In that it’s a comment on the issue of experts posting in Wikipedia which was the topic of the OP.
Maybe this is true in some fields, but in chemistry many wikipedia articles would actually lead you to the authors actual work. You can’t go into anywhere near as much detail on wikipedia, so if you want more you have to get the references. Instead of competing, it is creating a billboard directing people to your work.
The article on Green Chemistry used to be a good example of this, but I see now that it has been edited significantly since then.
I contributed extensively to the page on the Montreal metro; does that count?
IIRC that’s exactly why you’re not supposed to put “original research” up there.
Wikipedia’s prohibition against “original research” (as I understand it) is against original **unpublished **research.
If your work is published, you can cite it as a source. (Of course you’re supposed to present such info with a neutral point of view, not blatantly promoting a commercial product.)
So then, it is in no way a factual answer to the OP. Got it.
I suppose everyone could have just responded “yes” or “no” but I assumed the OP was looking for a little more discussion on the issue. By your literal reading of the OP, nobody answered the question that was asked.
[Moderating]
I can’t say you’re making much of a contribution to the thread yourself. If you have a problem with a post, either report it or make a substantive response. Just snarking about it is rather pointless.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator