User talk:Zybexxx

Zybexxx, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zybexxx! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

SWOT analysis

Hello, Zybexxx. I've temporarily removed your contribution to SWOT analysis, as the source provided appears to be an open Wiki (see WP:RS). Since this appears to be WP:OR of your own creation, it may be helpful to provide the original sources you used to craft the material. The rules here on sourcing and copyright can be tricky, I know. If I can help you with anything, please let me know. Kuru (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Kuru. I understand Wikipedia policies and sadly it could be difficult for me to provide other source for this excerpt. As You noticed, It was created by me and was based on literature review (all used material is cited in original CEOpedia article). Although it appears to be open wiki, 99% of materials is created by my colleagues, me and students of mine. As such it appears that my contribution was also "conflict of interest" and as such it could not be posted on Wikipedia.

Citing Wikipedia:Verifiability: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. It is difficult to rate myself as an "established expert" but You can judge that on the basis of some of my publications in Google Scholar ;-).

In conclusion, if you think this content is worthy of inclusion in this article and you have any suggestions on how this can be done in accordance with the principles of WP I'll be grateful for it.Krzysztof Wozniak (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I will confess that I am jaded by ten years of having every random "SEO expert" claim their blog or website falls into that carve out within WP:V. That's obviously not the case here, though, and no slight is intended. The bar for that exception is usually fairly high; in the context here, think Robert Kaplan's views on BSC. If he blogged them instead of publishing them, we'd likely be able to use those musings as a source. There are many "experts" in the realm of management and performance academics/consulting, and pedigrees vary. The preferable route is to add content supported by published material under editorial control or peer-reviewed. If you're just adding your observations and they're not supported by prior art, you can understand how that would lead to problems with verifibility down the road. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Kuru, I fully understand concerns about quality of contribution to Wikipedia, and I take no offence by Your edit :-) But You've got me inspired to write an article about problems with SWOT analysis. I will try to publish it in peer reviewed journal, and then as You say, it could be referenced in this article ;-) So for now, thanks for all your explanations, and have a nice day :-)Krzysztof Wozniak (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)