User talk:ProjectDeveloper/CreativityModel Method

Is there anyone out there who can actually help to post an article?

I created an article and have read several help files, but I have not found any information that helps me understand, how to proceed from here! Absolutely nothing seems to be happening.

The article is a about an original material that has a realistic potential for benefiting various Wikipedia readers. Thus, I believe that my putting together this article is a useful step. Can someone, please, who has the relevant authority, help me to post it?

I am very interested in creativity management, especially in creative thinking skills management related topics, and look forward to helping out with the relevant articles when such help is needed here.

Are there any other people here on Wikipedia’s editing side who share interest in similar areas and if so, how can I find them? Perhaps they can guide me on how to move forward.

Thank you in advance for your help, Thomas Eklund

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice

As it stands, the article looks to be promotional. OK, the thing is available under CC, but even free things can be promoted. Please look at WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. You cannot reference solely to the 'company site'. You must have independent reliable sources - WP:RS. For now, my advice is not to move. You can ask another admin or a regular editor for an opinion - don't just take my word for it. Peridon (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I've replied at User talk:ProjectDeveloper -- John of Reading (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

User:ProjectDeveloper/CreativityModel Method → CreativityModel_Method – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProjectDeveloper/CreativityModel_Method should become an article on CreativityModel Method. So, the page address should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CreativityModel_Method ProjectDeveloper (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have recommended above that it is too soon for the article to be moved, as there are certain problems that I feel would lead to its deletion if moved to mainspace. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, creating new articles is beyond the scope of the Requested moves process. Please submit your request to Articles for Creation. You can do so by adding {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions. Happy editing. Cliff (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but can you please be more specific and specify the criteria?

John of Reading and Peridon,

Thank you both for your comments and opinions!

Here’s my rebuttal – and I hope that neither of you finds them offensive in any way.

Peridon, you say that “As it stands, the article looks to be promotional.”

Can you please be more specific? What precisely is too promotional about it, which part of it?

The way your statement reads sound oh so very much like “this person is too black to be [add anything here you wish].”

Briefly, it’s just not right to make a comment that is accusatory in nature, but does not point to anything specific and is so imprecise, that it may mean anything.

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 individual or collective subjective opinions?

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! In response to your last point: this may be of use. As for the article itself-- from a cursory glance, okay, it tells me about the subject. But does it state its significance? Not really. It talks about how useful the method is, and defines terms related to it, but not its relation to other concepts or the 'real world', so to speak. This is where the third-party, reliable references come in.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Would this concept be included in a "traditional" encyclopedia? Perhaps not. Being that we are not limited by physical size, Wikipedia is a bit more open; however, we still strive to document what other encyclopedias do: things that have proven to be noteworthy. This is generally achieved when public attention has been drawn to the subject through neutral reporting by individuals or organizations that are known to be trustworthy. I will leave your help request open, as others may have more to say. Cheers, sonia♫ 23:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sonia, thank you! Your comments provide a more objective base for evaluation. So, does that mean that if I put together CreativityModel Method, I am forbidden from writing on it in Wikipedia?

That’s fine with me, I just would like to know if that’s the case.

Or, if the article would point out differences between some other concepts and CreativityModel Method, would that satisfy Wikipedia criteria?

I am emphasizing "differences" above, because I have searched but have not found any other method that can be used for actually managing both self expressive and goal oriented creative thinking.

For example, all the material that the Creativity techniques article list – and the links going from there list – is something rather different. This article also states that “Creativity techniques are methods,” which I cannot agree with. Techniques and methods are not the same.

When you look around on the Internet, can you find any creativity management method that actually describes how you can manage your goal oriented and self-expressive creative thinking processes?

Anything at all? Everything that I have found is descriptive material. Most of it seems more speculative to me than CreativityModel Method is and its far from something that can actually be used for managing creative thinking processes.

As far as I know, at least some actors and movie directors, for example, have their own creative thinking skills management methods and techniques. Yet, that’s something different than having a creative thinking skills management method published on the Internet.

Further, CreativityModel Method is a project that will be developed further in open source environment. It’s not something that is complete the way it is. It may never become 100% complete, no matter how usable it will be.

I have not found any other similar creativity management related open source projects. Perhaps there are some. If anybody who reads this text happens to know any such projects, I will appreciate if they point them out.

That’s the problem with developing something new. It can be difficult to put it into context.

So, lack of similar projects may make comparisons kind of one-sided. However, if that will satisfy Wikipedia criteria, I can add such comparisons.

I also would like to add a word about the informative nature of this article vs. promotion of something.

If the article will not get published, well, that’s the way it will be. I do believe that Wikipedia readers will lose here, but there may be very little that I can do about that. Obviously, there are many other ways to inform people about CreativityModel Method and I can use those as well.

As far as promoting CreativityModel Method is concerned, then that is another subject matter altogether. Of course, many articles on Wikipedia do at least indirectly promote something, whether we like it or not. However, in the area of promotional activities just the mere fact of having an informative article in Wikipedia is a drop in an ocean. A drop does not make an ocean or evaporate one. Successful promotion requires sustained, well coordinated long-term efforts. The nature of that work is different from spending time on defending an article’s informative merits.

Anyway, I do hope to hear from more people on Wikipedia regarding these subject matters! The more specific you can be regarding what and how should be changed in this article, so that Wikipedia criteria is satisfied, the more helpful your comments will be.

Thank you all,

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments

"Skills can be learned and trained. Similarly, creative thinking skills and their management can be learned and trained within individual person’s abilities, expertise and experience.

CreativityModel Method was put together with the focus on having a method for development of coherent outcomes from elements that can be generated and added either in a coordinated fashion or in random order.

So, CreativityModel Method usage can be beneficial when a coherent outcome needs to be put together that is either goal oriented or self-expressive in nature."

"Self-expressive, choice supported creativity is typically associated with artistic creativity. Goal oriented creativity is prevailing in business environment and in most other professional environments, and can also be beneficial in other areas like career development and life management."

Both these are promotional in sound and full of business jargon, for example 'coherent outcome', 'focus' and 'goal oriented'. These are not encyclopaedic terms. They are most often found in LinkedIn company profiles or other places for getting the message across (and on a train journey I listened fascinated to two suits spouting it at each other - in an hour I don't think they said a single sentence that really meant a thing...) . I'm not saying that you are promoting - I'm saying that you sound as if you are promoting, and that is to be avoided. You might spend much time surrounded by wordings like those. It is catching, like the estate agents misuse of English has crept into wallpaper shops, who may now have 'car parking to rear' instead of it being 'at'. The remark I made about references should be clear enough - that isn't connected to the promotional objection at all. I would have still put that in had the article been a model of neutral point of view and crystal clear English. Please don't take offence at my use of plain talking - we have a Wikipedia jargon that is perhaps politer, but less down to earth. (By the way, at least one of our patrollers does Google searches for words like 'focus' when seeking spam that's escaped the New Pages patrol.) Peridon (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you, these are good points. I do indeed describe CreativityModel Method by combining features and benefits. That’s a habit, because I have found that neither features nor benefits alone describe something particularly well. This style that I’m using is not suitable for Wikipedia. I understand this better now. Further, CreativityModel Method is too new for Wikipedia. In addition, if somebody will someday write about CreativityModel Method for Wikipedia, it probably should be somebody from Wikipedia, who already masters the style that is required here.

Initially it seemed to me that a lot of decisions are made partially arbitrarily and rather subjectively here. Some of the written instructions seemed to point in different directions as well, leaving quite a bit of room for different interpretations. After getting more feedback from people here I started seeing more objectivity. That’s the best part of this experience. It makes me respect the work that you do even more.

ProjectDeveloper (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)