User talk:Iridescent

The arbitration committee "assuming good faith" with an editor.

Archives [Jan 06‑Oct 07] [Nov 07‑May 08] [Jun 08] [Jul‑Aug 08] [Aug‑Sep 08] [Sep‑Nov 08] [Nov‑Dec 08] [Jan 09] [Feb‑Apr 09] [May‑Jul 09] [Jul‑Oct 09] [Oct 09‑Apr 10] [May‑Jul 10] [Aug‑Oct 10] [Nov 10‑Apr 11] [May 11‑Apr 13] [May 13‑Apr 15] [May‑Aug 15] [Sep 15‑Jan 16] [Feb‑Apr 16] [May‑Jul 16] [Aug‑Sep 16] [Oct‑Nov 16] [Dec 16‑Jan 17] [Feb‑May 17] [Jun‑Oct 17] [Nov 17‑Jan 18] [Feb‑Jul 18] [Jul‑Oct 18] [Nov‑Dec 18] [Jan 19] [Feb‑Apr 19] [May‑Jun 19] [Jul 19] [Aug‑Oct 19] [Nov 19‑Jan 20] [Feb‑Mar 20] [Apr‑Jul 20] [Aug‑Oct 20] [Nov‑Dec 20] [Jan 21] [Jan‑Mar 21] [Apr‑May 21] [Jun‑Aug 21] [Sep‑Dec 21] [Jan 22] [Feb‑Mar 22] [Apr‑Jul 22] [Aug‑Nov 22] [Dec 22‑]

Wikimedia Medicine

I'm not sure if we've ever talked, but I think you've got ten times more clue than the average Wikipedian, so I'm pointing you to m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine in the hope that it will interest you. If it does, I would welcome your thoughts. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Replying here, as I'm not sure I even remember my password at Meta; feel free to cross-post any (or all) parts of it if you think they're relevant.

While I do have a science/engineering background, I don't feel I know enough about medicine to participate in an explicitly medical project. The person you really want to move heaven and earth to get on board is Casliber, particularly if he drops off Arbcom at the end of the year and thus loses the inherent COI; he's one of the very few people with expert knowledge in both the internal workings of Wikipedia, and of current medical custom and practice.

Some thoughts (possibly more to follow if I think of them):

1. What does "participation and advocacy" actually mean in theory, and what will it mean in practice? If the project becomes a self-appointing group which parachutes en masse into contentious areas to sway block votes—or is perceived as such—it's likely to meet the same reception as that given to the East European Mailing List or the Article Rescue Squadron.
2. How much input do you (plural) envisage this project as having over Wikipedia content? I can easily see it becoming a star chamber which determines Wikipedia's or Wikimedia's party line on contentious medical issues—even if that's not the intention of the founders—and in that case, it will become a prime target for various cultists and cranks. If it has (for instance) twenty active members, I could easily imagine Narconon, the TMers or the big pharma companies getting enough of a foothold to stage a coup.
3. What mechanisms will you have for reconciling "anyone can edit" and "keep out the lunatics"? How do you handle the hypothetical situation where a dozen crystal therapists or reiki healers sign up, in sufficient numbers to start swaying votes?
4. This thread is only touching one worm from a vigorously wriggling can. How will "radical transparency" react with the situation where identifiable individuals are citing each other as examples of sufferers from mental illnesses? When someone uploads an identifiable photo of themselves to illustrate a particular topic, and by the time they sober up and try to take the image down the Free Culture hardliners at Commons have got their mitts on it and refuse to allow it to be deleted as a point of principle? When people are posting accusations of medical malpractice against identifiable medical practitioners? (All these things have actually happened.)
5. Some people are already alluding to this on the talkpage; are you going to follow a Teach the Controversy doctrine or scientific orthodoxy? "Encourage health care providers to use Wikimedia projects and to adopt the values of free culture and open access" could easily be read as an open invitation to Reichians, chiropractors, ibogaine therapists, acupuncturists and other not-totally-disproven-but-undoubtedly-fringe people to say their piece. If the project is genuinely open to everyone working in health and medicine, it will likely become a free-for-all and the net result will just be that the arguments take place at one remove from the broader community, rather than on the talkpages as they do now. If you do adopt a "party line" and only accept contributions from people following medical orthodoxy (as I believe is the only morally responsible path to take), you're adopting a position that's fundamentally at odds with the WMF custom and practice of "anyone can edit". ("Anyone can edit" is not actually written down anywhere in the WMF constitution, and although it appears on the main page and is listed in the executive summary at WP:FIVE it doesn't actually appear on any of the actual Five Pillars—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and you'd be astonished at how many of the people who cite WP:FIVE as if Larry Sanger carried it down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets, have never bothered actually to read them—but the idea has become so ingrained in the culture that any attempt to ditch it would meet with howls of protest from the Defenders Of The Wiki.)
6. A biggie, which nobody appears to have mentioned: almost all the people you're looking to attract have a huge COI, and there doesn't appear to be any discussion of how you're going to handle this. If GlaxoSmithKline offers a dozen people on secondment to write medical articles full time, do you turn them away even though they're almost certainly better qualified to write on the topic than anyone currently active on Wikipedia? How about the National Health Service? How about the CCHR (who may be industrial-grade whackadoodles but are undoubtedly among the world's leading experts in current psychiatric and pharmacological practice)? How about the Followers of Christ? Who will decide who is and isn't a "health care provider", and once you open the door to some groups where do you draw the line and why?
7. If this project gives "official approval" to medical articles, or a status which outside observers could reasonably construe as such, what are the liability issues if an article gives incorrect information which negatively impacts on someone's health? IANAL, but I believe that an oversight panel of this nature could well pull Wikipedia's medical coverage out of the S230 umbrella, and open the WMF up to virtually unlimited liability. Even if it's ultimately determined that S230 still applies, I very much doubt Jimmy Wales has any enthusiasm for that particular test case.

Executive summary

I support the principle of a de facto regulatory body to monitor and improve Wikipedia's medical coverage, but because it will attract ferocious opposition and controversy, it can only work if you can get an explicit imprimatur from both Jimmy and Sue to overrule "consensus" if consensus is leading in inappropriate directions. Because this will make the project one of the most powerful bodies on the internet, a lot of thought needs to go into who can be a member and what the procedures should be for ejecting inappropriate people; until this issue is addressed it's likely the WMF will get cold feet about recognising the project and creating an explicit link which could jeopardise both goodwill and S230 immunity. If the WMF do recognise this project they're likely to insist on such strict controls that you'll find yourselves hamstrung from doing much, while if the WMF doesn't recognise this project it will probably be treated as an inappropriate canvassing group and its members ultimately banned from Wikipedia. – iridescent 00:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(damn!! - it's just turned spring here and the daytime average temp has just shot up about 9C, meaning my garden is looking a little the worse for wear, and I really need to get out mulching, watering etc. and this goddamn thread turns up....aaaaarghhh). I have concerns somewhat along the lines of above. I'll try to keep the discussion in one place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Cas, I haven't approached you until now because I hate dragging you into your day job here; but I agree with Iridescent that any attention you could give to the project would be very valuable indeed. I'll comment more later. Just one immediate response to one aspect of Iridescent's comments: I don't see this as in any way a governing body. I see it's purpose solely as a means of raising and disbursing funds with the aim of facilitating the Wikimedia Foundation's aims with regard to health-related information: basically a bank account for us to spend Bill and Melinda Gates's money, and a corporate that can negotiate with Google and others for funds, expertise, etc. And some other things. I don't see this project usurping one iota of Wikipedia's role. I will say more later. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(snaps fingers) ....in which case it is like a wikimedia chapter...but on based on subject instead of geography....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Per this brief description. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Iridescent, presently health-related content on en.WP is well-constrained by WP:MEDRS. There is a constant battle on the fringes staving off quacks but, though that is sometimes noisy and dramatic, it involves only a tiny percentage of the health content here, and is usually successful. The vast amount of health content is uncontroversial and stable, but most of it is incomplete and some is inaccurate. What the new project will do is develop strategies to (1) increase the number of good medical contributions and (2) translate good articles into other (but as a priority third world) languages. We'll be working with projects like WP:MED to ensure our efforts match their aims.

With regard to our relationship with the foundation: we'll be incorporating in a way that makes us eligible for recognition as a m:Wikimedia thematic organization, and so eligible to apply for foundation grants, but won't be controlled by them.

Regarding: "a lot of thought needs to go into who can be a member and what the procedures should be for ejecting inappropriate people", I agree. Your, and any talk page stalkers', thoughts on this important point will be welcome. Presently membership is open to everyone. We need to define whom we exclude. The first board is selecting itself at the moment and I am relaxed about that because of the quality of those nominating. All, I think, are veterans of WP:MED and all, I think, have a commitment to the foundation mission and the five pillars.

Regarding "radical transparency", WhatamIdoing added this sensible caveat.

As for "are you going to follow a Teach the Controversy doctrine or scientific orthodoxy?" I don't know the answer to that. That is, it hasn't been discussed to any extent that I'm aware of. Are you sure you don't want to join the conversation at Wikimedia Medicine? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it can avoid becoming a de facto governing body, regardless of intent. One of the enduring problems of Wikipedia is the extent to which WikiProjects become cliques, which take effective control of "their" articles. I gave up touching anything to do with roads because I became fed up with being lectured by self-appointed style cops from the roads project, and I can't imagine the situation has improved. (Go to any of these pages, change "The Beatles" to "the Beatles", and count the number of obsessive cranks who turn up on your talkpage acting like you took a dump on the High Altar of the Vatican.) If a body exists which centralises all Wikipedia's medical experts, people are going to defer to whatever it says, regardless of whether it wants to be seen as a governing body or not. To be clear, I don't think this is at all a bad thing, but you (plural) need to be aware from the start that this is what will happen if it goes forward, and that this is the context in which the WMF will view it when deciding what degree of autonomy to allow it.

Because of that, I believe it has the potential to be more vulnerable to quackery and pseudoscience than the current WP:MEDRS setup. As anyone who's had any dealings with the Discovery Institute or Narconon can testify, some pseudoscientists are very gifted at demanding their particular brand of quackery be heard, and a small centralised body is a lot easier to infiltrate than an sprawling amorphous mass. While the current board members are fine, what are you going to do when the quacks come calling? Bear in mind that the new British Health Secretary is a paid-up believer in homoeopathy, and Mitt Romney gives every impression of believing every fringe theory in existence; there's a very real chance that come the new year, the two countries which traditionally drive medical publishing will be under the strong influence of woo-merchants, making WP:MEDRS potentially a much shakier foundation on which to build than it currently appears.

Once the grants start flowing, who is going to decide what to accept and why? Bill and Melinda are one thing (although as Steve Jobs thoughtfully illustrated, Silicon Valley types can easily take drastic turns into medical nuttery), but grants rarely come for "general purposes". The mistake most PR types make when it comes to Wikipedia is to directly edit articles to include their preferred slant. At some point, an enterprising PR person will realise that the way to game Wikipedia for PR purposes is to adhere to NPOV scrupulously, but to inflate articles until they're large enough to justify splitting into "pros of" and "cons of" articles, and only to improve those articles which benefit The Cause, and allow the negative article to drift back into the unmaintained grey goo. (This is exactly the tactic the creationists already use, and Wikipedia has yet to come up with a defence against it.) How much would it be worth to Hershey or Nestle to have Health benefits of chocolate as TFA on the The Sixth Most Visited Page On The Internet™? When the guy from Cadbury's comes calling offering three interns to work full-time on writing it, do you turn him away? When the newspapers ask [why a charity is turning away donations]/[why Wikipedia is accepting bribes from PR firms] (delete as appropriate), what do you say? These are decisions that need to be made beforehand, not made up ad-hoc by Jimbo as and when they happen. You can be sure Seth and co will be watching for any sign of ethical slips.

Likewise, the protocols on who to accept as members, who to reject, and why need to be formalised before anything gets off the ground. Blanket bans on Scientologists, religious fundamentalists, hardline activists et al might well be illegal, depending on where you choose to incorporate, and would certainly be immoral, but you presumably don't want two dozen Christian Scientists or Aspies For Freedom activists turning up to every online meeting. Again, this is something that needs to be resolved before you get started, as it will affect the objects and powers clause when you incorporate, and you really need the Foundation involved in the discussions. As Fae can testify, the WMF will have no compunction about washing their hands of you if there's even a hint that you might cause any kind of trouble. (In fact, add Newyorkbrad and Risker to the list of people you need to get involved in this; Brad is very gifted at translating complex legal arguments into Wikispeak, and Risker is very good at telling people things they don't want to hear when it becomes necessary.)

I'm still not convinced by "radical transparency", even with the caveat. Transparency is great in theory, but all too often it translates into a situation where every comment attracts a dozen replies, each of which attracts replies of their own, ANI style. I'd suggest a setup where anyone can view discussions, but only an approved set of people are permitted actually to participate. (This is the setup en-wiki's Arbcom uses, and while I have extreme reservations about the legitimacy and remit of Arbcom the process itself generally works, in the sense of getting some kind of result that makes all those involved equally unhappy.)

The "teach the controversy"? issue is another one that really needs to be resolved before things get off the ground. If you do it, you're issuing an open invitation to every snake-oil peddler on the internet; if you don't, then you're creating a star chamber to determine Wikipedia's line on controversial issues, which is a radical departure from Wikimedia's traditional ways of working and would probably need explicit authorisation from the foundation. (I know, I know, you don't want to be a governing body… but assuming you have $100,000 of Bill and Melinda's cash in your bank account, how would you reply to "I would like to apply for a $1000 grant to improve Wikipedia's coverage of energy medicine", and why?) If and when the remit extends away from en-wiki to cover China, India, Central Africa and other places where the medical establishment has a radically different view of what constitutes pseudoscience, the issue will become particularly acute.

Thanks for the invite and the vote of confidence, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to be involved to any greater degree than talkpage discussions. I've not been active on Wikipedia for some time, and I don't think it's appropriate for me to be doing any more (in any context) than offer the occasional opinion; I don't want to become a Larry Sanger figure, constantly saying "that's not how we did things in my day". It's no secret that I think Wikipedia in its current form has become overwhelmed by its own bureaucracy and a self-appointing elite who control that bureaucracy, and that the structure will collapse completely if given a strong enough kick (Google putting Qwiki or Britannica above Wikipedia on PageRank is all that would be needed to turn Wikipedia into "the place you look for obscure topics which nobody else covers, but not for anything significant"). IMO the important thing for your project is to build the structure that will populate the medical articles on Wikipedia II, and that's not something on which I'm really qualified to comment. – iridescent 17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's all brilliant. Thanks. I totally agree that many on-wiki discussions should be invite only. That The Beatles controversy is absurd. I asked NYB, but he's too busy at arbcom. Risker is the person on this project whose opinion I most value and, emboldened by you, I shall ask for her input. If you and Carcharoth would step back into arbitration, I think both of those may be more inclined to spare a bit of attention for m:WM:MED. Yes, the "teach the controversy"? issue needs to be resolved before things get off the ground. So join in on the talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine Carcaroth having any desire to go back on Arbcom. In my case, I'm not even qualified to vote in Arbcom elections, let alone stand in them. Besides, I can guarantee that the reaction to any return to Wikipedia on my part—let alone to Arbcom—could best be summarised as "Cut his throat! Kill the pig! Bash him in!". – iridescent 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's more likely to be Br'er rabbit's fate than yours. I see him as Piggy, though he sees himself as Jack. I think I eavesdropped on a recent Carcharoth conversation where he "didn't rule out" a return to arbcom. Regarding the other, nothing's stopping you from involving yourself here, Ralph. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You were mentioned by a few users http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Invitation_to_all_editors_to_participate_in_WikiProject_ArbCom_Reform_Party Cheers.--24.4.36.87 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was also going to mention that thread to you. You may, or may not, want to comment there about the mentions of yourself there, or about any other aspect.

As for the above discussion, to Anythonyhcole, I'd be glad to help out if I'm needed to help on the wording of a particular proposal, or something along those lines. It was the idea of a more general, open-ended commitment that I declined, partly for time availability reasons and partly for subject-matter expertise ones. In the meantime, I appreciate that Iridescent has recommended me, although I'm a bit surprised that he's recommended me to write anything, given his past comments about my writing style (and when I look back at some of my prior contributions with the benefit of some distance I can kind of agree with those). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That thread has been archived, so won't reply to it. Not much point in any case, since anyone who's going to have an opinion of me one way or another will have made their mind up long ago. (No idea who this Blade of the Northern Lights is, or what his beef is with me; AFAIK I've never interacted with them in any way. Not sure where the idea that I've somehow changed has come from, either; as you know, the only significant change in my opinions in the last five years has been that the MediaWiki software is no longer fit for purpose and is leaving Wikipedia wide open to any well-organized competitor. That's hardly an extreme view, given that it's the official policy of the WMF.)

Go back and re-read my comments about your writing style (there's a link to the original post in WP:Bradspeak). I was praising your willingness to write without ambiguity even when it means using a stilted style. – iridescent 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Wikimedia does not need Wikimedia Medicine. I think Wikimedia needs some medicine for Wikimedia and for English Wikipedia in particular. Cheers.--24.4.36.87 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brad. I thought I'd responded to this comment shortly after you posted it but it appears I didn't click save. My main concern at the moment is drafting an appropriate mission statement (or "statement of charitable purpose") for our IRS charity registration and Wikimedia Foundation recognition. I realise it's outside your bailiwick but any thoughts on that from you or any if Iridescent's stalkers would be very welcome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Iridescent, I mentioned you.^[1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think you need to address the "do we exclude groups, and if so how and why?" issue before it goes any further. Given that the alleged infiltration of Wikipedia by PR hacks was plastered across the newspaper yesterday (and is presumably in the other papers as well), I imagine Jimmy and Sue will shut you down without blinking if there's even a whiff of infiltration. – iridescent 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where or how I ought to weigh in on this, but I am happy to see this conversation. Iridescent, you are quite welcome to comment on the Wikimedia Medicine page anytime if you ever want increased exposure for your thoughts. I really appreciate your perspective and consideration of the concept of Wikimedia Medicine. I am going to email you right now and ask if I might schedule a phone or Skype chat with you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that these are excellent points we need to consider. With respect to who we allow to get involved, one requirement will be that they need to share our vision / goals (this means wanting to promote open knowledge / open medicine). This would exclude the pharmaceutical industry from direct involvement (as they currently hid much trial level data behind the excuse of it being proprietary knowledge)

We will also want the majority of the board to be major contributors to WP:MED and willing to let the literature determine what they write per WP:MEDRS. I do not see this organization as one that will determine content (this will be done on Wikipedia as always). The organization is similar to a chapter but rather than based on nationality will be based on subject matter. I do not see it as being any more controversial than say WMUK or WMCA. Our main efforts will involve 1) supporting Wikipedian's in Residences at major medical institutions, 2) giving talks at Universities / major institution, 3) other partnerships. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Disregarding "(if I write on your page reply on mine)" as this is a reply to multiple people above

For a potentially sensitive topic such as this, I'd much rather the conversations be held in the open where at all possible; it sends out a nasty signal if a project with an avowed aim of "radical transparency" begins with secretive smoke-filled-room discussions.

Per my previous answer, I don't have the medical knowledge or background to contribute usefully here. My comments are based on the experience of previous "umbrella" projects—from Esperanza to the Association of Established Editors—and observations on why and how they failed, coupled with a reasonably good knowledge of how PR operators infiltrating Wikipedia work in practice, rather than the hamfistedness of people who write "our company is great!" puff-pieces or the apocalyptic "if someone who knows what they're talking about is allowed to touch Wikipedia the whole place will go up in flames" scaremongering you see from some of the more excitable Defenders of the Wiki.

My concern is that this project will inevitably become a quasi-governing body for medical articles, and that it will be very open to manipulation. As WMFUK are thoughtfully demonstrating, reconciling "anyone can edit" with "any conflict of interest is unacceptable" is a lot harder in theory than in practice.

I still don't see how the project can proceed without a clear policy on who to exclude. They need to share our vision / goals (this means wanting to promote open knowledge / open medicine). This would exclude the pharmaceutical industry from direct involvement (as they currently hid much trial level data behind the excuse of it being proprietary knowledge) is well ang good, but a lot harder in practice. To rephrase one of my earlier points, what do you do when:

1. Glaxo offer to release all the trial results relating to WonderDrug1673, and provide a $100,000 donation and a employee on permanent secondment, on condition that their employee is allowed to write WonderDrug1673 subject to Wikipedia's usual review by other readers?
2. The CCHR turns up, offering a dozen full-time fully-qualified experts to rewrite Wikipedia's psychiatry articles; they're perfectly open about who they represent, and are more than happy to release all their research into the public domain providing Wikipedia/Wikimedia agree to host it? (The CoS could do this out of petty cash, and haven't been shy about trying to infiltrate Wikipedia in the past.)
3. The Sierra Club offer free advertising on their website and mailshots, providing Wikipedia gets Health benefits of wilderness hiking to FA status?
4. An editor who happens to work for a pharmaceutical company IRL but is working on Wikipedia purely as a hobbyist in a personal capacity, edits an article on one of that company's products; they openly admit their involvement with the company, but argue that there is nobody better qualified to write on said product as they spend every working day monitoring press coverage of the product in question?
5. An editor who happens to work for a pharmaceutical company IRL but is working on Wikipedia purely as a hobbyist in a personal capacity, edits an article on one of that company's products; they edit under the account name User:BritneySpearsFan1367 and their connection with the company only comes to light when they accidentally edit logged-off and their IP comes back to EvilMultinationalCorporation's head office?

All five of these things are likely to happen. Unless and until the project has a party line on which of these behaviours are acceptable/unacceptable and why, it shouldn't go live. Gibraltarpedia going live without considering these issues led to a lot of bad feeling which has yet to be resolved, and the future policy on healthcare of the most-read site on the internet is a much more sensitive topic than a bunch of monkeys and rusting cannons on a rock off the coast of Spain. If the WMF gets the balance wrong on coverage of Gibraltar, the worst that happens is complaints that Wikipedia is painting too rosy a picture of one side in a long-running territorial dispute; if the WMF gets the balance wrong on medicine, people die. (No, I don't think that's too apocalyptic. People believe Wikipedia more than they should; all it takes is one person to believe it when they read that watercress cures cancer—I can even provide a source for that one—and you're on very shaky legal ground, if someone manages to persuade a judge that the Medical Project is a de facto governing body and thus liable for the content of the medical articles.) – iridescent 17:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to pass the last question to the Foundation for comment. Do you mind if I point Bence to this conversation? He's the m:Affiliations Committee member assessing our application.

Regarding whom to exclude, article II section 1 of the organisation's proposed bylaws says:

Membership will be open to all persons over the age of twelve and interested in the purposes of the Corporation. The members and the Board of Directors of the Corporation may establish such other criteria for membership, including a schedule of dues, as they deem appropriate.

Perhaps we should consider changing that to something like

Membership will be open to all persons over the age of eighteen who support the mission of the Corporation. The members and the Board of Directors of the Corporation may establish such other criteria for membership, including a schedule of dues, as they deem appropriate.

We're discussing the mission statement at m:WT:MED#Mission statement. The present proposed wording is

to make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all.

This mission statement, combined with section one, will exclude pseudoscience and quackery, and give due attention to fringe science, as WP:MEDRS does on en.Wikipedia. I think.

May I invite WhatamIdoing to opine on COI, or anything else, here? She wrote the first draft of Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), and I value her opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, invite anyone you want. If you haven't already, you might want to ask some of the noisier people here and on the Gibraltarpedia MFD, as they're the ones most likely to (oppose the hijacking of Wikipedia by corporate stooges)/(oppose the potentially dangerous centralization of authority)/(support greater collaboration with like-minded independent bodies)/(support the use of any legal means necessary to improve the standard of Wikipedia). If there's going to be opposition (and there will be), better to flush the serial complainers out now so you can either decide the concerns are valid and address them, or decide the concerns are unwarranted and disregard them. It would probably be a good idea to ask User:RexxS as well; as someone on the board of WMUK he'll have watched the Gibraltar fiasco, the Monmouth triumph, and the British Museum jury's-still-out unfold from the inside so should have a good grasp of the issues you're facing, and given User:RexxS/Hyperoxia I assume he understands the basic issues of medical articles even if they're not his main area of interest. – iridescent 20:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Comment from Bence on liability. [1] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with his answer, as what's proposed isn't a typical WikiProject or WMF Chapter. He argues (as I read it) that the issue is moot because "In general, chapters (and by extension WM Medicine) do not edit the content of the projects, nor do they influence editorial policy (at most, they might raise awareness over issues, and provide a venue for the community to have a debate)", but that's not the case here. Your mission statement includes Create and expand medical content on Wikimedia projects (i.e. directly editing the content of the project) and increase its overall quality in all languages (i.e. influencing editorial policy, since "overall quality" is a subjective judgement which will reflect the values of your project; there are plenty of people who would consider no medical article complete without a mention of orgone accumulators as a treatment, but I doubt you'd agree). Unlike geographic chapters, which generally act as general drum-bangers and promoters, this project is explicitly going to get its hands dirty. (m:Wikimedia Australia isn't about to tell me which sources I can and can't use should I decide to remedy the fact that Australian Indian Ocean Territories is a jaw-droppingly bad article;* should I notice that Pharmaceutical drug is equally poor and decide to fix that instead, your project will effectively be the final arbiter on which material should be included.)

*Given that most Aussie geography and politics articles are among the best on Wikipedia, that one's a real shocker; for an article on a significant administrative division of a major English-speaking country to be that shitty after six years is impressive.

This is not a bad thing—it's about time steps started to be taken to rein in Randyism all across Wikipedia and the whole "everyone's opinions are equally valid" pretence that permeates the project. Medicine is as good a place to start the fightback as any, since WP:MEDRS is one of the few formal brakes on fringery, and I can't see any way to do that with even a semblance of democracy, within the peculiar atmosphere of Wikipedia*—but it does go contrary to Wikipedia's culture to have a self-appointing ruling committee in any field, and you can expect the free-culture hardliners to rally against you at some point. – iridescent 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

*I don't see how you can avoid being either a self-appointing cabal, or a WMF-anointed Chosen Few. The project will have at most a couple of hundred active members, if other chapters are anything to go by (even WMUK, the most active of all the chapters, only has 330 members and a lot of those aren't active); free-and-fair board elections would be an open invitation to any passing cult with the time to sign up a dozen of their members. I can't think of any legitimate method to exclude cultists, nor should you want to—someone could be a devout believer in chemtrails and fluoride poisoning, while still being a leading expert on setting broken bones. However, you don't want acid-gurus or Scientologists setting your agenda, or even being given the chance to. A politburo model in which existing board members have the ability and the willingness to blackball prospective new board members seems to be the only one which wouldn't spend all its time fending off entryists.

Wikimedia Medicine will not be able to impose editorial restrictions on any Wikipedia. There is no way it can. Nor should it. The more restricted editing environment you want can only come from within the Wikipedia. Most of WM:MED will be active in en.WP:MED though, and so they will be able to argue for changes to en.WP policy from there. The wording of the mission statement is still evolving at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine#Mission statement. The present iteration is:

to make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all.

I've mentioned your last suggestion on the WM:MED talk page.^[2] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is the on Wikipedia WP:MED that has influence over Wikipedia content. WMMED will have not greater influence than any other national chapter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding legal liability, one of the first things I'll suggest we fund is high quality advice on the questions you ask. I'm concerned about this, and think we should have the best guidance money can buy, or appeals to altruism can elicit. My biggest concern is not that someone may get sued, though; it is that someone might suffer or die because of our behaviour.

This may be worth watching. We are deciding the bylaws of the corporation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Per my previous comments above, I disagree with "WMMED will have not greater influence than any other national chapter". With a very few exceptions such as Israel/Palestine, the remits of national projects are uncontroversial and any disputes are over priorities rather than topic. (A couple of years ago I noisily opposed WMUK's throwing time and money at the British Museum at the expense of other institutions, given that the BM is a massively-wealthy institution who are perfectly capable of running their own website whereas smaller museums and galleries would have genuinely benefited from an influx of WMF cash and expertise, but I wouldn't dispute that the British Museum is a legitimate British topic.) Thematic organizations will be different, as the boundaries aren't clearly defined. Regardless of intent, I can't seen how any thematic organization can avoid being a de facto governing body; if it's in charge of publicity and disbursing funds, editors and local medicine projects are going to have their overall directions and tone set by the meta-project regardless. As a concrete example, consider the impact if a large number of Asian projects sign up, and vote to award grants to improve articles on acupuncture or traditional Chinese medicine; the thematic project will find itself in the position where it's forced to choose between (a) paying en-wiki contributors to write articles on topics which the en-wiki WikiProject Medicine explicitly considers a pseudoscience, or (b) explicitly ruling that only Western medicine is legitimate, causing a PR backlash against Wikipedia in the Indian and Chinese markets that the WMF is so keen to cultivate.

I know all this sounds negative; it's not intended to be an attack on your project, but trying to identify as many potential pitfalls before they happen. One only has to look at the WP:BLP issue to see what can happen when you try to reconcile "anyone can edit" with "ethical principles" without a clearly structured policy on what is and isn't acceptable, and medicine is in some ways even more problematic. (How long will "We will avoid involvement with firms that do not publish all results of their clinical trials" last if Pfizer offer a million-dollar donation, and if you do stick to your principles what do you say to Jimmy Wales when he calls to ask why the WMF has a million-dollar shortfall in the accounts?)

I'd say keep the mission statement out of your constitution. You want any objects and powers clause to be as vague as possible, especially as you're not 100% sure what you're actually going to do. You also want to preserve the wiggle-room to break the link with Wikipedia if it ever becomes appropriate—it's perfectly possible that at some point in the future some other project will be more compatible with your aims. I've said before that one could make a good case that the aims of the WMF—to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally—could be best served by selling the domain name to a multinational and using the ensuing cash (the standard website-valuation algorithm values the Wikipedia domain name alone at $14 billion, which is likely to be an underestimate) as an endowment to fund local educational institutions and initiatives. It's vanishingly unlikely now, but you're laying the foundations for something that could last for decades and policies change; you don't want a constitution that could potentially tie you to shilling for Microsoft or Facebook. (Or, more likely than this extreme scenario, one of Wikipedia's rivals gets the formula right and Wikipedia becomes a Myspace-style irrelevance.) – iridescent 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

addendum I'm not sure about "to make clear, reliable, comprehensive, up-to-date educational resources and information in the biomedical and related social sciences freely available to all" as a mission statement, if you have to have one. (I don't see why you need a mission statement at all; if you're incorporating as a charity you're going to have a legally binding Objects clause, which if properly worded ought to be all you need). "Clear" and "comprehensive" can be mutually exclusive when it comes to scientific articles, since sometimes you have to use the technical terminology for accuracy—the last thing you want is to legally bind yourselves to ensuring everything is written in Reader's Digest-speak. If you really feel the need for a mission statement, might I suggest "…to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content on the biomedical and related sciences under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally"? (I'd drop the "social" from "related social sciences", as it gives you wiggle-room to cover related topics like veterinary anatomy which are clearly related, should you ever want to do so. The "empower and engage … effectively and globally" wording was carefully worded by the WMF to be as future-proof as possible, and does the job well.) – iridescent 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding WM:MED's government of the Wikipedias: how will that work? If WM:MED agrees to train and help members of the International Association for the Study of Pain to improve our Palliative medicine category, or if a representative persuades the WHO to license all their publications cc-by-sa, or if we translate an article - these are what we'll be doing - how will those activities involve government of the Wikipedias? You mention we'll be in charge of publicity. What kind of publicity, and how will that be government? Regarding the fact that we'll be disbursing funds: the serious money, I think, will go on trainers and translators. Can you describe for me how us having a budget for trainers and translators will become government of the Wikipedias?

For example, if we persuade the WHO to release Cancer pain relief and palliative care in children under cc-by-sa, use swathes of it to write Pediatric palliative care in English (or help an expert write the article de novo), and translate it into German, en.WP and de.WP don't have to take it. Or they can take it and do what they will with it within their guidelines. I just don't see how that is government.

Regarding the example of a great number of Chinese projects signing up: projects won't be signing up, identified individuals will. The proposed mission statement specifies our remit, biomedical and related social sciences. Acupuncture isn't in there. Neither is Scientology. The proposed membership criteria in the bylaws exclude people who do not support that mission. I believe the combination of these two elements - the commitment to science in the mission statement and the requirement to support that mission in the membership criteria - will effectively protect the organisation from being usurped by woo. My one concern is the fact that, though changing the bylaws (including the membership criteria) is time-consuming and cumbersome, a mission statement adopted by resolution can be easily changed by resolution. That is why I favor locking the mission statement into the bylaws. The present mission statement (in the box above) clearly covers everything we'll ever want to do, while clearly excluding everything but the biological, medical and relevant social sciences; so I can see no disadvantage to having it locked into the bylaws, while locking it in there offers added security against a rogue board or putsch easily steering the organisation away from its commitment to science.

Regarding negativity, it's positivity. You can't imagine how much I appreciate this. As for Pfizer making us an offer we can't refuse: damn good point. We should define from whom we will and won't accept money. However it's defined we have to exclude drug companies. Perhaps that should go in the constitution too.

And the "veterans" at WM:MED are very alive to the possibility that at some point in the future some other project will be more compatible with our aims than Wikimedia. We will retain autonomy.

We do need a "statement of charitable purpose" (a mission statement) in our application for tax exemption to the US IRS, and the mission needs to be stated somewhere to give meaning to one of the membership criteria, as outlined earlier in this comment. I'm going off "resources" though, on clumsiness grounds. Regarding "clear and comprehensive", I'm comfortable with that. Clear may include comprehensive. They're not mutually exclusive - at least not in medicine ... maybe they're incompatible in maths articles. "Social" is in there to encompass psychology because of the deep inroads cognitive behavioral therapy is making into the clinic, and its use doesn't rule relevant vet medicine out of the mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm intentionally looking at the grey areas where things have the potential to go wrong; 99% of decisions will be uncontroversial, but the 1% where things are problematic is where problems arise. Training the International Association for the Study of Pain might be uncontroversial, but how about if the eminently respectable woo-peddlers of the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (of which the Royal seal of approval, the taxpayer support via the NHS, and the unearned legitimacy through piggy-backing onto the University of London, are a triple-blot on Britain's claim to lead the world in clinical excellence) suggest the same deal? The Gibraltar fiasco, where regardless of good intentions there was the appearance of whitewashing on behalf of a funding body leading to a flare-up and mass-disillusionment of the very people the project was trying to attract (as they arrived on Wikipedia full of good intentions and were promptly accused of being part of a corrupt team of stooges), is well worth studying.

I don't see the "de facto government" issue relating so much to the project's initiatives, as to the way it will become a meta-arbitration committee for medical issues. People will naturally approach you on the issues where WP:MED can't reach a consensus, as to most editors you'll be seen as the distilled wisdom of all the projects. Regarding budgets, it's easy to see how control of the translation budget has a strongly pseudo-governmental element; if you have control over which foreign-language sources are available in English, you have a degree of control over which sources are used, particularly in minor languages. If the five metastudies that found statistically significant traces of green cheese on the moon are translated into Elbonian, but the 500 metastudies that found no cheese aren't, then you're skewing Elbonian-wikipedia towards the Green Cheese Hypothesis since their writers will primarily work from the sources in their own language. I can certainly imagine (for instance) a coffee company giving you a grant to translate a legitimate study that has found a health benefit from caffeine into as many langauges as possible.

"Acupuncture isn't in there. Neither is Scientology." isn't clear-cut. Scientology might not be in there, but psychiatry certainly is and the CoS-funded CCHR are genuine experts and can't (and shouldn't) be excluded despite their being strongly opposed to it. Acupuncture might not be in there, but I strongly suspect that if one were read Chinese-language rather than English-language medical journals one would find plenty of positive peer-reviewed coverage of it. Bear in mind that the WMF is explicitly pushing expansion into Asia and Africa; assuming this continues, there will be a lot of people coming in with a radically different view of what constitutes "mainstream", and at some point the question of 'what do we mean by "biomedical sciences"' will reach a point where you'll have to offend someone or other. (Ask Sitush or Fowler&fowler about what became of Wikipedia's coverage of Indian and Pakistani culture during the WMF's disastrous rushed-expansion into India.) – iridescent 17:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's late here. I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

We will not be translating journal articles but will be translating Wikipedia articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC notice

You're randomly chosen to receive this invitation (but I am not a robot, ). There is currently a Request for comment about the utility/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFAR

Hi Iridescent, as someone with a long memory when it comes to the workings of TFAR, I wondered whether you had any views about a discussion thread I've started about whether the "points" system is still needed in the light of recent changes that have approximately doubled the maximum number of possible requests to 15 (10 date-specific, 5 others). I know your on-Wiki time is limited, but any words of wisdom you were able to contribute would be welcomed I'm sure, whether you agree with me or not! Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 09:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Albert Bridge, London at WP:TFAR PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Bencherlite - the one change I'd make is to make notification of significant contributors compulsory, rather than just "recommended", and to keep the queue permanently scheduled two weeks in advance to allow time to pull articles with issues. Opposition to the idea of "ownership" can swing too far; the people who've worked on an article are likely to be the ones most likely to know reasons why it shouldn't run (an upcoming more appropriate date; a significant new work on the topic which has yet to be integrated into the article; legal issues…). If I had my way I'd get rid of TFA, DYK and ITN altogether (TFA has served its purpose but is getting dated, DYK by its nature tends to highlight poor-quality stubby articles on insignificant topics; ITN by definition showcases those articles which are most unstable), and replace it with a mix of "things we think you'd find interesting" and "articles which need improvement - here's how you can help".

If TFA stays in its current form, I think the points system should remain, at least for articles nominated for specific dates. Without it, the only way to determine which of two nominations for the same date should run is either a long voting process each time, or an arbitrary coin-flip by Raul (or his successor). The points system is a lot less likely to generate bad feeling.

@Pumpkinsky - nothing personal but I'm going to oppose that one. It's a topic of marginal interest, which has been IMO has been too over-represented at TFA already. – iridescent 23:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just thought it would make a nice TFA. PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(adding) I see Dabomb has scheduled that already—for the record I think that's a really bad call. There are eleven Thames bridges in West London, of which three have already been TFA; I'm not sure there's ever been a more over-represented topic at TFA as a proportion of the total articles on the topic. Albert Bridge in particular is a particularly bad choice, since all the images are of it in its pre-renovation state. – iridescent 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've switched it out. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've nom'd Postman's Park at TFAR. Very interesting article.PumpkinSky talk 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought London Necropolis Company would look good on Halloween ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, check your email. – iridescent 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

October Metro

Issue 45: October 2012 Previous edition · Next edition

London Transport News October Don't take the risk with an unbooked minicab, TfL warns new students Mayor restores free travel for 60-year-old Londoners with the 60+ London Oyster photocard Network Rail works affecting London Bridge bus station September Changes to operating times of bus route 236 Tube gardening competition celebrates its tenth year Last working day for the oldest train in town as roll out as new state-of-the-art fleet is completed Londoners encouraged to 'make a small switch' to curb engine emissions Route U4 provides transport links to ProLogis Park for the first time Restored Crystal Palace ticket hall to re-open London Overground makes room for Peace Wall TfL publishes annual complaints data as part of ongoing drive to improve customer service Mayor welcomes full production of new bus for London Work begins to double the size of the south ticket hall at Victoria Underground Station TfL signs partnership with VisitBritain for international distribution of the Visitor Oyster card Mayor sets out plans for flagship Barclays Cycle Hire expansion to south west London Vital Tube upgrade work resumes with effect of closures reduced by ten per cent compared to last year Manual boarding ramps to be retained at key Tube stations after the Games Transport for London celebrates Team GB's Olympic success with limited edition Tube map TfL advice to drivers affected by Thames Water burst water main on A406 at Brent Cross High flying Emirates Air Line celebrates one million passenger journeys August Upward trend continues as TfL publish latest Tube performance figures DLR celebrates 25th birthday by fulfilling Olympian task TfL sets out plans to implement the Paralympic Route Network, which begins operation on the day of the Games Opening Ceremony New guidance for bus drivers to help improve journeys for wheelchair and mobility scooter users London and UK ready to welcome the world for best ever Paralympic Games with most accessible transport network Tube power network contract restructure to bring savings and greater operational flexibility Record numbers carried on the transport network during London's unforgettable Olympics London Underground carries a phenomenal 47 million in first 12 days of the 2012 Olympic Games Half a million passengers take off in first six weeks of Emirates Air Line Mayor announces another day of record ridership on Tube and DLR as Olympic success bring crowds into the city London 2012 Games bring busiest days in Tube's history TfL Advisory: Alterations to Olympic Route Network Announcement about access to Westfield Stratford City Project News Articles Herne Hill railway station appeared as today's Featured Article on 25th August, 2012 Metropolitan Railway was promoted to Featured Article status in August District Railway was promoted to Good Article status in September Underground Electric Railways Company of London became at Featured Topic candidate in September Category:Water transport in London has been requested for moving Frank Pick was nominated as a Featured Article candidate in October Project discussions Within the project, discussions included links to London Underground usage data figures not working, Herne Hill station appearing on the main page and Docklands Light Railway usage now being available Within other related projects, relevant discussions included were on the Olympics, notability of railway magzines, various railway templates, waterways become active routes on Google Maps, bus station categories and notability of a bus type and a bus builder. Requests If you want to post a request for help with an article, finding a photograph or seeking reference material, contact the editor Things to do Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Lists of articles needing cleanup Expand : These top 10 favourite articles to Good Article: J. P. Morgan  · Heathrow Airport  · River Thames  · London Bridge  · London Underground  · London Bridge (Lake Havasu City)  · Gatwick Airport  · London Congestion Charge  · Tube map  · Tower Bridge These top importance articles to Good Article: 7 July 2005 London bombings  · Buses in London  · Crossrail  · London Passenger Transport Board  · London Transport (brand)  · London Transport Museum  · Transport for London  · Transport in London Photo : Upload your non-copyrighted London transportation images to Wikimedia Commons Stubs : Improve a stub article Update : London low emission zone, London congestion charge Other : Suggest: A Did You Know...? fact here or an Anniversary fact here. Patrol: Recent changes Join: Become a member of WikiProject London Transport or encourage others Membership ThunderingTyphoons! (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) joined in August, bringing the number of participants to 84. Welcome to them. Recent Activity of Project participants Editorial Editor: Simply south Special thanks to founders Unisouth (talk · contribs) and Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) for setting up the newsletter Apologies again for missing September as I was busy with work. Hope you enjoy this month's. All suggestions for improvements to the newsletter are welcome at feedback page or Simply south Best Articles Featured articles (34) 1910 London to Manchester air race • Albert Bridge, London • Aldwych tube station • Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield • Baker Street and Waterloo Railway • Battersea Bridge • Brill Tramway • Brill railway station • Central London Railway • Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway • Chelsea Bridge • City and South London Railway • Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway • Great Western Railway War Memorial • Green Park tube station • Herne Hill railway station • Charles Holden • London Necropolis Company • London and North Western Railway War Memorial • Marchioness disaster • Metropolitan Railway • Moorgate tube crash • RAF Northolt • Frank Pick • Sinking of SS Princess Alice • Quainton Road railway station • Richmond Bridge, London • Underground Electric Railways Company of London • Vauxhall Bridge • Waddesdon Road railway station • Wandsworth Bridge • Westcott railway station • Wood Siding railway station • Wotton railway station (Brill Tramway) Featured lists (6) List of former and unopened London Underground stations • List of London Underground stations • List of London Monopoly locations • List of works by Charles Holden • London station group • Timeline of the London Underground Featured topics (2) Brill Tramway • Underground Electric Railways Company of London Good articles (111) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Good topics (1) Wikipedia:Good topics/List of London Monopoly locations Featured Portal (1) Portal:London Transport Good articles (111) A1 in London • M25 motorway • A215 road • Acton Town tube station • Angel tube station • Arnos Grove tube station • William Henry Barlow • Becontree tube station • Blackfriars station • Blackwall Tunnel • BOAC Flight 712 • Bond Street • Boston Manor tube station • Bow Back Rivers • Bow Street • Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway • British Airways • British Rail Class 700 • Broad Street railway station (England) • Cannon Street station • Charing Cross railway station • Chesham branch • Chiswick Bridge • City Thameslink railway station • Coventry Street • 2016 Croydon tram derailment • Dartford Crossing • Denmark Street • District Railway • Down Street tube station • Earl's Court tube station • East Finchley tube station • Elephant & Castle tube station • Embankment tube station • Euston Road • Euston railway station • Euston tube station • Fenchurch Street railway station • Finchley Central tube station • Fleet Street • Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet • Gants Hill tube station • Gloucester Road tube station • Great Marlborough Street • Hammersmith & City line • Hammerton's Ferry • High Speed 1 • Highgate tube station • History of British Airways • Holborn Viaduct railway station • Holborn tube station • Hounslow West tube station • Kennington tube station • Kensington (Olympia) station • Kilburn tube station • King's Cross Thameslink railway station • King's Cross St Pancras tube station • Leicester Square • Murder of Deborah Linsley • Liverpool Street station • London Bridge station • London Country North East • London King's Cross railway station • London Necropolis Railway • London Necropolis railway station • London Paddington station • London Ringways • London Underground departmental stock • London Victoria station • London Waterloo station • M11 link road protest • Marylebone station • Moorgate station • Morden tube station • Newbury Park tube station • North Circular Road • Northern line extension to Battersea • Northumberland Avenue • Old Kent Road • Old Street station • Oxford Circus • Oxford Circus tube station • Oxford Street • Paddington tube station (Bakerloo, Circle and District lines) • Paddington tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines) • Pall Mall, London • Park Lane • Charles Pearson • Pentonville Road • Piccadilly • Piccadilly line • Pimlico tube station • Regent Street • St Pancras railway station • South Circular Road, London • South Kensington tube station • Strand, London • Tillingbourne Bus Company • Trafalgar Square • Upminster Bridge tube station • Vauxhall station • Victoria line • Vine Street, London • Warren Street tube station • Waterloo East railway station • Westminster tube station • Westway (London) • Whitechapel Road • Whitehall • Wimbledon and Sutton Railway • Woolwich Ferry Promotions or Assessments none Recently Promoted Featured Articles, Lists or Topics Herne Hill railway station Metropolitan Railway Recently Assessed Good Articles History of British Airways Bow Back Rivers Herne Hill railway station District Railway Good Article and Featured candidates Frank Pick Underground Electric Railways of London Gallery Selected by Simply south (talk · contribs) Wikipedia ads file info – #137 If you want to unsubscribe from this newsletter or, if you are visiting this user page and want to sign-up, then please visit this page. You may also like to provide your opinions on this newsletter by visiting The Metropolitan's feedback page or the project's discussion page. Any other issues with this, don't be afraid to drop a line at Simply south's talkpage.

I'm sorry I missed September but I was rather busy. Enjoy. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 23:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm happy to see that someone is on their toes and has an institutional memory. I'd unwatched TFAR and idly peeked in a few moments ago - wouldn't even have looked had you not commented. Miss Moppet is clean; I had the ILT/Suzanne (whatever her name was) edits rev-deleted - and that was a battle where I lost some skin. Nevertheless that CCI has hundreds and hundreds of pages and I keep stumbling across more that I've forgotten to report. The repercussion of running it would not be good in my view. Not at all. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've removed it. Don't have the time or the energy for another "discussion" there. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for an explanation at WP:TFAR before having this removed. Iridescent, if you're familiar with the issue, detailed comments would be welcome. I'd be willing to help bring it to FAR if there's solid evidence that this isn't our "best work". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

My issue with this running is different to that which Truthkeeper raised. Although all the ILT edits have been revdeleted, that hasn't cleaned the article history. The version which passed FAC was a cut-and-paste copyvio; at the moment, what you have is an article in which the revdeletions mean that there are multiple blatant copyright violations which are now attributed to assorted good-faith editors, each of whom happened to be the next person to touch the article after ILT pasted in one or another chunk of cut-and-paste. (You also have links to pure copyvio versions at the top of the article talkpage, as those were the versions that passed the various GA, FA etc processes and are thus auto-archived.) Unless the WP:CCI people are happy for this to run—and preferably User:Moonriddengirl wearing her "official WMF capacity" hat—this shouldn't run; "hosting multiple blatant copyright violations in the article history" is still "hosting multiple blatant copyright violations". Standard practice in cases like this is to wipe out the history altogether prior to the first clean version, but because of the exceptional circumstances of the FAC this isn't an option with this one. Basically, the continued existence of this article and its history are a legal liability, and you really need WMF consent before you put it in a high-profile position on the main page—consent Maggie is very unlikely to give.

The article as it is today has almost nothing in common with the article which passed FAC. If I were in charge, I'd wipe this article altogether, recreate it with an explanatory "here's why you can't see the history" note on the talkpage and as the initial edit summary, strip it of its FA status and (if Truthkeeper and Ruhrfisch so desire) renominate it at FAC under its own merits.

Yes, that's what I'd like to see happen and which I requested, but the request was denied, and I let ago after being accused of wanting to exactly what you suggest so that I could take credit for the star myself. (Would take forever to find the diffs, but I can if necessary). The entire history has to be blanked. And there's the additional problem of the many pages that this links to. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for all the detail, Iridescent... this does change my perspective on the issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why is it still an FA? Doesn't make sense to me. Should we suspect all FAs? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course you should suspect every FA, particularly those from before spot-checking was made mandatory. (This article and Grace Sherwood are the reason spot-checking was made mandatory.) Quite apart from the occasional plagiarism/sourcing issue, older FAs often contain broken links, malformed templates and good-faith nonsense additions. The reasons it wasn't wiped at the time are long, boring, and largely down to the fact that this was also going on at the time and sapped everybody's willingness to engage in any conversation including the word "copyright". Everyone involved is well aware of what happened in 2010 and there's no need to rake up old dirt just for the sake of it. – iridescent 21:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like that's what's happening - the raking up of "old dirt". Ugly. I'll not trust FAs anymore. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore articles that even now are promoted without spotchecks should be suspected for the very reasons that this, which appeared to be quite good, got through, and another Beatrix Potter page, which also appeared to be quite good almost got through. We didn't know at the time that the editor in question was a sock of ItsLassieTime, most of whose pages are extremely well-formatted, sourced and apparently well-written, because of the plagiarism. I don't believe Iri was around at the time it was decided to keep the star, but I can trawl through history and find diffs if that would satisfy you. Personally I think it would be better to leave it alone as Iri suggests. Also as Iri suggested, it would have been nice to post a notification to my page in regards to this. It was a fluke that I noticed it. In the meantime I'll have to put back my archives, trawl through them and post a few diffs to my page for those who don't entirely understand the situation. Reading the article talk page is helpful too. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

well, there's no proof, according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive. But I love it that you go around blocking editors. Great work for wikipedia. Plus, sorry that your personal life is so awful and that you have to blank your user page so often. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Does nobody ever click on the link on every single page on Wikipedia that says WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY? This is Wikipedia; you shouldn't be trusting anything you read here, and the sources are provided precisely so readers can check things for themselves. The FA process measures compliance with arbitrary style guidelines, not "truth", and truth has little relation to an article's internal grading on Wikipedia; it's a safe bet that at any given time Southborough, Bromley is more accurate than Michael Jackson.

Per my comment to you on Mark's talk, I have no desire to engage with you; as far as I can tell Mark came here to raise a legitimate concern that directly relates to me, whereas you came here solely to whine about the Featured Article process, a process in which I'm not involved, shortly after posting a string of abuse about me on someone else's talkpage. Unless you have something to say that directly concerns me, please don't post any further on this page. – iridescent 21:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept wikipedia as the "truth". I just use my judgment. I just don't take it personally like Truthkeeper88 does, who apparently has an awful personal life and needs to relate it on wiki. I wonder how many editors have been blocked unjustly. Seems like many editors spend all their time trying to block people. It's amusing reading Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive which doesn't seem to mention Suzanna at all (that I can see). But nonetheless ... Hey, bully for the crusaders! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)