Hannah Polly Williams

Welcome!

Hello, Hannah Polly Williams, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Nigelj (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

ODI

Hello, I appreciate the ODI report, really I do. But it's still a self-published resource, and therefore is not what we call a reliable source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you very much for your edit and your interest. I have revisited the Wikipedia page detailing reliable sources and self-published sources. As far as I can see, the Overseas Development Institute is certainly a "reliable, published source". ODI is Britain's leading independent think tank on international development, with over fifty years experience.

According to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, reliability is affected by all three related types of source; the piece of work itself, the author and the publisher. It seems to me that ODI is reliable in each of these respects. I very much hope that you think likewise.

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the USA. I had never heard of them until you posted. I think we agree they are a private think tank, and that the report is an inhouse publication they decided to release. From where I sit, this would not be a reliable source as defined in wiki rules (no matter whether I agree with the contents or not). But there are some exceptions to the rule. Your opinion that an exception applies won't fly. You have to explain with sufficient backing to support your position. Doesn't have to be pages and pages and pages, but something more than a hope I will see it as you see it. And then there's everyone else who takes interest besides. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and for the opportunity this provides to clarify the status of the Overseas Development Institute, particularly for users outside the United Kingdom. I am confident that the information below will provide ample evidence that ODI is certainly a reliable source.

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please bring up the matter at the RS noticeboard. I think it might be reliable for statements of fact, and notable opinions, but most of your edits cross the line, reporting their opinion in the editorial voice. I'm going to revert most of your additions, pending input from that noticeboard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The status, history and mission of ODI

ODI is the UK’s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian policy. Founded in 1960, it has made major contributions to research, dissemination and policy change, on all aspects of development and humanitarian policy. The Institute has a staff of around 150, half of whom are researchers, with the remainder providing a wide range of support services.

ODI's mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries.

With a reputation for high-quality research and policy advice, ODI is in demand by governments, international institutions and other partners around the globe. Through their core research programmes they work across a wide range of sectors that have a direct impact on the well-being of the poorest people in developing countries. In addition, ODI offers consultancy services that include monitoring and evaluation and the development and delivery of tailored training courses, as well as expertise in communications and knowledge management.

ODI attaches great importance to dissemination and public policy work. The Institute:

- publishes two peer reviewed journals – Development Policy Review and Disasters – as well as a range of authoritative publications such as ODI Briefing Papers, Working Papers and Opinions

- has a large public affairs programme, with many public meetings and seminars also streamed live online

- runs international networks, for example the Humanitarian Practice Network and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network

- hosts the Secretariat for the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP)

- provides support to parliamentary activities, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on Overseas Development (APGOOD).

ODI also manages the ODI Fellowship Scheme, which has placed postgraduate economists in government positions in developing countries since 1963.

The ODI is held in high esteem by both international policy makers and the global scholarly community. For example, the James McGann Think Tank Index, updated annually, ranks the ODI second in the world for International Development Think Tanks. ODI does not fund its own research; donors are predominantly governments, for example the Department for International Development, and large international development institutes such as the World Bank.

ODI’s research programmes cover a vast range of development and humanitarian issues. Further information is available in the Institute’s Annual Report, and on the website.

References

Hannah Polly Williams (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hanna, I'm sorry I don't have time to take it in right now. But in any case, who the heck am I? Just one editor. Nearly all the editors who might care have not "watchlist"-ed your talk page. You would get a much better (ie stronger) determination of consensus at the talk page for whichever article you think is most important to host this information. To help determine which that might be, you can make a list of candidates, and then check the traffic stats for those articles. For example, here is the traffic report for last month on the article Global warming. Once you decide where this addition is most important, in your opinion, please repost your comment to that talk page. Feel free to include (or not) any of my remarks (... always get permission before moving someone else's comment.... but I'm giving you my permission on this particular issue right now). You can also post pointers at the talk page for secondary candidate articles, so more editors will navigate to your talk page thread on your top priority article. For example, you could say "Hey people, over here I'm talking to NAEG about something"

Happy editing! I did give the report a quick flip-through. Looks like there's lots of interesting commentary. Later, when I've had a chance to critically think about it (and maybe heard other editors remarks) I may change my mind about it being a non-permitted self publication. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)