Kokopelado

Question about your references

Hi, I've noticed that you've added this link http://petsaspests.blogspot.com.es in muiltiple pages that you've edited. If I'm not wrong this fails as a reliable source as it seems to be a blog and maybe it needs to be removed. What do you say? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Well, although it's obviously a blog, contents are peer-reviewed articles ... I update the blog with new or old papers on that subject (problems regarding stray or feral cats and dogs) and I though it was a good method to gather information as reference in wikipedia. This is not original research, no self pubilicity, no oppinion at all ... just an easy way to include articles on a subject that are regularly updated. If you realise, I didn't link to any single post in the blog. This will be silly, because it will be more logical to link to the original research. I link to a group of posts, that, in addition, are permanently updated and enriched. Do you feel it's wrong? If so, tell me and I'll remove, but I did it convinced that I was doing a fair contribution.

Have in mind that many other contributions to those wikipedia pages about feral cats, for instance, are just about oppinions regarding animal welfare.

Thanks for you kind approach --Kokopelado (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

While it is against the guideline as per WP:BLOGS, your edits were constructive and the website does mention the original references it has based the topics on. However it may cause a misunderstanding among other editors since you are using it and someone may even consider this as original research since we can only rely what the sources say rather than our own interpretation of it (in this case, your blog).

A good solution to would be If you could directly cite these references mentioned from the website in the concerned articles. Thanks for clearing this up, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again ... well, sometimes the link includes tens of original papers. Including all of them would be hard. The advantage of the current situation is that the reader can choose what (s)he reads, the summaries are directly available and, when possible, a link to the full paper. I've the commitment to update the blog, but won't have time to include those new references on wiki sites. --Kokopelado (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)