Talk:Psychological testing

message: User:Graywalls. I know the websites you deleted and which I referenced. The websites are managed by an expert in industrial/organizational psychology and occupational health psychology. The expert is Paul Spector. His websites are very well known to researchers in i/o psychology and OHP. It is an error to claim that the sites are not reliable. The sites are curated by a leading expert. At the same time, the sites are highly accessible. They should be restored. I will restore them in a day or two if I don't hear from you. Iss246 (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel the inclusion is undue and WP:POV given the context it is added in. It would be the same thing if New York Times rep was going around putting NY Times citations everywhere they can find. , Ive seen Iss246's talk page post about the same issue about maintaining Paul Spector in articles where they were historically added. Do you have any thoughts to add? Graywalls (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is not analogous to a NYT representative placing NYT citations "everywhere." The citations in question are not everywhere. We have here a false comparison. If a WP editor cites a NYT article because it has a relevant to an encyclopedia article, that is legitimate. What I did by citing Spector is also legitimate. Spector, a respected member of IO psychology community, provides a reliably informative, accessible websites that visitors to the site can easily use. He published numerous books, including a textbook devoted to IO psychology. If I cited Spector elsewhere, it is because his websites are a solid source of relevant information. Iss246 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that referencing the website would be valuable. The website offers great resources in free access. Mentioning the website does not hurt anyone. To the contrary, it is very helpful. 2001:4652:443C:0:5C3E:7FDF:6E89:5E8A (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Any thoughts on the inclusion of these links? You had previously suggested that they might be undue weight (too many links to a single scholar's websites). ParticipantObserver (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

text: I think it would be preferable to use traditional citation to specific reference to directly support what's being said and only lean back on self-published expertise as the absolute last resort. The value added by the addition of paulspector.com is not convincing. I also don't understand why the addition of stevenericspector.com has any place. If we open up to posting paulspector.com, then that's sort of an open invitation for website of any author to be coatracked as long as they have published journals that has been highly cited. When the contents to be added are disputed and there is no clear consensus favoring inclusion, it defaults to omission. Graywalls (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the level of disagreement in these discussions, I think a link to any personal website (not just those of either Spector) needs consensus, particularly if there are links to other high quality websites. Note that I am not necessarily opposed to inclusion of personal websites, just that I think consensus should be necessary. It doesn't look like there will be a consensus based on the few editors involved here, so this may require an RfC with notications to related talk pages and Wikiprojects (but no canvassing to individual editors). With a little more participation from other editors, I would feel comfortable with any clear consensus (either favoring or opposing). I think it would be very helpful (although not necessarily required) if the organization or person that owns the website has a Wikipedia article for more details about the sponsor of the website. Earlier I was accused of making a threat of a block (which I didn't consider a threat), so let me emphasize that no threat whatsoever is intended here, just an attempt to resolve this conflict. My only goal at this point is maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia articles. Because of that accusation, however, I'll reserve my opinion about specific personal websites until we get more input from a broader range of editors. Sundayclose (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I/O assessments and mental health assessments 

message: In the last month, a user deleted two sections of text on the grounds that each was unsourced. One concerned a few sentences I wrote about measurement invariance. The other was the entire Interest inventories section. I had not gotten around to adding a source when I wrote about measurement invariance but I was going to get to it. It was on my "To Do List." The other was the section on interest inventories. Both are legitimate topics in psychological testing. Rather than delete cogently written text that does not yet have a source, I recommend that an editor do one of two things. The first, which may be more difficult for a nonspecialist, is to identify the appropriate source or sources (I did that for the Interest inventories section). The other, and less of a bother than pinning down sources, is to mark the text with the cn tag, which looks like this: . The tag turns into this next to the text in question. In that way an editor who either wrote the original text or knows about the subject matter can respond by entering the appropriate sources. Doing that would be more considerate to the original contributor and more in the spirit of collegiality.
I add that writing this note was also on my "To Do List" for ten days. Most of us have busy lives. Sometimes it takes time to close a gap. A gentle reminder is preferable to the starkness of deletion. Iss246 (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea regarding what to do when some text is missing a source