Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Homeopathy, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Verbal chat 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to
Sibiu, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Sibiu.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. —
NRen2k5(
TALK),
05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
My answer would be: because there is a high probability that it is the truth. I don't believe that we know the absolute truth (in fact that is a whole philosophical discussion), but I think we can do our best to approximate it. In practice, and since I'm talking about a specific issue: Wikipedia stated in the 'Sibiu' page that Hahnemann was in Sibiu in 1797 and opened the first homeopathic laboratory. There was no citation to this affirmation, so I would consider it from the start possibly untrue. Secondly, I went to the source, in Sibiu, and talked to some reputed sources there (the curators and historians of the chief Sibiu museums) and they confirmed that Hahnemann was there in 1777 and never opened a homeopathic laboratory. The problem of course is that nobody published this, so the only source I have is my conference presentation, where I acknowledge those primary sources. The problem I have with Wikipedia's policy is that, according to it, I cannot cite my own work, even though it has been presented at a scholarly conference and reiterated in my blog (a report on the conference). Since I can't do that, Wikipedia cannot benefit from the research. In the meantime, since I have deleted the Hahnemann's mention because it is uncited, Wikipedia would not propagate what I call a 'myth', but it does not have the 'truth' (or most likely truth if you will) either. Eventually, this is fine by me - I'm not seeking Wikipedia celebrity, I believe in my own research too much to seek that, but I was just mentioning this because I think that the policy inhibits Wikipedia acquiring up-to-date research quickly and from its source. If a reputed scholar who is also a computer fanatic would try to add his own published work on Wikipedia, it would be rejected just because he 'self-added' it. There you go - it's just my two cents really. In any case, all this discussion and rather cold reception of my contributions (due to what I perceive as an inflexible application of policy) has put a damp on my interest in contributing to Wikipedia, but those are just my personal feelings. The irony is that I have noticed some people have quoted from my work, but referred to my Scribd site rather than the Esoteric Coffeehouse one, and for that sole reason it wasn't erased - apparently Scribd is more reliable than my blog (even though in Scribd I have re-published EC articles)! Jo Esoteric ( talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Homeopathy, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Verbal chat 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to
Sibiu, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Sibiu.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. —
NRen2k5(
TALK),
05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
My answer would be: because there is a high probability that it is the truth. I don't believe that we know the absolute truth (in fact that is a whole philosophical discussion), but I think we can do our best to approximate it. In practice, and since I'm talking about a specific issue: Wikipedia stated in the 'Sibiu' page that Hahnemann was in Sibiu in 1797 and opened the first homeopathic laboratory. There was no citation to this affirmation, so I would consider it from the start possibly untrue. Secondly, I went to the source, in Sibiu, and talked to some reputed sources there (the curators and historians of the chief Sibiu museums) and they confirmed that Hahnemann was there in 1777 and never opened a homeopathic laboratory. The problem of course is that nobody published this, so the only source I have is my conference presentation, where I acknowledge those primary sources. The problem I have with Wikipedia's policy is that, according to it, I cannot cite my own work, even though it has been presented at a scholarly conference and reiterated in my blog (a report on the conference). Since I can't do that, Wikipedia cannot benefit from the research. In the meantime, since I have deleted the Hahnemann's mention because it is uncited, Wikipedia would not propagate what I call a 'myth', but it does not have the 'truth' (or most likely truth if you will) either. Eventually, this is fine by me - I'm not seeking Wikipedia celebrity, I believe in my own research too much to seek that, but I was just mentioning this because I think that the policy inhibits Wikipedia acquiring up-to-date research quickly and from its source. If a reputed scholar who is also a computer fanatic would try to add his own published work on Wikipedia, it would be rejected just because he 'self-added' it. There you go - it's just my two cents really. In any case, all this discussion and rather cold reception of my contributions (due to what I perceive as an inflexible application of policy) has put a damp on my interest in contributing to Wikipedia, but those are just my personal feelings. The irony is that I have noticed some people have quoted from my work, but referred to my Scribd site rather than the Esoteric Coffeehouse one, and for that sole reason it wasn't erased - apparently Scribd is more reliable than my blog (even though in Scribd I have re-published EC articles)! Jo Esoteric ( talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)