User talk:Pragmaticstatistic

 Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Pragmaticstatistic! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia experience
You will find Wikiversity very different than Wikipedia. Looking over your Wikipedia user talk page, it is clear to me that you did not understand Wikipedia policies and practices. That's common. Many people, with little experience, have an imagination of what Wikipedia should be like, and then suppose that they can and should argue for that. Many of the problems you experienced there won't arise on Wikiversity. However, you also seem to be unclear on how wikis work.
 * With regard to external link policy, you seem to think that the stability of the site would be the concern, probably a confusion over the meaning of "reliable" in "reliable source." It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with editorial supervision and responsibility and independence. See w:WP:RS.
 * With regard to original research, it is prohibited on Wikipedia. It is allowed here, with disclosures. Very important: pay attention to requests and warnings. You can make almost any mistake *once.* Remember, "mistake," in practice, means that someone thinks it is a mistake. "Truth" is something not established on wikis. Ever. Rather, consensus or rough consensus is found.
 * Your links were discussed on . In that discussion, you treated a collection of users with hundreds of times as much experience as you as if they were idiots, who should definitely read your criticism of Wikipedia. They have seen thousands upon thousands of users like you. Mostly you would be ignored, but if you insistently edit, you could easily have been blocked. Remarkably, you were not, so I don't know where you got the idea you were banned. (A ban is deeper than a block. I'm banned, not merely blocked. It takes an actual ban discussion, a ban is a community action, whereas a block can be done by a single administrator on their own initiative.) You wrote several comments in the External Links Noticeboard that effectively invited a block.
 * Adding links to any WMF wiki when you have a conflict of interest with the linked site can get the site globally blacklisted. That means that all standing links in articles would be removed, and nobody could add links to any of the wikis, without getting it "whitelisted." We would routinely whitelist a useful page or site, here on Wikiversity, but you really did not understand what they were saying to you, and I've seen many quite useful sites be blacklisted because of this kind of inattention.
 * On Wikiversity, you should disclose any conflicts of interest. We do allow you, usually, to edit topics or to link to your own web site, within limits, and assuming that you remain cooperative and avoid offense.
 * You are very much welcome on Wikiversity, and you are not blocked or banned on Wikipedia. However, were you to continue on Wikipedia as you were, you would very likely be blocked there. It is more useful if you are not blocked, you can, in fact, add "sister wiki" links on Wikipedia, to Wikiversity, assuming that you exercise appropriate caution and heed warnings. "Heeding a warning" does not mean just doing whatever they say, but it does mean not barging ahead as if you were "right." It means negotiating consensus, and how to do that can take skill, and it can take help.
 * As to your recent Wikipedia edits, this, 10 February, would raise hackles, if noticed. The title alone of what you linked raises w:WP:POV issues. It was reverted without comment. A few days before, you added a link that stood for a few days. It looked better, but was removed by the same editor. I think this editor saw one of the links, checked your contributions. The user appears to be an anti-linkspam editor, from other comments on his talk page. Any of these could raise a blacklisting or blocking danger.
 * I successfully got several global blacklistings lifted, I know the process, but it's a royal pain. It's much better if they are not tempted. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dave, I appreciate your input and efforts to assist me. However, I am having second thoughts about whether I want to continue assist Wikipedia and Wikiversity any longer. My instincts tell me to run, get out now. My original concept was to take my library of free educational maps and apply them where they would enhance the topic. Seeing how controversial and unwanted it is by some but not all Wiki editors, I feel like I should remove all my content from both Wikipedia and Wikiversity, however, my Google Map stats indicate that your readers don't agree with your editors. Sure those editors who removed my content will say that is the benefit of my spamming. So I have to ask, what is the risk of spamming if it fulfills the educational needs of your readers? Especially since the 160 maps contain thousands of links back to Wikipedia. While I have no way of knowing how many referrals Wiki gets from me. I do know that people use the links from feedback I have received. So Wiki likely gets far more referrals from me, considering some maps have as many as 250 Wiki links in a single map, than I get from Wiki. What I do know is that back in September, the last tracking I could make prior to Google removing the ability to track Google maps with its MyMap upgrade, that I had 751,000 map views from my site and other sources. So that's 751,000 x as many as 250 wiki links per map = a huge amount of Wiki referral potential.Yet my web site only has 413,000 pageviews. The difference being that the map is embedded in school web sites, media articles, and bookmarks of return visitors to the original Google Map. I bet you never considered a Google Map as a referral source.


 * The problem I see with some of the Wiki editor's policies is that their spamming policy runs counter to the needs and intent of their readers. They are so focused on preventing spamming, etc. that they forget the reason why their readers use Wikipedia. I on the other hand as a marketing communications manager I know to respond and adjust to the needs of my customer. So considering the conflict, that is why when ran across Wikiversity for the first time recently, I decided to first request whether or not Wikiversity would accept my maps all. Having gotten a favorable response I did so. So, I am going to leave the decision of whether or not to remove my maps up to your organization. In regard to the volcano project, despite my instinct to run, my devotion to meeting the needs of my educational customer take precedence. Once I understand the scope and organizational structure, and whether or not I can function within it, will tell me whether to participate or not.--Pragmaticstatistic (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As for my Wiki bashing, consider these type of comments I make all over the web defending Wiki:
 * Google+: " I have to disagree with you. Having created 160 Google Maps of historic and scientific events that require a lot of research, I found Wikipedia is not as unreliable as many portray. For example, on a map of hydrothermal vents and colds seeps I discovered that the coordinates on Wikipedia came from an article published by the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London from which had 100 such coordinates, about twenty of which were published on Wikipedia. I was able to convince the publisher to give me permission to use the coordinates to create a Google map on the topography of hydrothermal vents and cold seeps that allow you to zoom in on the sites, Had it not been for Wikipedia, I would not have found the cited article. Thus, I now have an authoritative map that enhances the original white paper in that those coordinates in the article can now be seen."--Pragmaticstatistic (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not reliable. It is not *designed* to be reliable. However, it can still be very useful, and you found an example. I use Wikipedia nearly every day, but my trust in it is limited. Really stupid stuff can sit there for years, I see articles on controversial topics where there is obvious bias, without any sources, or with non-reliable sources being cited, etc., etc.
 * Pragmatic, you have not understood my comments. I was pointing to comments you made on-wiki, criticizing the project, that would predictably lead to negative consequences for you, or that would be, at best, useless. Unless your knowledge and experience are high, which they were not, such comments will establish you, in the eyes of established Wikipedians, as Yet Another Clueless Noob Who Knows It All, and they have seen hundreds or thousands of these. You might praise Wikipedia up and down in other contexts, and it would have no effect on this. You think I'm "accusing" you of being a wiki-basher, so you defend yourself by recounting a story where you defended Wikipedia. I'm not even on the same planet as you, in a way, I don't care about blame, but only about what actually happens. I wrote all this here for your benefit, so use it or don't. Thanks for your contributions to Wikiversity, I'm seeing some useful work. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the matter of your links. Dave is more sensitive to "promotion" than I. He is suggesting you not add links to your own domain. I also suggest this, and he will agree with this: if you think a link to your domain is useful, suggest it to another user. You can do this with email, it's fine. If you put *any link to your own domain* on one of the WMF wikis, it may attract the attention of the global antispammers, and they can be merciless and *do not care* about quality of content. They care about their own specialty: combatting spam. I have spent years undoing some of the damage one. I'm suggesting heading it off. When I finally got a link to a globally blacklisted site whitelisted on en.wikipedia, I didn't just start adding links, even though I did not have a conflict of interest. I *asked*. There was actually no response. Then I began, slowly, adding links, a few at a time. And then when they were accepted, I requested removal from the global blacklist. And, while they grumbled extensively, (making the point that it had been blacklisted because of Bad Behavior of a user), it was delisted. It took me well over a year. Now, wouldn't it be better to avoid that? You did the right thing here by *asking.* And you got some answers. You don't like all of them, you get a "bad feeling." That bad feeling is a small reflection, my suspicion, of how most WMF users would view your activity. We can protect you *to some extent* here. Don't make it difficult, that's all! I've warned you about what can get you in trouble. You've been told how you can link to your own web site. It is possible you can do more, if you are patient.
 * On the other hand, if your only goal is to promote your web site, it will probably not work, for you. But we host links, as an example, to archive.is, widely criticized and condemned for COI editing. It's not impossible that site will be globally blacklisted, there have been moves toward that. We would almost certainly whitelist it if that happens, and we would probably revert attempts to remove archive.is links here, unless some powerful new arguments arise, because we care about education, -- the education of users, including you and all of us, through learning by doing as well as by "courses," or even more than by courses -- and those links are useful, or harmless at worst. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this, above: my Google Map stats indicate that your readers don't agree with your editors. You are absorbed in an argument with someone else, Pragmatic. First of all, this is on your talk page. He did write a comment to you here, but you responded, not to his comment, but to mine, but addressed to him.
 * I think you are talking about Wikipedia links. Your page stats would reflect traffic coming to your site from such. Those statistics will not tell you anything about the state of agreement between readers of Wikipedia and the editors of Wikipedia, it will only tell you how many followed the link. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links as such. It is also huge, and not well-managed (so that something is allowed for a time, or even approved by an isolated editor, can mean little). Those volunteers who actually manage it do so for their own purposes, which is not necessarily to serve the interests of readers, and I could cite many examples. In spite of all that, there are reasons for Wikipedia External Link policy, which represents editorial consensus. There is no mechanism in place for determining reader consensus. Readers aren't registered, and that someone reads a page does not indicate -- at all -- their state of satisfaction with it.
 * When you add a link to a googlemap here, your user name is associated with it. Because you are the author of the map, you may actually attribute it to yourself, even on a resource page. "Map by Pragmaticstatistic. On your user page, which will thus be linked, you may disclose that you have a web site with many maps. As Dave wrote, make it informational rather than promotional. In the end, you might be able to make some links directly to your site in educational resources, but there are political considerations. If you are established as involved in creating educational resources here, not just in adding links to your site, you might be able to add such links, with appropriate cautions, etc. Wikiversity is still a wiki. There are political considerations.
 * What I've told you about getting approval is to avoid the conflict of interest problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your comments, honesty and frankness, however, I think it best for me to remove myself from participating in the Wikiversity project I was asked to participate in because despite my communication expertise, I will never be on an equal standing with the level of people you describe, and I feel that an environment with so many inputs and regulations will surely hinder my creativity and productivity. As for my maps, if you want them, keep them, if not remove them. And I would like my account closed both at Wikiversity and at Wikipedia. I will continue to be a reader of both but not a contributor. And again I sincerely thank you for your help. Goodbye.--Pragmaticstatistic (discuss • contribs) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Volcanoes
Assuming that the post in the Colloquium of 'I would prefer to do it on a page solely devoted to the project' is from you, I recommend using Talk:Volcanoes for this discussion. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)