User talk:Hobit

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

What Michael Knowles wrote was misleading because Professor Kowalski’s contribution to the ALP newsletter did not complain about Professor Hewitt nor does the contribution by Professor Pereira. In fact, Professor Hewitt was not even mentioned.

During his brief time editing, Professor Hewitt made valuable suggestions for improving articles. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Hewitt fell into a classic Wikipedia trap. He thought that the primary purpose was to improve articles and that the normal rules of professional conduct applied.

By Wikipedia rules, he should have ignored Knowles's antics. 50.0.72.102 (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some amateurs here got on the wrong side of highly technical arguments with computer science professionals. Replay of the Global Warming fiasco? 76.102.7.120 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No this isn't the same as global warming. It's one person promoting their work (correctly or not) and others pushing back, probably too hard. I've seen similar issues elsewhere on Wikipedia--academics can be very prickly about getting credit for their work. And that includes the very best researchers. Also, if you are going to contribute to a discussion where one user has been known to use socks, it would be best if you did so via a registered account. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals like Hewitt are primarily motivated by accuracy in Wikipedia articles. They don’t gain any professional credit from references in Wikipedia. So, he is not being “prickly” in order to “promote” his work over others. In his editing, Hewitt has included references to publications of many other people.

There are two issues:

1. Wikipedia insists on authoritative references which include Hewitt because he has done and published much of the work.
2. Wikipedia insists on accuracy which means that references to Hewitt’s publications must be appropriately included.

50.242.100.195 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals work to promote science. In the course of so doing, they sometimes promote their own work in the context of the work of others. Of course, they must take care not to unfairly promote their work over others lest it be self-defeating by causing resentments amongst other professionals.

50.247.81.99 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals are primarily motivated by the following:

1. Science: They spend their whole lives working to improve science. Bad articles hinder their work.
2. Education: They put enormous effort into communicating with each other and teaching students. Bad articles interfere with education.

Unfortunately for them, the Wikipedia website is currently a defacto monopoly. Nevertheless, because of insults and harassment, almost no professionals contribute to Wikipedia.

Being referenced in Wikipedia does not enhance the reputation of top-ranked professionals. Instead, their reputations are determined by other elite professionals who already know precisely who contributed what and certainly don’t need Wikipedia to tell them.

BTW, the comment above is correct that Professors Kowalski and Pereira did not criticize Professor Hewitt in the newsletter.

50.242.68.99 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hewitt has written to the Wikimedia Foundation. See Professor Carl Hewitt.

Professor Hewitt requested that Wikimedia remove his biography (in which he was attacked) from the Wikipedia website.

45.33.44.129 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For better or worse, China has broken Wikimedia’s monopoly there. 66.166.238.203 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hobit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You commented at Template talk:Marriage, I hope I addressed your concern. Are you going to make a firm vote? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.