Talk:Maitreesh Ghatak

Autobiography

This article appears to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy as it presents only verifiable facts and no opinions. All the details can be verified by looking at the London School of Economics website of the subject (link in the article). Also, the history of this article suggests that this was not created by the subject and so it cannot be called autobiography. ---- Terzarima 10:57 a.m. 17 Feb 2011

Maitreesh (talk · contribs) contributed to this article, and atleast he seems to be in a conflict of interest. Also, Kaniket (talk · contribs) and Malyaban (talk · contribs) show suspiciously similar edit patterns, so one could suspect sock puppetry here. Probably best to file a sockpuppet investigation. --bender235 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed. Feel free to comment there. --bender235 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Wikipedia's vigilance but no sock puppetry from me. I started the page on Prof. Ghatak and my entry is consistent with Wikipedia Biographies content policies, namely NPOV, V and NOR. I am a Assistant Professor in Economics at the University of Cambridge <http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/person.html?id=aniket&group=teach-out> and can be contacted at my Cambridge email address (available in my preferences). My username kaniket is reconstituted from Kumar Aniket - so no sock puppetry here. Hope that helps. kaniket (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC) kaniket

Hey Bender235. Ich kenn' sowohl Kumar als auch Maitreesh persoenlich - insofern magst Du meiner Meinung nicht trauen. Aber die Edits die die beiden anscheinend gemacht haben, wenn ihr Nutzername auch ihre wirkliche Identitaet wiederspiegelt, sind glaub' ich sehr objektiv und richtig. Die beiden Punkte ueber die ihr hier wohl redet, sind seine research interest im generellen und speziellen. So wie's dort jetzt steht reflektiert das denk' ich sehr wahrheitsgemaess seine Interessen, und er ist in allen diesen Feldern aktiv. Die Unterteilung in `fruehe' und andere Arbeit ist angesichts seines Alters relativ merkwuerdig. Es ist auch falsch. Sein erstes Paper ist zwar microfinance related, aber auch damals hat er natuerlich sicherlich schon an den anderen Papieren gearbeitet, welche 2-3 Jahre spaeter publiziert wurden. Also, Deine `autobiography' note kannst da glaub' ich ganz beruhigt rausnehmen. 22:27 (ECT), 18/02/2011. k.burchardi

Even though we both speak German this is the English Wikipedia, and this is public discussion, so let's stick with English. The {{autobiography}} is not about whether the submitted content is neutral and correct, but whether it is from the article's subject or somebody else with a WP:COI. --bender235 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding Issues

Hello everyone! Just saw that the autobiography tag is still on and I thought it would be useful to move the discussion on. My effort would be to keep the Wikipedia users' interest as my guiding principles in the arguments I make below. The relevant questions, as I see are as follows:

1. Are there specific words, expressions or information on the page that are contentious?
2. Whether there has been a consistent effort to shape the content on the page as the autobiographical tag suggests?
3. Whether COI is of historical interest or the page, in its current form, is biased and inconsistent with the principles of Wikipedia?
4. Are the Conflict of Interest rules facilitating or inhibiting the representation of academic knowledge on Wikipedia?

Here is my perspective on these questions.

1. If there is information on the page that is contentious, then it should be identified and removed immediately in the interest of the Wikipedia users.
   
   
2. Going carefully through the history of edits, it does not seems that, apart from the initial WP:COI, there has been any persistent effort to shape the page. The page has grown organically and has been edited by a wide gamut of Wikipedia editors. The current page reflects the contribution of this wide array of editors and the initial contentious WP:COI contribution seems to have (rightly) been edited away. The autobiographical tag states that the page "has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy". There is certainly clear evidence of WP:COI by me in the creation and editing of the page, but I cannot see any evidence of consistent efforts to shape the page since. I withdrew immediately after I realised that my initial contribution contravened the Wikipedia Rules and have not edited or contributed since.
   
   
3. The question remains whether WP:COI is of historical interest or still biases the content of the page. There was certainly conflict of interest in the way the page was started by me. I am entirely guilty of that. This was a result of my inexperience as a new editor and I created the page in good faith with the most rudimentary Wikipedia skills. The fact that I was using my real name and not a pseudonym should suggest that I was making no effort to hide my identity or the COI. I was and am still a new and relatively inexperienced editor and thus am not as familiar with rules of Wikipedia as the more experienced users.
   
   The context in which the page was created may be important in demonstrating my unwitting mistake. On 10 June 2009, while updating the Alumni (Academics) list on the Delhi School of Economics page, I found that certain Alumni (Academics) that met the Professor Test did not have a Wikipedia entry. I created 4 pages including the page of Maitreesh Ghatak with whom I have a clear conflict of interest. The page was created in good faith and as a new editor I was naive and ignorant of the WP:COI rules of Wikipedia.
   
   My contributions to the Maitreesh Ghatak page was limited to adding the most basic publicly verifiable biographical information and the publication list. After my initial contribution, I have made no effort to edit and almost nothing of the initial contributions remains on the page now. From the perspective of Wikipedia users, I presume that what matters is whether the page should exist or not, i.e., does Maitreesh Ghatak meet the notability criterion? Tenured Professor at LSE, Managing Editor of Review of Economic Studies (The best ranked European Journal in Economics) at the age of 34, current Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Development Economics (The premier journal in the area of Development Economics), Board Member of Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development, Lead Economist, International Growth Centre, India: Bihar Programme. I think it would be difficult to argue that the page should not exist.
   
   I must admit that I was surprised to find that rules on the WP:COI and Wikipedia:Meat puppetry were fairly nuanced and explicitly take into account the mistakes made by new editors like me. It may be useful to keep the following quotes in mind while taking this discussion forward.
   
   Quote from the Wikipedia:Meat puppetry page: "New editors sometimes engage in meatpuppetry unwittingly, on the assumption that it is an acceptable practice. Editors should assume good faith, especially for new users, before making meat puppet accusations." I can say in good faith that this is not a case of meat puppetry at all. I fell foul of the rules unwittingly and like everyone else, I value Wikipedia as a collaborative resources and believe strongly that it should not be used for any personal gains.
   
   Quote from the WP:COI page: "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." I made no attempts to hide my identity and use a username which is reconstituted from my real name. I was just trying to add the information to Wikipedia and unwittingly chose the wrong avenue to do so.
   
   
4. Lastly, the conflict of interest rules do not seem conducive to facilitate the accurate representation of the frontier of academic research or highly specialised knowledge. In these cases, the person who possesses the highly specialised knowledge would almost certainly have a conflict of interest. It would be very difficult to find someone, who does not have a conflict of interest to contribute for example to a page on the application of mechanism design used in Microfinance models. The page does not exist because everyone with the specialised knowledge would also have an academic articles on the topic and would be ruled out due to conflict of interest. With specialised knowledge also comes Conflict of Interest, whether this is in representing new innovative ideas or a body of work by an prominent academician. The best example the Wikipedia page on Susan Athey, the John Bates Clark Medal winner in 2007. Her contributions are phenomenal. Yet, they are not mentioned on the page because the 100 people in the world who understand her research in entirety would be connected to her through the wider Economics Network and would have a conflict of interest.

kaniket (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

I just realised that I had not clarified the source of my COI. Maitreesh Ghatak was on my PhD thesis committee in 2007 and is one of my 4 referees / letter writers. I have a professional relationship with him and have very high regard for his intellectual contributions to the field of Development Economics. Nevertheless, I have been a Assistant Professor in Economics at University of Cambridge for almost 4 years now. I am independent in my views and not beholden to him in any way. kaniket (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

Rebuilding the page

We are in a limbo here, which is certainly not in the interest of the Wikipedia users. Either we should collectively move toward rebuilding the page or move towards deleting the page entirely. After all, what is the point of a stagnant inaccurate page on Wikipedia.

In the spirit of taking a pro-active direction, I have taken advice from within the Wikipedia community. (See advice from Helpdesk, User:HelloAnnyong and COI talk). This does not contravene the spirit of Wikipedia as laid out on the WP:COI page, till the time I declare my COI explicitly.

The advice seems to suggest that

1. Current content matters from than the history
2. In relation to the autobiography tag, "perhaps the tag is not wholly required"
3. Article does not have sufficient links from "established secondary sources" which is the reason for the autobiography tag

What I want to do is simply add established secondary resources. WP:COI says that I can do that if I explicitly declare my COI. My reasons why this is appropriate in the context of academic research is available at COI talk page but I am happy to rehearse the arguments on this page if anyone is unhappy with the argument.

In the spirit of taking a pro-active direction in the interest of the Wikipedia users, here is what I am going to do

• Having explicitly declared my WP:COI at User:Kaniket I am going to add "established secondary sources" to the page. I pledge not to add any additional material, just links to "established secondary sources".

If that somehow contravenes the spirit of the Wikipedia community or is not in the Wikipedia users interest, I would be grateful if you could point it out here. Also, if you want to add "established secondary sources", please remember to put down your COI here explicitly before you contribute.

Of course, it is important to keep in mind how the subject of the page is deeply connected to the Economics community, having held editorial positions at influential journals like Journal of Development Economics and Review of Economic Studies and has been associated with Economics faculties at LSE, University of Chicago, University of Yale, University of Michigan, and University of Namur to name a few. A coauthor, students and other secondary and tertiary associations covers a large part of the Economics community. So, if you have any remote connection with Economics at all, it would be safe to put down your potential COI here before you edit or contribute. kaniket (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

I have added a list of established secondary sources. Hope none of the sources are controversial. If there are any sources that are controversial, please do point it out.kaniket (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)kaniket

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maitreesh Ghatak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130308221023/http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/about.htm to http://ipl.econ.duke.edu/bread/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)