User talk:SandyGeorgia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I prefer to keep conversations together and usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.

To leave me a message, click here.

Medical sources[edit]

As someone who doesn't know a damn thing about medicine, I think it might be useful for some to look at the guidetoreference.org page, which lists about 1200 reference sources, generally recent ones, which can be useful. Anyone can get a free two-month trial membership in the site by asking for it. FWIW, I do intend at some point to getting around to adding those works to the relevant pages in Bibliography of encyclopedias and a yet to be created Bibliography of reference works, and then going through ARBA for the past few years for further updates. The downside is, honestly, I think that will take at least several months. A lot of those are somewhat out of date, granted, but a lot of them in general (I haven't checked the med page yet) also have webpages which presumably get updated fairly regularly. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, glad you came by! I checked it out, but you have to be a subscriber, so I can't "see" anything in there. Someone like me, who has no university library access, is at a disadvantage. Really, as I just posted over to WP:ENB,[1] if we could just get students to use the PubMed search engine, and restrict to reviews, we'd get a much better result than we're getting now from students, and we'd all have more free time to actually write articles.

On a separate matter :) About that offer you made offsite re an FA ... Dude ! No, just no. For starters, just having an FA no longer means what it used to, since reviewing standards have gone down. Just look at the case of Hahc21, who had all kinds of "featured" content. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't mean as much to some as it does to most others, including me, but I saw a couple of voter guides which disqualified someone for arbitration because they weren't admins, and an FA is one of the ways to get to admin. Also, FWIW, although that site isn't our best friend, I don't think he is necessarily the least friendly one to us there. I've been over there for a while now, and I haven't seen anything of a grossly negative comment from him yet. Most of what I've seen from him there is no worse than a lot of things some admins and others have said there, or, sometimes, here. And I think that someone who described himself as a professional writer, which I think the person I think you mean has said he is, probably wouldn't need much more help than research, although I think in San Diego where he says he lives he probably has as good of access to most material as I do.
Also, if you wanted, I could forward to you the contents of the medical sections, as I do have the free subscription and e-mailed the listings to myself already. The one downside I've seen already, and this is having gone through only a few of the 60 or so lists they have, is that it looks to me like there might be a bit of overly detailed categorization involved. I've seen some works on plant diseases in both the "biology' and "agriculture" lists already. There are quite a few other databanks and bibliography sources in the few lists I've gone through so far too, which is only up to "biology" and not through bibliography and biography, and at least some of them are free. Some of them most people in medicine might already know, some might be a bit more focused and almost obsessive. I think that we have enough notability to establish a Bibliography of reference websites, which would include the website you referenced and at least a few others. I might start that before the much longer Bibliography of reference works, a lot of which are not that up to date. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
After writing voter guides for several years, I've decided it's a waste of time. People just know who the good folks are, ya know? It's like porn: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. And what we need in arbs are folks who are out there, in the trenches, engaged in article writing, regardless of assessment level of the article. (That's why I'm generally wary of the clerk-y types.)

That an FA is a route through RFA is just wrong on too many levels; all too often, "voters" at RFA don't even scrutinize the DYKs, GAs, FAs that are offered up as proof that one is a "content contributor". Again, just look at Hahc21.

If you were to forward me a couple of samples from guidetoreference.org on Tourette syndrome, I could evaluate how useful it might be. I'll email you so you have my email. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I regret to say that the Tourette syndrome pages are specifically separated. You got the whole bloody section sent to you, I'm afraid, all 1100+ in two separate e-mails, because their server only does 1000 per e-mail out. I suppose a search of the content should be able to indicate which mention Tourette's. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Something beautiful for the holidays[edit]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Seasonal greetings[edit]

Christmas Tree 2014.jpg


Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays[edit]

074 Frontal d'altar de Mosoll, els Reis d'Orient.jpg Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas! Hope you have a great New Year!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!![edit]

I know I don't have flashy messages like the people above me but Merry Christmas! I wanted to thank you for all of your contributions during this time of giving and hope you have a great new year.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New year[edit]

Angelos Akotanos - Saint Anne with the Virgin - 15th century.jpg
Nollaig shona duit
RozdestvoHristovo RublevBlagSoborMK.jpg
Best new year to my favourite crusader. You cant win them all Sandy, but god bless for trying. You have been missed. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear SandyGeorgia,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your really helpful explanation here. It was one of the clearest I've seen and it really made the job easier. Thank you once again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, and thank you, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Child Bipolar, and evidence based medicine editing[edit]

Hi, SandyGeorgia, I appreciate all the work that you are putting into monitoring pages. I have been reading up on MEDMOS and other Wikipedia editing guidelines, trying to learn the new skill set before doing unintentional damage to pages. Two reasons I am reaching out to you:

(a) Short term, the edits that I am making and you are reverting are pretty benign and clear cut matters of fact, where I am either adding citations or correcting edits. I was trying to start with relatively small baby steps.

I am digesting the Dispatch. I "get it" why the changes were reverted. This particular edit isn't that important, which may make it an excellent opportunity for us to discuss the different standards and help me form a constructive synthesis. More soon... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talkcontribs) 04:03, February 23, 2015

(b) Longer term, I would like to have a dialog and figure out how to work together to increase the content on Wikipedia, particularly around evidence based assessment and clinical decision-making (not just around bipolar disorder). I realize that I made some rookie mistakes last fall (I should not have had local resources in the sandboxes when I invited people to look at them, and I also should have cleaned up the DSM content to avoid potential copyright issues). I am working to learn, and I am a member of a demographic group that I believe Wikipedia would like to engage more (i.e., middle aged or older content expert with little or no coding experience). Looking forward to next steps, and thanks!Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 17:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talkcontribs)

Eyoungstrom, thanks for reaching out here. First, technical stuff:
1. You can (should) sign your edits on talk pages by entering four tildes after them ( ~~~~ ); that will add your sig and a timedate stamp, so others know who made the post and when, and avoid edit conflicts caused by the signbot.
Thanks; I had put the tildes in the edit summary. :-)
2. Discussion of edits to articles goes on article talk pages-- see my comments at Talk:Bipolar disorder in children.
Thanks; just wrote a response there. Proof of concept that I am learning. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talkcontribs) 04:03, February 23, 2015
3. You re-added an old primary source,[4] contradicted by a recent secondary review (PMID 24800202), after I removed it once [5] and started a talk page discussion. [6] Please have a look at WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR-- those are very important pages to read, and you really should discuss first on talk.
Thanks, makes sense. I am getting familiar with the etiquette. I will do more with talk (and see below)
I think it actually was this pair of sources that I replied about. If I can find the right words and get past my ineptitude with the coding, I hope that we'll have a fun discussion about that. It is cool to start to recognize the very different lenses getting used to look at the same sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talkcontribs) 04:03, February 23, 2015


Now ...
1. You are citing primary studies for text that is covered in (and contradicted by) recent, freely available secondary reviews; have a look at WP:MEDRS, WP:PSTS, and the Dispatch I cited on article talk-- we can review these issues further on article talk.
I will go back and look at the specifics there. In general, I am struggling a bit with the hierarchy of evidence. I am familiar with peer reviewed literature in the social sciences, and with the standards of evidence in Cochrane/EBM. I have been reading up and understand that Wikipedia wants NPOV and reliance on secondary sources (though the instructions about sourcing seem different for Psychology and medical articles than other pages). Where I get stuck is when a secondary source states something that is probably wrong, and a primary source in a higher quality journal is available. In the contexts I am used to, the primary source trumps the misquote or misstatement in the secondary source. I really need help understanding how to work though situations like this -- thanks!
2. More importantly, be sure to review WP:COI when it comes to citing your own journal papers. If we have recent secondary reviews, they should be used-- and in this case, we have many. The best thing you can do for that article is to rewrite it from recent, high-quality secondary reviews, such as the one I list on talk. Try to avoid citing yourself or adding text that supports a personal viewpoint.
I have read the WP:COI, and it makes sense. Child bipolar is a page that I am going to need help with. I am heavily involved in consensus statements and review papers. Is a reasonable approach to draft sections, keep it in a sandbox or talk on the page, and ask for you and other people to review and post if they approve? Is it helpful for me to declare a COI on this? Or is that redundant if I work the plan outlined here (post drafts, invite comment, ask others to post after discussion). Thanks for helping me learn how to navigate things.
Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also -- any tips about formatting when responding "in line" like this? Double colons did not indent more, so I added italics to set my inline responses apart. Old dog, looking for another new trick. :-) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot to respond to here, and I made things unnecessarily complicated (for you) by numbering the bullet points. Responding to bullet points is a bit trickier than responding to normal indentation, and is something you don't really need to learn yet. But generally speaking, you always respond by repeating what the post above yours had, and adding one colon (in this case, you needed to add my bullet point first, without spaces between). If you want to learn that complex indentation of numbered bullet points, you can see how I reformatted your response here, but a better suggestion is that I rejig this to avoid the numbering. I'll do that next, in a way that you will only need to add one more colon. Give me a second :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
With this edit, I converted my numbered bullet points to hard-coded numbers, so now you can just add one more colon for the next indent. Next, is figuring out why your sig isn't working correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
With this edit, I converted my numbered bullet points to hard-coded numbers, so now you can just add one more colon for the next indent. Next, is figuring out why your sig isn't working correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra work on the formatting. I am fading for the night, but I will spend some time in coming days trying to get better with the formatting. When responding inline, is the etiquette to sign each "chunk," or only once per batch of edits? Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to set up separate sections below, for helping sort out your sig (which isn't working correctly), separate from responses about editing. I hope editing each section will be easier for you than having to learn the indenting at the same time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your sig (Talk Page Stalker help needed !!)[edit]

Eyoungstrom, to make editing easier while you are learning, I've created separate sections. You can just edit each section to respond. Your signature isn't working correctly. If you look at the bottom of this page after you edited it, you will see that I cannot click on your signature to be taken to your talk page. I am never good at explaining what you need to fix, so I am hoping one of my talk page stalkers will weigh in here to help you fix that. I think you added the tildes, but they aren't creating a sig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the signature working now? I just tried changing a setting in my account, toggling between "nickname" and "signature." Let's see if this works. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Eyoungstrom, now you have a working sig! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Other editing issues[edit]

Where I get stuck is when a secondary source states something that is probably wrong, and a primary source in a higher quality journal is available. In the contexts I am used to, the primary source trumps the misquote or misstatement in the secondary source. I really need help understanding how to work though situations like this -- thanks! This is tricky, because of your expertise and knowledge in the field, and because of your COI, you'll benefit by being extra careful in these situations. The best thing you can do is the same thing you would do in any situation on Wikipedia: discuss it on article talk and gain broad consensus before adding anything sourced to a primary study. As you gain editing experience, you will understand better when and how to use primary sources ... I suspect, though, that what is happening in the case of childhood bipolar is only semantic (that is, to which population the 6% applies -- that may be mentioned in the primary source, but not the secondary review -- and the thinking in those cases is that, if the primary source info were significant/relevant/important, the secondary review would have mentioned it). So again, discussing it on talk is the way through that dilemma. When you come to an impasse, asking at WT:MED will help. Unfortunately, in most circumstances, you will need to do a lot of convincing to get other editors to accept that a primary study is correct, while a secondary review is wrong ... but it can happen! Additionally problematic is that there is simply no good psych Wikiproject, and very few good psych editors, so you will always get better feedback by asking questions at WT:MED. The other side of that issue is that we really really really need psych editors to become knowledgeable and proficient in Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and I am more than willing to help someone who is willing to learn !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very helpful response. I wish I knew how to juxtapose it with the thread at the talk page for child bipolar. In a week or so, I may have grown my skills to the point that we can talk about the etiquette for reorganizing conversations like this. You are giving me a lot to mull over. I want to make the long term commitment to helping edit Wikipedia. I am thinking in terms of five year chunks, so this hopefully is the beginning of a long association. I will do my best to provide a good return on investment for your time. :-) Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is a reasonable approach to draft sections, keep it in a sandbox or talk on the page, and ask for you and other people to review and post if they approve? Is it helpful for me to declare a COI on this? Or is that redundant if I work the plan outlined here (post drafts, invite comment, ask others to post after discussion). I'm not an expert in this area, but my personal opinion is that what you have divulged on your user page is adequate; anyone can see the level of your involvement and expertise, and it is clear that some of the childhood bipolar sources are your journal articles. I don't think you need to declare anything else, and your helpful attitude here indicates we're not likely to encounter the kinds of difficulties that are typical of researchers who are only here to push an agenda (and there are PLENTY of those!). Once you really learn and understand the use of secondary reviews on Wikipeda vs primary sources, you are unlikely to need further feedback, but while you are learning, the best things you can do are ... always discuss on talk once someone has removed an edit of yours (per WP:BRD) before readding the text, and always discuss on talk anything that isn't strictly sourced to a high-quality secondary review (such as this 6% biz). Sandboxes work as well, but I suspect you are above the level of needing to do that :) The best thing you can do is use the article talk page often!! I'll warn you that, while I'm willing to help you learn, I live in a small town with no university library, and I have limited journal access, so I can't always write or rewrite text if I don't have access to the actual source, but I can flag problems and help you learn guidelines and policies.

Okay, thanks for the feedback re: COI. Much appreciated. And lesson learned about reverting etiquette, too -- thanks! (You don't have the benefit of seeing me blush; I do it well, especially with no hair to cover it as it goes all the way up my face and over the top of my head).

re: access to journal articles, do sites like ResearchGate help? Or are you basically working with OpenAccess and whatever government funders require to be accessible on PubMed? If it would ever be helpful for me to provide a source on something we're discussing, let me know. I definitely want to learn the guidelines and policies; I am also trying to understand your parameters and see if there's anything helpful I can do there. Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you figured out yet how to step back through diffs to read edit summaries? That will be the first/next thing you will need to learn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to do that, and I will be consistent about it from here on out. I still am running amok with the formatting, but I promise I am trying to learn (and the evidence should be visible soon!). Thanks a ton for everything. Best regards, Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Progress! You need not blush-- for months after I started editing Wikipedia, I had something on my user page about "who wrote the manual for this thing, anyway". I have a painful memory of how hard it was to learn to edit here.

On how to respond to talk page posts, different people have different pet peeves, and one of my mine is interrupted conversations, because I was the delegate at Featured article candidates for years, and had to read through very long, back-and-forth discussions where it was important to know who was saying what. From that, I developed the habit of numbering my bullet points so that people could make one response underneath, without interrupting my post, and referencing my numbers. That works at FAC with experienced editors, but was a bad idea for someone who is learning to format talk page responses! So, generally, look back from the top of our conversation to the places where I have added an unsigned template. On my talk page, it's relatively unimportant that you sign, indent or format correctly-- I'm only doing this to help you learn. It's my talk, and we both know who is saying what :) But when it comes to longer discussions on Project or article talk pages, clarity will be more important. So, again, read back through this talk page, and think about how you would do it on a discussion involving more editors. My personal preference is to make one response to everything where possible, and to avoid "interruptions" of another editor's post, but not everyone posts that way. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PMID vs. DOI[edit]

Hi, again! I am seeing if I have "sussed" how to create a subheading, and also following up on a suggestion/request you made about including PMIDs when adding sources. I was using the approach laid out in the "Editing Wikipedia Articles on Psychology," 3rd page, under "Cite Your Sources." I have the PDF of the article on my profile page, too. Sorry if this all seems pedantic as heck -- I am trying to be specific, and I have no idea yet how the "Cool Kids" on Wikipedia would link to this (just a sinking feeling that it is not any of the approaches I just tried!).

Here's the substantive question, and the rub -- the style guide that Psychology uses, the APA 6th edition, requires us to include DOIs, not PMIDs. I personally saw no use for the DOIs until I used the Wikipedia tool (then I felt a brief surge of joy before reading that DOIs might not be good practice on Wikipedia?). I have been building my Endnote reference library for my whole career (my wife actually started it before I even was in grad school). I am up to 23,700 entries, and most of them don't have PMIDs attached.

Can you please explain what the value add of the PMID is? If there is one, I will gladly go ahead and start adding it (to my Endnote library as well as when I attempt to edit Wikipedia).

If DOI and PMID are interchangeable, then DOI will be easier for people who grew up with or work with the APA Style Guide, since DOI is a required element for that, and PMID is ignored.

If PMID has a clear added value, but psychologists and psychology students have spent years gathering DOIs instead, is there a way to hack the "Cite Journal" script so that it tries to autopopulate the PMID? (If that already exists, and I missed it, then there will be another big blush on my part). Who would be the right person to ask or suggest that to?

Thanks, as always, for the guidance!

Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several values on Wikipedia of the PMID.

First, no medical article will be taken seriously without them :) That only matters if you intend to go for Good article or Featured article :) Journals that are not PUBMED-indexed are suspect, so it's good practice to show you are using Pubmed-indexed articles. It's a matter of having your work being considered high quality, and not creating work for other editors-- in other words, if you don't look up PMIDs, others will have to do that for you. You can find plenty of articles that are B-class, C-class or start class without PMIDs, but it's unlikely you will find an FA or GA missing them.

Second, another advantage of PMID is that the Pubmed database has a field that (usually) clearly identifies secondary vs. primary sources (reviews, case reports, news, etc). (That's explained in the Dispatch I gave you above.) If you don't use PMIDs, others have to go through the work to determine if your work is correctly sourced, which is easier if they can just click on the PMID. That info is easily found in PubMed; if you don't provide the PMID, we have to look it up to determine if you are using review articles (that is, people like me who don't have journal access, so have to rely on the PubMed fields).

Third, the Pubmed database indicates when free full text is available, with a link to it, and that is a big deal !!! We like free full text. And free full text via PubMed Central will always be free-- it won't disappear like some journal URLs may.

Fourth, because most medical editors on Wikipedia use PMIDs and the BogHog/Diberri citation format, we have this handy-dandy tool for citing articles from PMIDs: all you do is plug in the PMID, and it returns a full cite journal template, including DOI when available, and including full-text when at PubMed Central. And that tool is so handy-dandy that right now it's not working, so I can't give you the link :) See the userbox on my user page, where there is a Boghog/Diberri template filler. I will ping Boghog to this discussion so he can tell you where to find the tool, and so he can answer your other question. I believe that either Boghog or Rjwilmsi knows how to run a bot to add PMIDs when there is a DOI, so I've pinged both of them. Thanks for asking-- most appreciated. Keep at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yet again! I am sold on the virtues of PMID.

One musing -- for Psychology as a discipline, there are a set of journals that are not indexed in PubMed, but they are in PsycINFO or ERIC (especially education-oriented research). This will be true for other social sciences, as well -- there will be things that are indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index or SCOPUS that won't be in PubMed. The PubMed indexing is a great shortcut for quality sourcing for *medicine*, but it will penalize the social sciences, especially as they move further away from medicine. What is the thinking in the WikiSphere about how to source content in these areas?

This doesn't apply so much to my areas of professional interest -- bipolar disorder definitely is in the zone that overlaps between psychology and psychiatry. Assessment could be something that good quality work (and especially reviews) get published in journals that are indexed in PsycINFO but not PubMed, though. Thanks, as always, for the guidance!

Oh, and I put a different thread up at the top of the list. It was an experiment, and I am guessing that it is not good practice, because you responded to this and not it. My bad. But if you could check out my response to the student on the talk page, I would be glad of any feedback. I also want you to know that I am trying to be proactive. :-)

All the best, Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Eric. The tool Sandy mentioned above may be found here: Wikipedia template filling. There was a temporary tool server outage this morning (none of the other tools were accessible either), but it is now up and running again. There are numerous advantages to including PMIDs in citations. These include:
  • Quality – According to MEDLINE/PubMed's Journal Selection criteria, journals are selected for indexing by PubMed based in large part on the "quality of editorial work" and "especially on the explicit process of external peer review". Furthermore, the coverage of high quality medical journal by PubMed is very thorough. Hence if a medical publication has not been indexed in PubMed, one immediately is suspicious of its quality.
  • Primary vs secondary – PubMed indicates whether a source is secondary (reviews and meta-analyses) or primary (original research). Wikipedia strongly prefers secondary sources (see WP:PST and WP:MEDRS). Including a PMID link quickly enables one to determine whether a source is secondary or not.
  • Related publications – PubMed provides a list of related publications and these lists can be invaluable in locating high quality sources or additional sources to expand the article.
One obvious limitation of PubMed as you have already mentioned is scope. PubMed is focused on medical sources and its coverage of psychology and psychiatry journals appear to be less thorough: ( Psychology 214, Psychiatry 190, Medicine 1872, and All 5615). If a psychology/psychiatry source has been indexed by PubMed, that certainly increases ones confidence that the source is high quality. However given that the coverage of psychology/psychiatry journals in PubMed appears to be more limited, lack of indexing by PubMed doesn't automatically disqualify it. As PsycINFO is also "devoted to peer-reviewed literature", indexing by PsycINFO would also increase one confidence that the source is high quality. The bottom line is that if a psychology / psychiatry source has a PMID, by all means include it in the citation. Boghog (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, again, Eyoungstrom! Yes, I missed the earlier post, but not because doing that is a bad idea, rather I was quite busy elsewhere and didn't check my page history. I will go look for it next. Generally, indenting and threading a discussion to respond where the query occurred is not a bad idea.

When you use the paragraph break on Wikipedia (<p>), you don't enter a carriage return after it-- that breaks the formatting.

Yes, as Boghog explains, most regular editors are aware of the PubMed limitations in scope. When a PMID is not provided, that doesn't automatically mean in all content areas that the journal is suspect: it does mean that we have to go find the abstract and do more work to determine the quality of the source, and I at least also then have to go do a PubMed search to see if the info is current, better sourced elsewhere, etc. So, in general, the issue you raise shouldn't be a problem (although sometimes I have to inquire on talk about the source since I don't have access to a university database). Specifically, I'm aware of those issues for example in the education and psych realms. In my area of focus, though, I can almost always find better sources in PubMed. When I have a question about the value of a source, I often have to inquire at WT:MED.

Also, you mentioned that you have a personal database full of DOIs ... many of those may be primary sources, and as your editing on Wikipedia grows, you may notice that you develop a much smaller stash of secondary reviews, since many of those primary sources won't be used here.

By the way, this (PMID vs DOI) is the kind of discussion that would have been better held at WT:MED, as it would have given you broader input from more editors than moi :) I don't mind at all that you post questions here, and I'm happy to help, but I also don't want to lead you astray by inflicting all of my personal preferences on you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I was pinged: I have scripts to add PMIDs to existing citations with DOIs using citation templates, however that normally depends on another Wikipedia article having a citation for that PMID and DOI. I dont' currently have a script to find a PMID based on the other fields (author, title, journal, volume etc.), have to do that manually like everybody else. The citation bot can find a PMID without a DOI, but the citation bot unfortunately can get over-eager filling in authors (and to a smaller extent some other less important parameters), which can conflict with the WP Medicine preferred style. Rjwilmsi 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Further, with regard to the APA databases, I was able to take a look at their record structure documentation, and it does provide for a field they call "Methodology", equivalent to PubMed's "PublicationType" field. The value of this field can serve Wikipedia as a published objective indicator for selecting secondary articles. Among the listed values for the "Methodology" field are: "Literature Review", "Systematic Review", and "Meta Analysis". Any of these three, we would consider secondary sources, though our preference would be for systematic reviews. The other values for "Methodology" would almost always describe primary content which should normally be avoided, or used with circumspection per wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Other[edit]

Hi, SandyGeorgia! I have a quick question. I am putting it at the top, and I think that this will be quick for you, and we may also be able to teach me the etiquette about deleting things from talk pages as we "check them off the To Do list."

One of the students in my class completed the training I assigned, and then went and created a page The_Carolina_way. They emailed me to let me know, and their email indicates that they know that it is not a durable contribution to Wikipedia. I went ahead and replied to them on the talk page Talk:The_Carolina_way for the page in question, and also by email (to be sure they got the message). If you could peek at what I wrote and give me feedback, I would be grateful.

I am trying to walk the line between getting the students engaged and being respectful of the editors and the time involved in cleaning up these sorts of "edits."

One more piece of context -- Chapel Hill got ~8" of snow, which is somewhere past "crippling" but not quite "catastrophic." The university closed, classes were cancelled, lots of people have been without electricity or Internet... so things have been even more slow and chaotic here. I will see the students again next Tuesday, barring any more weird weather. Any other feedback I have with them is going to be via email.

The Executive Summary is that I am trying to teach them to be responsible. We are just getting started (launch was Tuesday, and we were missing ~1/3 of the students due to an earlier snow), and I am trying to shepherd under uncharacteristically challenging conditions. I am glad of the rapport you and I are building, and I don't want to strain it when students appear to be "going rogue." If I am responding appropriately, then I think this could be an excellent "teachable moment" -- recognizing that I won't be getting to do any face-to-face interaction with the students until Tuesday afternoon.

Any coaching or advise about how this looks from your side of the Wikipedia Continental Divide much appreciated.

Thanks a ton! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yea, putting a new query that at the top didn't work, and actually made it less likely that I would see it :) Talk page posts should be in chrono order, and you would insert a response to an earlier post at the top, indented, where it occurred, but a new post should go at the bottom. So I moved this down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I had a look at The Carolina way and your post on talk. I see that another editor has already prodded the article, meaning in seven days, an admin will delete it, unless an editor contests the deletion, and then it would have to go to Articles for deletion. As you've noted, all of that wastes other editor time, so you suggested the student go ahead and take it down. That's not something that can typically be done (once you write something on Wikipedia, it's no longer in your control), but in this case, the speedy delete G7 may work: see here, since no one else had edited it. The editor can try the speedy delete, or you can just wait seven days for it to be deleted. If a class is Wiki Ed supported, I suspect the admins working at WP:ENB would get to it ... but I'm not an admin, so this isn't my area. Either way, when a new article is created, other editors have to patrol the article, check the sources, and in this case, an admin has to delete it ... so do remind students to please work in sandbox.

On the general issue you raise about interaction with your students, I am thrilled with your attitude and desire to learn, but I would find it easier if Wiki Ed staff were on board because this is way too much work for me and a few regular editors. I cannot yet say about your class/students, but with the other classes I'm following now, I am extremely dismayed at the time I am having to spend on really low-level basics. What I'm seeing in some undergrads is that no matter how much time other editors spend or how much I type, the students just don't care, don't interact, or simply do not have the core competence in either writing or researching to be adding anything to Wikipedia-- some of the basic grammatical issues are just alarming, in terms of what universities in the US are about these days, and they don't seem to have the capacity to digest work written at the journal level, determine what should be added to the article, and rewrite it in their own words. Their planned contributions are gibberish-- not a good result for the amount of time I'm expending on trying to bring them up to speed. I can't yet say anything like that about your class, and even if your students end up contributing nothing, at least we will have a psych editor (you!) well versed in Wikipedia. But I am worried about the size of the class, because if all of them contribute gibberish like I'm seeing in other classes, it will be overwhelming.

Thanks for letting me know about the snow-- stay warm and safe, and watch the back on the shoveling! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, speaking as something of an expert at shovelling snow and certain other things, please take it easy. It can be surprisingly dangerous for the unwary. Warm up and flex before shovelling. Lift with your knees, not your back. Don't twist your back under load. Pay attention to your heart rate, and take a break when you feel winded. In the long run, smaller shovel loads don't slow you much, but they are safer. If you have to drive, keep in mind that even if you have good traction, the other driver may not. Brake early and gently.
In regards The Carolina way, there does seem to be a substantial literary use of the phrase, but that does not mean the term has encyclopedic value. The book of that title might merit an article if there have been substantive literary or other reviews published about it, but I would suggest simply replacing the current article text with a wp:REDIRECT to the article about the author. The simpler approach, of course, would have been to avoid creating mainspace articles until a decent draft is ready in a sandbox. There is wp:NODEADLINE for Wikipedia, an article can always wait for improvements. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Supported/unsupported WikiEdu classes[edit]

Moving this part here. Hope that's alright. It looks like the present case will be resolved relatively soon, but I'd like to offer a broader answer to your question as it's a question that came up last term, too, I think.

I'd also like to qualify my response[s]: In order to keep discussion more or less open on-wiki I feel like I should say that while I'm using my "(Wiki Ed)" username, I'm only speaking as someone who is part of Wiki Ed, rather than speaking for Wiki Ed (in the sense of making official policy statements, for example).

Ryan (Wiki Ed) can you please explain what you mean about "not a WikiEd-supported class"? If that means Wiki Ed staff is not available to help here, I don't know how "we" can keep up with three dozen students who don't yet have clue about Wikipedia.

Based on feedback and best practices, classes we support have certain things in place: milestone assignments, clearly posted dates, mandatory student training, using talk pages, working in sandboxes first, etc. These are based on our experiences as well as feedback from people like yourself. We build tools and have strategies to get instructors on board with these best practices. For the most part, we try to get everybody to use the assignment design wizard, which automatically includes these sorts of things. In a few cases they don't use the ADW because it's not practical for the assignment they have in mind, so we work with them to add the important elements that may be missing, explaining the importance of each. Generally, people are into the idea of our support so make these changes, and because of these ground rules several classes who might not have had these best practices in place now do.

But there are also classes, as there always have been, which (a) don't know we exist; (b) don't want our help; (c) do not meet the minimum standards for support. In these cases all we can do is to reach out and to try to keep communication open with those instructors in the hope we can guide them to what works. In those cases where we don't hear back, where professors want to go their own way, etc. I'm not sure what else we can do aside from continue to try to communicate, try to explain why these things are important, maybe send brochures, etc. A good part of Helaine's/my job is this sort of "onboarding", and to that end it's invaluable to have members of the community let us know when they see problems with classes so we can try to work with them. But we can't force people to do anything. Your question of how to keep up seems like the same question you could ask about how to keep up with all of the editors all over Wikipedia (i.e. by treating students just like everybody else). Meanwhile, we'll be trying our best to work with the instructor to get them on board.

I think that maybe the uncertainty/frustration you're expressing is due to the fact that the class in question now is still operating in the Education Program namespace? It's first important to point out that WikiEd is not the only group that uses the course page extension. But whether it's WikiEd or another part of the Education Program, the typical practice is that once a professor has the instructor right, he/she has it indefinitely and can create course pages at will in the future (which may be supported by us, may not, and may be something unrelated to education like an editathon). There may be a discussion to be had regarding whether the instructor right should be a term by term thing. I don't know how much support that would have and frankly don't know what discussions have happened in the past on the subject. But that also wouldn't prevent an instructor from reusing an old page. It seems like a pretty uncommon phenomenon, but maybe we should talk about whether they should be locked after the class is over? Again, I don't know what discussions have occurred on the subject in the past.

In the present case, based on his most recent message and past communications it does seem like a mix-up and a matter of time/not getting around to developing the course page, so I'm hopeful we can get it set up with the key information soon. But that sentiment of "in process"/"soon" regarding unsupported classes may also be confusing to outside observers -- and it certainly doesn't help that Ian (Wiki Ed) and I are both enrolled in the current course as online volunteers. I think we've typically signed ourselves up when it looked like we'd be supporting a course simply out of convenience, but I think going forward we'll hold off as I can see where it would be misleading. There's currently not an obvious way to tell supported from unsupported classes. If you edit a course page (or the assignment page for classes created using the assignment design wizard), supported classes are indicated by a "wiki_ed=yes" parameter. Switching that on also activates the dashboard feature for that class, so any class listed on the dashboard can be assumed to be supported. I should probably also ping Sage (Wiki Ed), who can provide better insight on the technical side of things.

Acknowledging that we cannot track and fix the work of every editor who happens to be a student, but can be persistent in attempting to reach out to their instructors (through students if necessary) to offer guidance/support, what sorts of information, communication, etc. would help you and others? (sorry for the very long post) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the long explanation, Ryan (Wiki Ed). You may know from my past posts on ENB and ENI that a lack of response when it comes to student editing increases the frustration. I guess I'm left with two questions: 1. I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the ENB and ENI noticeboards are bringing up issues with all student editing, not just education program classes? Because depending on that answer, then I need to know whether to take issues to ENI or ANI in the future. Dealing with HUGE classes hitting a watchlist is not regular editing, and if/when issues occur and I need to take them to ANI, I need to know how to distinguish. 2. It's most frustrating how this whole interface is set up. It's different from other areas of Wikipedia editing, and now I see that even course pages aren't something I can count on understanding. So, I guess all I can add is that ... this continues to be most discouraging, and a de-motivation to me to continued editing. The contributions that I have seen so far from Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2015) are simply dreadful ... it is alarming that university students are operating on the level of the posts I've seen so far, and I submit that what we are asking of these students is more than they are capable of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
To answer SandyGeorgia's specific questions:
1. For anything related to specific problems with classes — whether Wiki Ed is supporting them or not — ENI is the right place. And for general issues related to the education program and class editing — whether specific to Wiki Ed's system or not — ENB is the right place.
2. Wiki Ed requires the use of course pages, with an accurate description of the assignment plan, for any class we support. We discourage instructors from flying under the radar or working outside of our best practices, and we try to contact any instructors (from the US or Canada, at least) who are not following them and strongly encourage them to do so, so that — as much as possible — we can count on course pages to accurately and consistently track which classes are working on what. For the Fall 2015 semester, we're planning to roll out complete replacement for the current course pages, which will use conventional wiki pages instead of the non-quite-a-real-wiki-page Education Program: namespace pages that are currently used. That will mean that all the usual wiki tools will work on course pages.
--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to admit, I've come rather late to WikiEdu discussions, but what I see rather confirms Sandy's concerns. Forgive me if I ramble and rant somewhat here...
  1. The profs generally mean well, but have not done the necessary wikiwork themselves to understand what they are asking of the community. When they bring on a new flock of students, we have the blind leading the distracted blind. Some form of skills training and validation for the profs should be in place before they are asked to run classes. Perhaps some participation in a regional edit-a-thon would be in order? I know that I would have been mightily vexed to find that I had scraped together tuition money for a course, only to find I was getting it from an instructor/professor/whathaveyou who was just learning the subject themselves. How much worse to find that the useful material was freely available to me online?
  2. Even the existing community members seem to be missing some basics. How is it that classes can effectively require students to out themselves as soon as they sign up for a course? Once the course ends, how many have continued participating? Are they all then forgotten, able to start afresh with a clean slate? What happens to the work they did? Should they get full marks on an article that never makes it to the mainspace?
  3. This really should be a considered process, not the present ad-hoc stack of practices. The nature of student assignments should be much more incremental, to ensure that they grasp the meaning and basic use of the wp:5P before they hurl headlong into a weeks-long research effort. I would much rather a student just identify one good, reliable source for expanding an article than have them spew pages of valueless (even if correct) original research.
  4. The barely literate are not going to develop substantial new writing skills in a semester, but any who have such skills can learn the basics of functioning on-wiki. I'm thinking particularly of discussing and disputing edits with others. A common thread in the classwork is that the students avoid onwiki discussions, which raises the question of just where they are having them. It should be made clear early that this is not accepted behaviour. Collaboration on-wiki is collaboration on the open record.
  5. One change that might help with many of these aspects is to ask that assignments be structured jointly between physically dispersed participants, ideally worldwide. This would have the added benefit of allowing skill-poor resource-rich participants to work with skill-rich resource-poor ones. Imagine the effect of getting rural African students access to sources from urban libraries. (Oh, wait a second, didn't Jimbo once say something about "...the sum of all the world's knowledge..."? :-)
  6. Another area that should be explored further is engaging students in translation work. Many institutions have a substantial proportion of foreign students with bi- or even multi-lingual skills. Translating high-importance articles in either direction is work that can be done with a minimum of research skills, but of course the prof needs the ability to read the work product.
  7. If anything can be done about getting profs wiki-skills up in advance of teaching a class, it will, to my mind, be one of the most effective ways of advancing this work from just painful to painful-but-productive. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Help Jee create more high quality, freely licensed, photographs of beautiful insects in Kerala, India[edit]

Sandy, I hope you forgive this little plug for a Wikipedia-related fund-raising campaign. My good friend Jee takes wonderful photographs of the wildlife in his home of Kerala, India. Over 500 Wikipedia articles benefit from his pictures and he's uploaded over 1000 to Commons. Jee is one of the best photographers we have, particularly of butterflies. And he's done all this with a compact camera. He's now got a quality DSLR camera as a gift, but needs funds to buy a macro lens and other essential equipment for taking professional-quality images. A group on Commons organised an Indiegogo crowd-funding campaign, which met it's very modest initial target in one day and runs till 24th March. Clearly we underestimated the generosity of Wikimedians, and donations continue well beyond this initial modest wish. Now Jee has the opportunity with more funds to buy the sort of essential kit every DSLR photographer requires such as a good bag, tripod, flash and the "digital darkroom" (computer/software) to make the best of each image.

I'm posting here because I know you and your friends appreciate the finest, featured, content on Wikipedia. The campaign is

Thanks :-) -- Colin°Talk 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Under vaccine controversies[edit]

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you are helpful. Even though you obviously have a different opinion, I used the resource you gave me to post the Miller article. We'll see what happens :)Dcrsmama (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Dcrsmama, I don't know why anyone would assume you were being sarcastic.

Now that you have raised the issue at WP:RSN, though, you should have a look at WP:FORUMSHOP-- it would be a good idea to stop debating the same issue at Talk:Vaccine controversies, since you have now moved it to a broader forum.

I should also point out that you don't seem to have yet fully digested WP:PSTS, WP:MEDRS or WP:OR. This page may help your understanding of how sources are used for medical content on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. I should also point out that, considering this is a "fringe" topic, you could end up sanctioned or blocked if you don't carefully read and digest what I-- and every other editor-- am telling you about Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS and pseudoscience[edit]

I think that there might be a bit of a possible problem with MEDRS regarding whether potentially insulting terms which can be or have been applied to what might be considered nominally medical disciplines would have to have such descriptions sourced from sources which meet MEDRS or not. So, for instance, if something is called a pseudoscience in an otherwise reliable source, but that source might itself not meet MEDRS, would that be considered sufficient sourcing to say the subject is described as a pseudoscience or not?

I figure you know a lot more about this than I do, and considering I am basically a lazy bastard I figured that if there were any reason to make changes to accomodate this you might know better how to do it than I would. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The question of whether something is pseudoscientific or not is not a biomedical question, so WP:MEDRS doesn't apply - it's a question more in the realm of philosophy of science. In some cases sources considering the pseudoscience question may be good medical sources too - see the opening para of the Homeopathy article for examples. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Schizophrenia Commission[edit]

Doesn't the report in Schizophrenia#Environment count as a reliable source, as a review or position statement by a body of experts? The commission was chaired by Robin Murray and includes Clare Gerada and Martin Knapp. DrKiernan (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the query, DrKiernan. I would accept that source for any number of statements, but the statement it is sourcing is something that should be/could be found in recent secondary reviews-- that is, not just as the position of one organization in one country. The tag that is really needed is one that says something like, for an FA, a better source could be provided for this. I have pinged WT:MED to see if someone can fix that up.[7] Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes in the Signpost contribution stream process[edit]

I've been making extensive changes and simplifications to the way that Signpost solicits contributions. This included modifications to the Featured content dispatch workshop to bring it in line with the revamped internal special and op-ed submission streams. For more details see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance. I know how invested you are in the FCDW; I wanted to give you a heads up about the changes. The next issue should include an editor's note on the changes. Submissions are auto-collated at the Newsroom. Regards, ResMar 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the consideration and the notice ... I will look into it as soon as I have a free moment! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I pulled the trigger a little early—now it should be ready. Also: would you be willing to list yourself as contact-person here? As Ed is listed here. ResMar 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Ack ! I still haven't had time to look at everything, and I'm out most of tomorrow ... by when do you need to know what? Give me deadlines ... I'm in prioritizing mode! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
There'll be a nice bump in traffic once we publish in 19 hours (if we publish in 19 hours). ResMar 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ref format[edit]

If another format for the authors is prefered we should get the cite tool in the edit box changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I (and almost every medical FA) use the Diberri/Bohhog format; which tool are you using and where is it? I don't think we can get anything changed Wiki-wide, because it's mostly medical articles that use Diberri ... pinging Boghog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Doc James is referring to WP:REFTOOLS which is enabled by default is found the top of the edit window:
  • RefToolbar 2.0b.png
(Cite button on right, which if selected then shows a "template" pull down menu on the left with cite journal, cite book, etc as choices).
Because RefToolbar is so easy to use, it has become widely used. Unfortunately RefToolbar will only generate citations with "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters. One can add |name-list-format=vanc to the template so that it at least renders the citation correctly, but one is still left with the parameter bloat.
We need to convince the maintainers of Module:Citation/CS1 to add support for |vauthors= so that it can be used in {{cite journal}}, etc. templates and then convince the RefToolbar maintainers to add an option to store the authors in the vauthors parameter. Boghog (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ha, thanks Boghog! I had never seen that, and now I understand where that awful parameter bloat in citations is coming from. I try to avoid interacting with the "maintainers" of the citation module (perhaps you remember a go-round we had a few years back?). And since they are parameter-driven, I don't know if you can get it by them. Maybe we can just convince Doc James to switch over to the Boghog template filler when he's operating on an FA? I only worry about this on FAs since they need consistency in citation format,[8] and I HATE the parameter bloat that mucks up articles with multiple name fields. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I add so many references and the RefToolbar is so easy. Happy to try to get the RefToolbar changed. Can someone draft what it should be changed to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"Ah, there's the rub!" If we want wp-wide consistency, then we need CS1 parameters (|first1=A.B. |last1=Smith |first2=C.D. |last2=Jones) to be used everywhere. If we want WPMED consistency, then we need pubmed-style (|authors=Smith AB, Jones CD). No consensus has been reached so far as I can tell. The pubmed inconsistent practice in use of first versus use of inits doesn't help much. It's also discouraging that after all this time we don't have a replacement operator for citation-bot. Not that anyone sane would take on the rat's nest of requirements it is expected to address. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
yep ... I would not want to open this can of worms. Really, Doc James, I don't mind switching the authors behind your edits on FAs to maintain citation consistency (and I prefer the med/Diberri/Boghog style on authors because it's so much less clunky). It only matters on FAs, and fixing edits behind you is preferable to tangling with that crowd of bot-folk who love chunking up citations with parameters! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Happy you do not mind. I will try to use the other format for FAs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

How...?[edit]

How ever did you find my message to the Teahouse visitor having a rough day?

  Bfpage |leave a message  13:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to keep conversations together, so have responded on your talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)