ProjectDeveloper

Welcome!

Hello, ProjectDeveloper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- John of Reading (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Your draft article

I don't think your draft article at User talk:ProjectDeveloper/CreativityModel Method is ready to be moved to CreativityModel Method, I'm afraid. The article needs to show that other people have written about the topic; so far, the article only contains links to the website that promotes the method. Has the method attracted media coverage in reliable sources such as books, journals and news sources?

You should also read the FAQ page for organisations.

You asked for help in locating other Wikipedia editors interested in similar subjects. By searching for "Creative thinking" I found the article Creativity, whose talk page features several posts by VsevolodKrolikov (talk · contribs). I've never interacted with that editor, as far as I can remember, but perhaps you could try posting at User talk:VsevolodKrolikov or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we specify the criteria?

Hi John of Reading,

Thank you so much for your response and a nice Welcome page!

I do plan to look around Wikipedia’s editing side and see if I can do something online within what I consider to be my areas of expertise.

I did go over all the articles that you listed in the Welcome page. Most of them I had read before, too, but as a combination they sure contain useful information.

What you posted under the “Your draft article” is especially helpful. I had read the article on creativity before, of course, but not noticed the talk page there before. So, this is very helpful!

I will contact VsevolodKrolikov as well and will see what he recommends.

Further, I do appreciate your comments on my draft. The FAQ page for organizations page contains also useful information.

There is one “but.” I very much hope that you will not consider my making the statements below offensive.

You say that “so far, the article only contains links to the website that promotes the method.”

This is certainly not true. These sites contain the method, explain how to use it and contain growing number of its usage examples. That is far from simply promoting the method.

When you open Wikipedia online, you can also say that it’s opening page and most of the rest of its pages promote Wikipedia. I personally do not think so, but in all honesty, there are very strong similarities there between this statement and what you said about the page on CreativityModel Method.

I do have a vested interest in having an informative – not promotional – article on CreativityModel Method posted on Wikipedia. However, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify me from writing such an article. Conflict of interest is a very important issue, but there is no automatic link between people having differing interests and conflict of interest.

The current article on CreativityModel Method contains objective informative content and as such can be useful to Wikipedia readers who are interested in creativity and creativity management related topics. This article is not about me or any other individual, or about any company, or a group of people. It does not advertise, it informs. It’s not an essay. It’s an article about a creativity management method.

Further, I will also add that a lot that is related to different aspects of CreativityModel Method development is posted online. So, even if CreativityModel Method development process will not produce widely usable results, this material can be useful to people who consider starting a non-profit or a for-profit venture that is related to usage of a concept, whether it is a method or something similarly beneficial, but intangible. Both successes and failures can be very educational and contain material that people want to be informed about and read about.

As far as I understand, the article about CreativityModel Method creativity management method contains precisely the kind of information people would want to find in an encyclopedia.

So, all things considered, I do believe that my adding this article is a good thing.

If the problem is that Wikipedia only accepts article about material that other people already have written about, then what precisely are the guidelines here? How many people and where have had to write about a topic before it is accepted in Wikipedia? Are there any online instructions that specify this? Or is this based simply on people's individual or collective subjective opinions?

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Wikipedia only accepts articles about material that other people already have written about. Not only that, but those "other people" can't have anything to do with the primary source (the original creator of the material), and they must write about it in reliable sources. This is explained at WP:SOURCE: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " This is an absolutely fundamental rule in Wikipedia. Closely related to this, actually the reason for this rule, is that everything in Wikipedia must be notable. No matter how great your idea is, before it can be covered in Wikipedia, it must be proven to be notable, which means a 3rd party has to agree it's worth writing about, and write about it, in some reliable source (like a newspaper, magazine, book, etc.). I hope that makes sense, but you should definitely click on all the links in what I just wrote, and become familiar with all that. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you.

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)