to obtain their thesis since they claim "they are reliable enough".

VDM Author
Professor
Librarian
PHD
Master
Publishing professionals

Debate

Sources are perfectly RS and not just some blogs. Professionals or academicians, and Pasi Hakkarainen himself is an author for VDM anyway. If you keep on reverting addition of interview quotes or text that leaves no space for assuming good faith. This is exactly why I do make research before adding RS or reverting the subtractive edits. Yet others just argue based on their own "RS" claims without any actual research. Kasaalan (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that blogs in general are to be considered reliable sources unless the blogger is blogging about himself/herself.
In particular, the list above contains some questionable entries. None of the ones in the "Master" category above seem any more qualified than me (who also has a Master's degree) to opine about VDM. If I blogged about it, would I make the list above? Just because someone has impressive academic accomplishments doesn't make them authoritative or reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong for many reasons.
  • First, all above authors who wrote thesis or dissertations were contacted via VDM. I do not quote their opinions about VDM I only report their factual statement about they got contacted out of blue via mail by VDM. Can you disagree that fact or state they didn't, no, then your opine on the issue doesn't matter much does it.
  • There are higher academicians, doctorate authors, publishing professionals and a professor so do you still have doubt about mass electronic mails, no, then why do you objecting a fact.
  • If you don't believe them I also quoted a VDM author who published his thesis via VDM. So can you still deny the business practice.
  • If you still doubt did you research unofficial academic forums like phdcomics or research the case. Can VDM deny they don't send mass emails or contact thesis/dissertation authors via mail by library catalogs, no, then why do you objecting a fact.
So basically you can use an academical thesis anywhere in wikipedia, but cannot use the authors word when he claims he contacted via a published about his/her thesis even if he fully copies the mail and the company cannot deny it. Nice logic. So how do we take the newspaper and journalists' word and use it as references. Kasaalan (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It is actually not a given that "you can use an academical thesis anywhere in wikipedia". But there is a difference between using an academic's peer-reviewed work, or his published (by a 3rd party press) work, and using his self-published views from a personal blog. 14:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momma's Little Helper (talk • contribs)
I took a break from Wikipedia editing but one user commented about the article, so I checked the page, Another user who got for using multiple accounts and disruptive behavior, just as I claim months before, yet threatened me to take administrative action claiming I act disruptive at [15]. Kasaalan (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lengthy quotes vs. paraphrase

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

WP:Copyrights says "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." (Emphasis in the original)
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, beyond its self-explanatory title, says "Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations" (My emphasis)
Wikipedia:Quote#When_not_to_use_quotations says "Try to avoid quotations in the following circumstances:...Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
There are several policy and guideline-based arguments against the lengthy quote taken from the interview. What is the policy based argument to use it, in preference to the paraphrase? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The quotation is: "In public, VDM is sometimes made out to be 'aggressive'. What do you think about it? Müller: Well, that's comprehensible. We make an approach to our authors offering to publish their work. That's not good manners in the distinguished publishing sector. On the other hand, our customers are totally satisfied with our publishing service." Müller's sentences are centered on the explanation of why VDM is reputed as being aggressive whereas your irrelevant paraphrase is centered on customers satisfaction: "Wolfgang Philipp Müller, CEO, defended the use of these methods arguing that while the practice of solicitation is frowned upon by "distinguished publishing", VDM's customers are 'totally satisfied" with its services." Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Apparently a group of authors and consumers have taken it upon themselves to launch a class action law suit. The website states: "VDM’s publishing techniques have allegedly solicited manuscripts from thousands of individual authors, to have provided authors with the appearance of a peer-reviewed publishing history, for benefiting from the free contributions of online volunteers, for insufficiently disclosing that their material is available free elsewhere, and for reproducing and publishing copyright protected material without written permission from the authors." You may check out the suit at: http://betascriptlawsuitvdmpublishing.wordpress.com/ RockyRocksem (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please look over WP:RS. We cannot include this information in the article without a reliable source. Kevin (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was aware it was not yet a reliable source, but as soon as the lawsuit becomes public it will be. I was hoping it would stay in the article long enough to draw attention to the suit. They need as many people to sign up as possible. My bad — but the end justifies the means. RockyRocksem (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to draw attention to your cause, no matter how noble it may be. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If the lawsuit eventually gets reported in a reliable source we'll be able to talk about it in our article about VDM, but until then, it doesn't belong here. Mo matter how well-deserved the lawsuit may be, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a way to promote causes. Kevin (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It is an online editing forum masquerading as an encyclopedia. Anyone, including Mickey Mouse, can barge in and edit. And herein is the problem. Wikipedia has stolen copyright material which VDM Publishing picked up and published. This is why VDM is saying they are not liable. But "somebody" stole material and "somebody" is liable. RockyRocksem (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The above listed site has been disabled. Obviously any intended lawsuits have been dropped. CWatchman (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia self-referencing

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm probably late in the game in this one. Does anyone know if there is a bot set up to catch WP edits referencing VDM Publishing author names being used as self-sources? NB Category:VDM Publishing author names In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OmniScriptum/Archives/2012&oldid=1177879927"