Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kevin Shepherd/1

Kevin Shepherd

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted - there is a clear consensus that the article does not meet GA status, particularly the article uses too many primary sources, may contain original research and is not suitably broad in its coverage Smartse (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was created by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing Wikipedia on 10 September 2009. It was promoted to GA by Simon Kidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 27 September 2009; he started the GA assessment with his 14th edit to Wikipedia.

People with the same names as these WP accounts have commented at amazon on Kevin R. D. Shepherd, raising the possibility of COI and/or sockpuppeting, especially given the technical proficiency of the edits made. (There seems to be some prior Wikipedia history, see [1].)

As for the article itself, it does not demonstrate that the author meets notability requirements. Almost all the citations are to the subject's own books, which are self-published, and to his website. Only one citation (note 8) indicates coverage by third-party sources. This is not enough to satisfy WP:N, and not enough for WP:GA (fails 2c, 4). JN466 21:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I share your concerns on sourcing. There are also several MoS problems with this article. Majoreditor (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have addressed the concerns expressed by Jayen466 (talk · contribs) on the discussion page. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Have restored {{Primary}} and {{COI}} tags; the article has not changed. As for the COI concern, the article's main author has not edited anything else in Wikipedia; the subject's website carries a prominent link to this article, even though the article is quite recent; this, combined with the article's reliance on the subject's own writings, is suggestive of a COI. I feel it is in the best interests of the project for this to be discussed at the relevant noticeboard, and I have initiated a thread at WP:COIN to that end (here). To the editors involved I would say: Please do not take this personally, but there have been many cases of COI editing on Wikipedia, presenting similar sorts of articles, and in the end it is neither good for the article subject nor good for Wikipedia. If we can sort this out at the noticeboard, and we can establish that no COI is involved, then all the better. Cheers, --JN466 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This should no way have been listed as a GA and should be speedily delisted IMO. As Jayen467 has pointed out there are almost no secondary sources. Seeing the article the guy doesn't see the problem : "In another direction, Kevin Shepherd has contributed a lengthy web article on Wikipedia issues, here incorporating an argument for self-publishing, with due qualifications as to standard and content". Having independent sources for information is an essential part of a good article. I'd encourage Simon Kidd and Alex jamieson to comment on the WP:COIN about this to clarify if you have a COI. I must admit that the points that Jayen466 has raised are pretty strong evidence of a COI. Smartse (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I welcome contributions to this discussion from the wider community. In particular, I would like to hear what others have to say about the two main contentions: that there is a COI; and that there are not sufficient third-party sources. On the former, my own comments can be read here.

Further to those comments, I would welcome clarification from Jayen466 (and Smartse, and any others) on what such a COI could constitute. Writing or editing an article on a subject that one has a personal interest in does not, in itself, constitute a COI. Presumably Jayen466 has a personal interest in Idries Shah (a person for whom I also have a great deal of respect, btw), and this is what motivates him to contribute so persistently to that article. Such interest can be a strong motivator to improve an article and, as long as contributions are strictly NPOV, then the outcome will usually be for the good. For a COI to occur, there must be some gain to be made. In business and government, this is often a financial gain, or one of influence and power. It seems to me that this article conforms to NPOV. Yes, there are many references to the subject's own books, but they are provided as evidence of the subject's own views. It seems to me perfectly legitimate to write 'Shepherd says ...' or 'Shepherd claims ...' and to provide references to where the views or claims are made. Such references are merely attributions, and allow others to go to the relevant textual locations for themselves. What do others think?

Regarding the second contention, some third-party references have been provided, and I agree that more would be welcome. Jayen466 claims that the article fails GA criteria 2c and 4. I would like to take a closer look at those and hear the opinion of others. Criterion 2c states that an article should contain no original research. Everything seems to hinge on the notion of reliable sources. This is surely a moot point. I would have thought that the most reliable sources for the views of any writer are the writer's own published words, even if they are self-published. If the article states 'Shepherd claims such and such', then a precise reference to where Shepherd makes his claim is the most reliable source, is it not? If I am presenting the views of a third party on that writer, then the most reliable sources are the third party's own published words. For example, if the article states 'Smith claims that Shepherd is mistaken in such and such', then the most reliable reference is to Smith's own published words. I assume that criterion 2c is intended to rule out unsubstantiated claims, what might be termed 'original research'. If this is so, then is Jayen466 misapplying 2c here? Shepherd's works contain original research, but the article about him doesn't appear to do so. The fact that it is heavily referenced supports this - the references substantiate the claims that the article writer makes about Shepherd's views. Am I misinterpreting Wikipedia policy here? I would like to hear the views of an experienced and independent third party on this matter.

GA criterion 4 states that the article must be neutral, i.e. represent viewpoints fairly and without bias. A closer inspection of neutrality again seems to hinge on 'reliable sources'. Jayen466's point seems to be that because many of Shepherd's books are self-published, they are not a 'reliable source' for this article. But isn't this once again a misapplication of the criterion. If the article writer stated 'Shepherd believes such and such' and cited someone's personal blog as a source for the claim, then that is not a reliable source. I assume that this is what the Wikipedia policy is aimed at. But since the article is about Shepherd's work, then the latter's own published words ARE a reliable source. Furthermore, the article author does not present Shepherd's views in a biased way. In fact, it seems to me that the article is highly NPOV - the author's personal opinions about Shepherd and his writing are not in evidence. If anyone else detects bias, then please point it out so that it can be removed. This would be in the Wikipedia spirit of improvement.

I do not mean to imply here that reliable third-party references to Shepherd would reduce the objectivity of the article. Quite the opposite, further third-party references would be welcome, and would obviously enhance the objectivity of the article. My point is that the existing references in themselves are not unreliable, because the article is precisely about Shepherd's work. If another writer disagrees with Shepherd in print, then his or her views should certainly be represented here, suitably referenced and expressed in NPOV of course. My main concern is that Jayen466 is misapplying GA criteria 2c and 4 in this case, and I'd like to hear the opinion of others.

Simon Kidd (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is no problem per se with using the subject's self-published sources in the article about him; that is pretty much the only circumstance where such sources can be legitimately used. However, a WP article should not primarily be based on such sources, per WP:SELFPUB, and this article is; many of the third-party sources cited do not actually comment on the subject, but are cited to embed the subject's publications in a wider context. But there is no third-party source establishing this context. For instance, reference 11 is to this book. The book itself does not mention Mr Shepherd; hence mentioning such books in the article on him is either WP:OR by the Wikipedian concerned, or an extended use of primary sourcing (assuming the book is mentioned in the primary source).

What we need is third-party sources that have commented upon Shepherd and his writing. Then we should summarise the points these third-party sources have made. Where appropriate, we can expand on these points by careful and moderate mining of the primary sources that these third-party sources have cited, or commented upon. But the main topics of the article ought to be established by third-party sources, and most of the article should be based on third-party sources. Hope this makes sense: we should look for third-party sources commenting directly on Shepherd to fix the article. --JN466 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a quick reminder to all (with no criticism implied) that the focus of this forum is on whether the article meets the GA criteria, not COI issues or editor actions. Those matters can be discussed elsewhere. Concerning the article, there is useful further advice on the problems associated with primary source material at WP:SYNTH and tips for avoiding the introduction of an editorial viewpoint at WP:WTA. Geometry guy 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Simon Kidd above said, "I would have thought that the most reliable sources for the views of any writer are the writer's own published words, even if they are self-published. If the article states 'Shepherd claims such and such', then a precise reference to where Shepherd makes his claim is the most reliable source, is it not?" No, it is not. People can, and often do say things about themselves that are untrue. We can say that a person claims one thing or another, but can't declare that what they say is true because they say it is. We generally rely on neutral third-party sources for this, and in particular secondary sources are strongly preferred. Lacking such sources, an article has a long way to go before it should be considered eligible for GA. -- Atama頭 18:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thank you for your comment. From what you say, I think we may be more in agreement than disagreement on the subject of reliable sources. But it is quite a subtle distinction that is being made. Consider the following possibilities:

1. Smith writes (in a self-published book) "I was the first to point out the consistency problem with Jones's theory."

2. Smith writes (in a self-published book) "I think that Jones's theory is inconsistent."

3. Brown writes (in a third-party publication) "Smith was the first to point out the consistency problem with Jones's theory."

4. Brown writes (in a third-party publication) "Smith has said that he believes Jones's theory to be inconsistent."

It seems to me that, in the first part of your comment, you are sliding between possibilities 1 and 2. Number 1 is a case of someone saying something about himself that may be untrue. In this case, 3 is a better source for the claim than 1, because it is a third-party claim about Smith. There is an obvious COI for Smith to claim it about himself, even if it is true.

If, however, we are talking about Smith's belief that Jones's theory is inconsistent, then I would argue that the most reliable source for the claim that this is Smith's true opinion is Smith's own words, even if self-published. In this case, I would say that 2 is actually a more reliable source than 4. Indeed, Brown would presumably be referring to 2 anyway, to substantiate his third-party claim. This is because we are here discussing the view of Smith, and he is unlikely to lie or be mistaken about his own views.

This doesn't mean that Smith is necessarily right in his view of Brown, and others are perfectly entitled to contradict him. Indeed, he should welcome such healthy, vigorous debate, if he is an open-minded person. But his own words still remain the most reliable source for his views. I would say that self-publication is not relevant in this case, because we are talking about the author's views, and he is unlikely to lie or be mistaken about his own views. It is even possible that a third party (e.g. Brown) might misinterpret Smith. In this case, the arbiter of truth will be Smith's own published words. Once he has put them in the public domain, he can't deny that those are his views, although he is perfectly entitled to change his mind and say so in print.

Just to be absolutely clear about my point here: I am saying that the most reliable source for an author's views about a topic are the author's own words about that topic. In this case, self-publication is irrelevant. On the other hand, the most reliable source for the validity of an author's views about a topic, is the body of accumulated third-party assessments of those views, particularly where this body has multiple authors.

This is the point I was making about the article under consideration. I can't see why Shepherd's own published words about his views are not the most reliable source for his views. The article's creator has used Shepherd's own words to substantiate his claim that these are Shepherd's views. He doesn't anywhere claim that Shepherd's views are necessarily true. It is open to others to agree or disagree with Shepherd. Indeed, now that the article exists, perhaps others will be moved to read Shepherd's books and either cite him approvingly (as some already have) or disapprovingly in their own books or articles.

If Wikipedia is incapable of making such a distinction, and can deny GA status to a well-written, NPOV article (or, to extend the point, even delete it), then Wikipedia readers may be denied the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the notable views of an author. There may, as yet, not be many third-party references to Shepherd, but that doesn't mean that he is not notable, or that a well-referenced, NPOV article describing his views should not exist.

Judging by your user page, Atama, you are a fair and courteous person with a good deal of experience of issues relating to deletion and reliable sources. I acknowledge your experience in such matters. By the same token, I hope you will give serious consideration to what I have written here. I did study the GA criteria before I made my assessment. It may be that the current WP guidelines do not pay sufficient attention to the subtle distinction I have made above. If that is so, then perhaps they need to be amended to take such a distinction into account. After all, this is a community effort and we are all involved in making such contributions.

I have noted the point made elsewhere about my contributions. I will respond to the point in the same place.

Simon Kidd (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The overwhelming weight of the article is based on Shepherd's own works. That is a major failure of WP:V, and a serious flaw in the article. In addition, the article lacks an actual references section, substituting it for a "notes" section. While that might be acceptable under some circumstances (it's a matter of semantics what the section is called), I see what looks like original research and/or synthesis, as these "notes" contain original analyses of written works. This article is so far from being a GA candidate, and the fact that you can't understand why makes me strongly suggest you avoid participating in GA assessments until you acquire much more experience with Wikipedia, and knowledge of its policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As well as the problems previously noted I think there is a big problem with meeting point 3 of the criteria - broad coverage. There is no information whatsoever about his life, the article is purely about his academic work. Furthermore in my opinion the information on his writing may be "going into unnecessary detail". Looking at Bertrand Russell (which was delisted from a GA) might give you some idea of what a GA needs to be like. There may, as yet, not be many third-party references to Shepherd, but that doesn't mean that he is not notable err, see WP:N - if people haven't been covered in many third party sources then they are, almost by definition non-notable. I'm not saying that the article needs to be deleted or anything, as Atama pointed out WP:AUTHOR allows him to be included, but the article should probably be a lot shorter than it currently is. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Atama and Smartse. Yes, I now see that the article does contain some items that could be classified as OR. I have to admit that I was blind to them when I originally assessed it - I think the difference between OR and a purely descriptive summing-up can be tricky to spot. And the other points made by Smartse are also noted. I accept that I overestimated my reviewing ability. On the upside, I've actually learnt a lot from this process, and it has brought the article some remedial attention more quickly than might otherwise have happened. I agree that it should be delisted from GA status, and interested parties should fix the problems noted. I suppose Alex, as the article's creator and major contributor, should have the first option to do this. Simon Kidd (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems as though there is a clear consensus for delisting it then, can anybody explain how it is actually done? Smartse (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done it, but I'd be happy for someone to check that I completed the procedure. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)