I am an occasional, but far from expert, editor on Wikipedia. I understand that one is not supposed to post original research there, and that content should be properly cited with neutral sources, etc.
In a certain content area that I happen to be an expert on (37 years working in the field), a Wikipedia article contains a somewhat egregious error of fact.
Entirely coincidentally, I was asked to write a scholarly article on this topic that has since been published on a peer-reviewed website.
Is it proper for me to edit the Wikipedia entry to correct the error by citing my own article?
The guideline is WP:CITESELF. It says
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community’s opinion: propose the edit on the article’s talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming.
I would say that citing an article you wrote yourself to correct a clear error would be ok. It would be better to cite another source, but if such a source cannot be found, your own is ok. I’m assuming the article you wrote is a secondary source rather than primary; that is, it’s an analysis or interpretation of existing research or previously published material. If it’s a primary source, like new research or a report on a new experiment, that makes it less suitable.
Thanks, I think that answers my question. Beyond just understanding the official guidelines, I want to be sure I understand the norms and culture of Wikipedia editors.
Other opinions or similar experiences are still welcome.
I don’t see any problems either, especially if your article is in a peer-reviewed source, which it sounds like it is?
Wikipedia’s prohibition on original research is that it doesn’t have any sort of third-party validation; it’s not much better than “My post is my cite.” Once it’s passed peer-review, or editorial review for books, etc., it’s generally considered a reliable source, as used on Wikipedia. It’s then open to be cited by anyone, including the author, provided it’s pretty much on point, as @markn_1 says.
– Piper, who’s cited a couple of his own articles on relevant Wikipedia pages (and found that another editor had cited a third one, which was gratifying.)
ETA: sorry, I missed your comment that it’s peer-reviewed, That sounds good. It would be useful if the website makes it clear that it’s peer-reviewed, as sometimes there are self-published blogs, which don’t meet WP’s reliable source principle.