User talk:SlimVirgin

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

HLSmonkey02.jpg

Is there a way to prevent File:HLSmonkey02.jpg from being deleted? There's this request form, as well as {{OTRS pending}}. Otherwise, it looks like it will be deleted soon. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas, I try to avoid image-deletion discussions nowadays because they're such a waste of time, but I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Viriditas: Repinging because I mistyped. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

TFA page views

I've just seen the FGM viewing figures for 7 February – perhaps you have, too? Anyway, at 49,662 it is the second-highest figure this year (beaten by Maggie Gyllenhall with 51,692) and the fifth highest in the past six months. I don't think that any TFA that I have written has got near FGM's figure. You should be pleased. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I was expecting a higher figure, but someone said that Friday and weekend views are lower, so that perhaps accounted for it. Still, it was a good number. Thanks for looking it up. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

An interesting conversation...

Hi there Sarah, there's an interesting discussion going on at CaroleHenson's talk page regarding an elderly female photographer that perhaps demonstrates how difficult it may be to get women's bio articles into WP. I have run into similar situations when it came to women or people of color. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was really long, so I archived it off my talk page - it's here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad it worked out. It's a nice article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:GGTF/Writing about women

This page is coming along extremely well, and is almost entirely your individual work. Just wanted to mention that; otherwise it might seem as if I only write that I disagree with parts of it. That is merely because I really like the majority of it. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@GRuban: thanks, I appreciate your saying that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A Wikivoyage request

As you may be aware Wikvoyage writes about a fantastical or fictional travel-topic or destination for April 1st.

This year's article got started a little earlier at voy:Wikivoyage:Joke_articles/Time_travel

I am writing here, because I would like someone other than myself to review it, and possibly advise if there are some historical sights which would be of interest to the female traveller.( I wanted to avoid clichés about historical romances for example.) I'd also appreciate feedback as to any issues related to female travellers in time which would need to be specifically noted, so that they can be integrated into the article text, rather than having a 'Ladies' section. If you wanted to,given the tone of the article, add portions as satire or commentary I wouldn't object.

Back in the real word, Do you know of any contributors that would be able to advise on 'female' travel issues more generally ? (https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tips_for_women_travellers being the relevant article.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page stalker coming out from the shadows here. I think maybe the Moberly–Jourdain incident might be able to be shoehorned into that topic somehow. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00:, I'm sorry, I don't have time to help, but if you post a request on WT:GGTF, someone there might be able to. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timelezz

• Hi SV, just wondering if you have a look at this[1]. Don't know if you're working as an uninvolved sysop in this are - if not, no worries I'll notify Callanecc too--Cailil ^talk 13:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

I was wondering if you had time to take a look at two versions of the Lead[2][3]. You can see my notes on the current version here. I've been trying to draw attention to some editing patterns here for a couple months. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, sorry, I missed this earlier. I'll take a quick look, but if it's anything protracted I won't be able to get involved. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yah, it'll probably be protracted. I'm going to submit an SPI later today or tomorrow, but if they are paid accounts as I suspect, I'm sure they were smart enough not to edit from the same IP anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

banana

After much searching, I see you are responsible. Please unlock this article because Wikipedia asks me to edit and you are preventing it because of your lock. Thank you.

There's a sentence that some may think has racist undertones. A minor change would fix any such possibility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly banana vomit (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Bondfield

Last year you kindly contributed to the above article's peer review or or FAC or both. An issue has arisen from yesterday's TFA appearance, and is under discussion on the article's talk. Briefly: an editor added into the text the cited information that Bondfield's was privately known as "Maggie", and then incorporated this into the lead so the subject appeared as Margaret Grace ("Maggie") Bondfield. I have removed the nickname from the lead, and stated my position on the talkpage. I would be pleased if you could visit and briefly comment there. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left a comment. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Brendan Emmett Quigley

Hi SlimVirgin, you recently semi-protected Brendan Emmett Quigley for a week. The edits have however resumed after the week has passed (removal of image, etc). Your continued input in this article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taketa, I've added indefinite semi-protection. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Isabeau

Thanks again for the copyedits and nudges for Isabeau. Very much appreciated and definitely necessary. I've added the image of the statue to the external links with the hopes that it might get a few views. Victoria (tk) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's looking good! Best of luck for later. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Let's Talk Diversity Campaign!

		The Learning & Evaluation Barnstar
		Hi SlimVirgin, we are happy to award you a Learning and Evaluation barnstar, for your efforts in contributing to the ongoing conversation on Let's Talk Diversity! We hope to see you around, sharing what you know on the Learning Pattern Library. I'll get in touch soon with some ideas as to where you can contribute. Cheers, María (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC tag thing

thanks for fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have just restored my faith

	Gratitude Coffee
	Sarah, once again you are a rare bright star among the sleeping throngs. Your recent comments give me a little faith that common sense and truth have some chance here. Danke, petrarchan47tc 21:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Petra. It's nice to see you around again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, not everyone feels that way ;) I'm glad for your suggestion to move the "COI-like" discussion after the ANI has run its course. Let's do that. petrarchan47tc 00:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Neonics thing

Hi - you have the story wrong, on the neonics thing. Please actually read Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive_1#Links_to_bee_population_decline and see what happened there. Kingofaces offered an example of the kind of source that should be used - a review article. He never put that example in the article or even suggested putting that source in the article. EllenCT latched on to its funding by Bayer and tried to hang that like an albatross around his neck. She beat that horse and beat that horse. That was one small part of the behavior pattern that led me to try to seek a topic ban for her. She was incredibly disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it was not at all so simple as you seem to want to make it sound. What he said was, "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full " which was deemed by both of you to be a good source with no need to even mention that it was corporate-funded. This discussion took place in the midst of some edits that were being done that removed pesticides as one of the probable components of the mix that is presently considered to be the cause of CCD and of course, this Bayer review was in agreement with that. In fact, it would make a good study tool for how to manipulate facts and wording to produce any desired result you want. I have no doubt that it would have been used except that some editors put up a fuss about it. BTW, you have complained bitterly and long about not pinging editors, perhaps you should take your own advise. Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but the way you have spoken of Ellen is not at all acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually Gandy, it was exactly that simple. The piece you quoted "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this . . ." was exactly as Jytdog described it. It was an example of what a secondary source or literature review is and nothing more than that. I've clarified that many times now and I don't intend to have this dredged up every time someone decides to ignore that. The sources I was primarily putting content together from were listed later in the discussion, but they don't even differ significantly in content from the Bayer funded source anyways. It's all really moot point, so I'd really appreciate if people would stop taking my posts out of context and leave it be. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, literature reviews are used on WP as secondary sources, and are often understood to be independent and uninvolved. In this case two of the authors appear to be industry consultants, and the study was funded by Bayer, a major manufacturer of the insecticide the paper is about. If this were a mistake on your part, it would be no big deal, but the defence of it, and your opinion that funding doesn't matter when it comes to scientific studies, is a concern. That's why it continues to be mentioned. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

SV and Gandy, you both continue to ignore the fact that KoF brought this up only as example and never actually used it as a source nor even proposed content based on it, and EllenCT's behavior, acting as though he did and pounding away on that, was battleground, ugly behavior. That you are continuing, full force. It is a violation of the TPG - see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable: "Do not misrepresent other people: " (emphasis from the original). Please stop doing that. And Gandy, here (Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive_1#Discussion_of_Bayer-funded_source) were my reflections on that source. You mischaracterize me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

also, Gandy, the close of the ANI on EllenCt said: "we have no clear consensus on a topic ban, though there are plenty of valid concerns about EllenCT's behavior and temperament, as is demonstrated in this very thread by Ellen's reactions." So - the concerns were valid. I acknowledge that the close continued: "Still, some avenues to help alleviate the concerns that gave rise to the problematic behavior have been pointed out, and in general, there is simply not enough support to install such a drastic measure as a topic ban. Clearly, lessons can and should be drawn from this discussions, not just by Ellen but also by other parties. And with that, I think it is proper we close this" Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where did I mention Ellen's editing? I didn't. All I said was that the way you have spoken of her is not acceptable. Because that's what you do - when you smell blood you close in for the kill and then you become surprised that anyone would find your actions...to use a couple of words that you use all the time for the actions of others, ugly and icky. Just look at the way you were treating Ozzie when I had to email you about it. Ozzie is one of the nicest guys here but he does have some competent issues - as is well-known by all of those that work with him almost daily on the African Ebola article because every single one of his edits need work of some sort or another. But nobody gets all pissy about it. Sure we want good articles here, but we need to foster good relationships as well or we'll end up with only a core of editors that know every policy ever written and have the time to spend endless hours of work to push their particular POV forward. User:David Tornheim is another example. As far as I can tell, he's just a normal sort of person that has not yet realized that attempting to discuss can be called canvassing and to say anything in support of alt med, something BTW believed in by the overwhelming majority of people around the world, makes one a pseudo-med pusher. Pathetic. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, once again (for the third or fourth time?), the reason there was concern is that Kingofaces wrote: "... our job as editors is ... to summarize the current scientific consensus ... We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2527/full"

It sounds as though he wanted to use that source to "summarize the current scientific consensus." But the source is an industry-funded one, and two of the authors appear to be industry consultants. When challenged, he didn't say "oops, sorry about that." He wrote: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed ... If you want to dispute the content then do so ... but we shouldn't be chasing red herrings about funding source. However, your assumption of 'paid for conclusions' is only that, an assumption, and it is going into original research territory." Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't need to say "oops, sorry" for something never intended from my post nor should even be thought of by anyone reading it in context. Even after being warned and explaining the intent of my comments both on the article page and at ANI, you are clearly going into the territory of misrepresenting an editor's comment now. That is a very much going against WP:TPG. That is not behavior that should be condoned by anyone, much less someone in an admin position. Again, just simply stop doing that. You are cherrypicking specific statements of mine to take them completely out of the conversation's context. Regardless of why, your behavior is becoming tendentious here after explaining this so many times in general and to you. It's time to drop the stick when editors tell you exactly what they meant.

Just to make sure it's right here for you, I'll provide the context yet again (wall of text warning to be thorough). I specifically said funding source does not matter for us as editors in assessing peer-reviewed sources. That is because when someone is saying a study isn't reliable because of funding source, they are really insinuating the study's findings aren't reliable because the the study if incorrect in some way. If the study really is crappy, that can be picked out in the methods of the paper, its results, or in its interpretations. That's why when peer-reviews come in for papers, peer-reviewers go straight for the meat and point out flaws in the study design, etc. Funding source does not implicitly imply study (un)reliability. They can't reject a paper on funding source alone, so it's a red herring to focus on that as a peer-reviewer. If a study has improper conclusions due to either just honest mistake (happens to all scientists) or some more malicious effect of industry affiliation, the improper conclusion should be called out either during peer-review if it's caught then, other papers citing it later directly, or just ignoring the paper and only mentioning the mainstream consensus in future reviews.

As editors though, we cannot conduct peer-review. We are not considered experts here for that. We instead rely primarily on literature reviews to establish the scientific consensus or call out flawed experiments and papers. That is exactly what I was referring to in saying we needed literature reviews to summarize the scientific consensus and is well supported by our various policies and guidelines on the matter. If there was something wrong with this source in question, that's up for other literature reviews to call out. However, upon reading it though when assessing weights of various claims, it's not saying anything vastly different from the other studies that were discussed later. That made all the drama about that source rather moot point. If you were following the rest of the conversation on that specific source, we (including myself) did agree that it was not a truly independent source because the authors were involved. This does not disqualify such a source here because the peer-review process vets these papers as well and directly calls to attention when authors have a real-life COI for reviewers to be extra cautious about. That would instead mean we'd be still be wary about the source in assigning weight if it is significantly different from other sources or using it in isolation. As for industry-funded studies, we consider those reliable when an independent party (i.e., university researchers) do the work because their vested interest is in doing a properly designed experiment on top of the additional layer of peer-review. Notice that is all about the authors affiliation and not basing decisions on funding source.

As for my purposes in my comment to EllenCT (as I've stated many times now) I was simply saying here's an example a literature review: it reviews the current literature, summarizes it for us, the structure of what a review looks like, and isn't a primary research article. That's it. I know that whole kerfuffle with EllenCT covered a lot of ground, but reading the conversations within even a few days of a given post should give you more than enough context to show certain claims about me will just not fly. Either way I'm considering the issue with Ellen buried as long as she keeps it that way too, so I really suggest doing the same. That way there shouldn't be any need to continue this cycle of spelling out what I meant in every comment I made taken in isolation (or need to reach a post of this length). I'll consider the whole neonicotinoid discussion with you done at this point. I am more than happy to discuss the nature of scientific publishing, what actually goes on, what flaws there are, and how all that affects us here at Wikipedia in general. That's something probably better left for a new talk section, and is something I wouldn't mind discussing at my talk page either (in much shorter posts) if that's what really interests you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"As for industry-funded studies, we consider those reliable when an independent party (i.e., university researchers) do the work because their vested interest is in doing a properly designed experiment on top of the additional layer of peer-review. Notice that is all about the authors affiliation and not basing decisions on funding source." Really? Who is this "we" you are talking about? Can you cite policy, preferably not the entire page, but a quote from it that supports the view that the entity funding a study is not relevant to its credibility if a university is involved? Does this standard also apply to the Séralini affair?

"I specifically said funding source does not matter for us as editors in assessing peer-reviewed sources. That is because when someone is saying a study isn't reliable because of funding source, they are really insinuating the study's findings aren't reliable because the the study if incorrect in some way. If the study really is crappy, that can be picked out in the methods of the paper, its results, or in its interpretations. That's why when peer-reviews come in for papers, peer-reviewers go straight for the meat and point out flaws in the study design, etc. Funding source does not implicitly imply study (un)reliability. They can't reject a paper on funding source alone, so it's a red herring to focus on that as a peer-reviewer. If a study has improper conclusions due to either just honest mistake (happens to all scientists) or some more malicious effect of industry affiliation, the improper conclusion should be called out either during peer-review if it's caught then, other papers citing it later directly, or just ignoring the paper and only mentioning the mainstream consensus in future reviews.". Again can you please cite a specific part of policy, guideline, etc. that supports this claim? And so this also applies to the Séralini affair study which was republished? David Tornheim (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:INDY answers your first question by having a third-party involved. I'm not sure what you're referring to with the second. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest taking this to the article talk page if your focus is on specific content here you have a question about. If it's more broad-sense in how we deal with scientific literature, feel free to ask at my talk page. This specific conversation here has gone on long enough, and I'd rather not branch it off to another topic. Best start a new conversation for this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I'd really prefer not to discuss this anymore. I urge you to read about the flaws of peer review, particularly in relation to financial COI.

Re: the article, I don't know what else to say. It's clear from the thread that you suggested, more than once, using a Bayer-funded article, in which two of the four authors were industry consultants, as a literature review regarding a product Bayer manufactures. You wrote: "We should be using secondary literature (i.e. review articles) such as this," and provided a link. Jytdog then arrived to support that it was an RS. If Ellen and Gandy hadn't objected, it would probably be in the article illustrating the scientific consensus. All I can do is ask you to consider using independent sources in articles about these major financial interests, or use in-text attribution to tell the reader when you use an industry source, so that the reader knows what you know. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is calling peer-review perfect (I'm well aware of issues with it), but it's the best we got. What I described above is how the process is intended to catch flaws as humanly possible regardless of reason for them. Still happy to discuss that all at a later date if you want (WP:MEDASSESS, especially the last paragraph, covers my views on this pretty well for additional reference). However, your comment related to Gandy and Ellen is highly inappropriate and rising to the level of a personal attack considering what I just explained to you above exactly about my intent and especially considering that the source didn't offer significantly different viewpoints from other sources. It really was just intended as a shorter literature review good for introductory reading on the topic before delving into the larger sources and introducing what a literature review is. Whether purposeful or just good-faith WP:IDHT, misrepresenting someone's comments are not ok. I've asked you nicely and repeatedly to refrain from this, so consider this your official warning not to engage in further personal attacks by misrepresenting my statements when I have already explained them to you. Just stop infusing drama into the situation that way, and I see no reason why we couldn't work together entirely collaboratively if our paths cross in the future. I am done with this conversation here as well, so I really just suggest burying the neonic thing as everyone else has done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

unreviewed article

Hello there. Could you possibly spend a moment and review this article and remove the template from the top of this article, please? Thank you in advance.

The unreviewed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Caszadeh SlimSlim (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Sarah, there is something that I've wondered about for a long time that is related to COI editing. One need look no further than my user page where I quote Chris Hedges: "They control our systems of information." and add: Surely no one could be so naive as to believe that corporations do not have an interest in turning our encyclopedia into a corporate-approved encyclopedia. At a certain point one must admit that to not fight the creep of corporate control into our articles really does make us appear to be a bunch of easily-led, lame-brained, losers just willing to go along with the flow rather than to tackle the problem and try to come up with some sort of strategy. What, if anything, is presently being done? I'm aware that a few years ago an editor asked for some sort of outside check to "prove" that he had no COI related to the articles he edits, and I've heard of this incident dozens of times since, where it is raised as absolute evidence of a lack of conflict of interest. Many times I've wondered how Wikipedia went about finding this so-called proof. If I put myself in a position in which I was editing for pay but denied it, how could it be proven that I was? I mention this because the first thing you know all a paid editor need do is have WP give him/her the WP Stamp of Approval and from then on that editor is home free to do as they please. They can now proudly display their badge of approval and anyone who questions them is now seen as a disgruntled editor in need of a reality check. Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that that's a concern, and I don't know what was done in that particular case. Generally speaking, nothing is being done. Less than nothing, because people who raise concerns risk being sanctioned. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you been following the discussion at Jimbo's talk page? Arbs (current and recently retired) who have commented there make it clear that COI should be ignored. Depressing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen that discussion (will look shortly), but it's true that several actions by former Arbs have made things harder. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Boris Yes, I sure have and it has made me very heavy of heart indeed. Strangely, I have developed a closeness to Indian students through my work on the case of the Indian student that was gang raped on the bus and have felt an odd closeness to her parents who sold their land and spent all they had on her education... On the other hand, working on an Indian article has made it easier for me to see how an editor could completely take over an article which dealt with India and Indian politics - it can be very complex.

Though that said, the same thing can happen when dealing with a large US corporation, Monsanto for example. When you have one editor that knows everything there is to know about its workings and has two, three, and four, the number of edits than any other editor, it is difficult for any editor, let alone a newbie, to make much headway with their editing. Add to that, and as was noted in the Indian case, when an experienced editor knows every WP:THIS AND WP:THAT that there is, who can compete with that? That is getting into professional editorship, paid or not, and people like me can't possibly compete with that. I would never have the know-how to present a case against anyone that I felt needed to be dealt with. I think that we need to form a group that can assist editors that are concerned about corporate influence. Frankly, I'd guess that most concerns are not well-grounded - newbies need help understanding that our policies rightly need to put the brakes on including poorly sourced information. But, it could be done in a way that does not belittle editors and cause all this self-righteous drama.

As far as I can tell, WP seems to be catching the small time crooks making a few bucks on the side and does not even seem to be interested in discussing the probability that the big boyz have all time time, and money, in the world to influence their articles. Gandydancer (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed a very depressing discussion. Re: MastCell's point about the chilling effect of the WillBeBack case, agree completely. It has been the single most destructive thing in efforts to deal with COI. Gandy, you're right. We catch the guy who earns $200 for writing a vanity bio, and do nothing about the industries that control all content about themselves. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting thread here. I'm wanting to discuss the potential for an ArbCom regarding specific editors working as a gang), and the rampant pro-industry POV ('COI-like') editing. I'd also like to discuss the possibility of creating a task force to support editors who encounter this activity. From what I understand, the MEDRS team has a support system for those who find talk of "fringe" on our pages. Are there systems set up that could serve as an example for such a task force? Like Gandydancer, I've kept my head stuck in article space. Most editors probably aren't equipped to deal with the ensuing noticeboards and wiki-lawyering they will encounter at many articles. If they had somewhere to turn for outside, independent feedback and advice, we might not be watching our editorial pool whither away. In the fight for content control, running editors off the site seems to be the goal. How can we counteract this? petrarchan47tc 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate saying this, but maybe at some point you have to just shrug and say "you can't fight City Hall". If arbcom says we're not allowed to look into undisclosed COI then we're not allowed to look into undisclosed COI. You can try, if you think it's worth the risk of getting permabanned. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned COI. Maybe you were responding to someone else? petrarchan47tc 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, the issue is volunteer time. First, Boris is right: ArbCom is unlikely to help with anything related to COI, because they've been part of the problem. One thing you could do is relaunch WikiProject Integrity, or create a task force that's part of that wikiproject – e.g. the COI task force, or if you want to take the focus away from COI, the Advocacy task force. Ask people to sign up if they're willing to help, including thinking through the definitions. The big issue is that there aren't many editors willing to do this work, and they get burned out very quickly. But the Wifione case, and those students in India who lost money because of it, really should be a wake-up call. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's hope so. I certainly don't care to take on a project like this, but I would be willing to offer support. petrarchan47tc 01:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, I think anyone wanting a solution will have to take the lead. I talked to someone recently who has experience of dealing with COI in publishing. Their advice was that the Foundation should be urged to set up a group of COI specialists who can topic-ban editors from articles where there appears to be control on behalf of financial interests.

The Foundation isn't going to do that. But they might give a grant to volunteers – a group who would gather the evidence and propose topic bans to the community. It would mean a lot of work; see Grants:IdeaLab and Grants:Start. You would have to find editors who understand why COI is damaging (e.g. Smallbones, Gandydancer, Coretheapple, Doc James, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), put whatever differences there are to one side, and (with the grant) pay for some specialist help and pay yourselves for the research. I completely understand why you wouldn't want to devote the time, but I want to leave it here as a suggestion anyway. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. This does sound like a rational approach. It's a big project for someone who isn't committed to WP anymore, but perhaps others will see this and decide to take it on. Meanwhile I'll be pondering and supporting you all from afar. petrarchan47tc 19:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So I have been trying to address COI issue regarding paid editing via armies of sock puppets. What I have found is:

• Jimmy Wales is supportive of us doing something
• We have TOU that does not allow it
• The WMF is not interested in enforcing the TOU. They want us to do it.
• Arbcom does not see it as a problem. And does not feel the TOU apply to them.
• There appears to be little desire to run check users on these sock puppet armies.
• It is unclear if one can link to other accounts and thus on can likely not discuss much evidence around COI on Wikipedia without risk of banning
• It is unclear if arbcom will ban editors who try to deal with it but they may
• The WMF has not agreed to provide support to editors if they are so banned by arbcom
• Elance and Fiverr are willing to comply with our TOU by deleting account there.
• I have proposed to the WMF the creation of a specific group of functionaries to deal with TOU enforcement. The WMF has not replied after more than a month and a fair number of emails.
• The WP:COIN notice board is where much work takes place. Needs more help.

So were to from here?

• I have proposed a panel on the topic in Mexico [4] (Jimmy Wales has agreed to introduce it, no one from Arbcom has agreed to be on it, Legal at the WMF is still thinking about it)
• If there was community support to create a new group of functionaries to enforce the TOU than the WMF may be willing to support the creation of one. That is the next RfC on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to help for free, and will do whatever I can. Time is not a constraint. Travel could be since you might have to goat tie me and drag me off this island. I can't be bought, but I can be persuaded for the right reasons. My Dad always said, "Sweetie, integrity is an expensive virtue." Atsme☯^Consult 22:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, what is your take on Sarah's idea to relaunch WikiProject Integrity, or create a task force that's part of that wikiproject – e.g....the Advocacy task force as a way to begin addressing advocacy editing (spin-doctoring), and the misuse of guidelines to that end? petrarchan47tc 22:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just give me the authority and the tools, and if I can't dazzle you with brilliance, I'll baffle you with BS. Seriously, I am soooooo ready to do something. I see the problem, and I can almost recite our 3 core policies to you by memory. I also have the extra time because of my semi-retirement (which basically means I work harder for free) so let's do it - I'll take the lead if needed, but I hope Sarah will help guide me along. I'm a fast learner. Gimme, gimme, gimme. I'll train, I'll travel, I'll type - tell me where to start. Atsme☯^Consult 23:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also be willing to help out with a WikiProject Integrity type project or in creating such a task force, although my time online has been somewhat limited lately. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Petra, Doc James, Atsme and BoboMeowCat, a way to start might be to spruce up the WikiProject Integrity page so that it looks lived in. Find some templates, add a bit of design, some images, write a good intro setting out its parameters (e.g. COI, paid and unpaid advocacy), and announce a relaunch. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. By the way, I see that I was pinged by you and another editor concerning discussions still ongoing at AN/I and T:COI. I have been away for a few days but will certainly take a look. The discussions have grown very large I see. I'm complimented to be invited into a discussion, as usually people want me to go away! Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarah mentioned another, more in-depth approach too (scroll up). I started a thread about this idea at Atsme's talk page here. Sarah, if you care to expand on it, please do stop by (or it can be moved here, but I didn't want to disrupt the conversations re task force and essay). petrarchan47tc 19:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rukeyser.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rukeyser.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, SlimVirgin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there Sarah, at the Rape in India article the second para in the lead reads:

The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] The incidence of reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world.[5] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6] Compared to other developed and developing countries, reported rapes per 100,000 people are quite low in India.[7] India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8]

Concerned about refs #5 and #7, I put in a request at the Reliable sources notice board (#14) and they agreed that these refs are not acceptable. I would like to change the para to read:

India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".[8] However parliamentarians have expressed concern that majority of rape cases go unreported.[6]

Having worked on several Indian rape cases in the past, It has been my impression that rape and politics go hand in hand in India. I would like to work on this article and am wondering just how it happened that only admins are allowed there - something I've never run into before in all the years I've been editing. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, the best thing is to ask the protecting admin, Bgwhite, to reduce to semi-protection so that you and Bargolus can edit, or if he intended full protection because of a content dispute, to reduce it to the usual few days, rather than two weeks. Standard procedure is first to approach the protecting admin, and if disagreement about protection level remains, go to WP:RFPU.

Re: your proposed change, it looks fine, though I think it would read better without "however". Also, minor point, the edit needs a "the," as in "the majority of rape cases ..." Good luck in tackling such a difficult article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, what you want changed is part of the second "war", you need to leave a message on the article's talk page first. The article is undergoing the second major "war" in the past few weeks. Sock puppets, harassment and accusations are only some of the "fun". Multiple people were blocked during the first "war" before I got involved and added page protection. I brokered a settlement for the first "war", but have not gotten involved in second. I'm hoping the parties come to an agreement first. Bargolus has left messages on my talk page seeking advice and asking questions. They are having trouble expressing their point of view... it is on the confusing side. I'm getting on my knees to beg and plead for you to add in your voice on the talk page. Any voice of sanity would be extremely helpful. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I just added "the" that Sarah suggested. It was requested by Bargolus on the talk page. Gandydancer, beware that your suggestion will probably be greeted as, "you are a sockpuppet" by one of the editors. Ignore them. They have been warned, repeatedly, to stop saying everybody against their point of view is a sockpuppet. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Essay

Sarah, Thanks for your comment on ANI. [5] Duck was the word I was looking for. Do you think it might be helpful to draft a COIDuck essay? As I mentioned in ANI, it seems COIDuck-like to violate multiple polices and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE. I agree with you that we need to try do something, especially in light of [6].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: an essay is an excellent idea. I have too much on my plate to start one, but I'd be very willing to make some edits. If you're interested in starting it, you might want to begin in user space so that you have a decent version ready before opening it up. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I may be more of a follower type, than a leader here, especially when it comes to policy, as I have limited experience. @Atsme:, any chance you’d be willing to start such an essay and dazzle us :) [7] If you, or any other talk page stalker, could start a draft of such an essay, and get the general essay format going, I will contribute to the writing. Anyone else interested in helping out with this? (pinging @Petrarchan47:,@Gandydancer:) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You betcha, BoboMeowCat! Anchor's aweigh! Notice that I'm wearing my sunglasses. The dazzle can be blinding. Atsme☯^Consult 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) fwiw, the essay would come out better if you've spent some time working the front lines of dealing with COI in WP. The two places where we need more help are AfC, AfD, and COIN, per this comment by DGG, an Arbitrator - see here. I know that is more grunt-work than the glamour of being dazzling but it would be great to have more hands there. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (striking per below. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC))

Jytdog, pleased not refer to me as an arb unless I'm acting as an arb. There, as almost everywhere except on arb pages, I'm commenting only as an editor giving only my own personal opinion. (or, sometimes, as an admin doing something any admin can do.) In neither context does being an arb make any difference at all. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you, will keep that in mind. sorry, and striking. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobo, about pinging, it only works if a signature is added when the ping is, so pings added after the fact as you did apparently don't go through. See WP:ECHO: "if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent." I don't know whether it's a bug or a feature. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, (re-pinging @Petrarchan47:,@Gandydancer:) to alert them to this thread.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I got something started User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. Atsme☯^Consult 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Go, Atsme! Oh, and you might find this extremely helpful. petrarchan47tc 05:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(Related: WP:9STEPS petrarchan47tc 16:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the damage, and the first draft is ready. User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. I apologize for the verbosity but it was once advantageous when I was paid by the word. Old habits are harder to break than the bank. Feel free to snip away at the verbiage, add infoboxes, images, and whatever else will help break the verbal monotony. The only thing I can confirm as missing is a remedy. I don't have one, so I left it open to suggestions from Sarah (SV) and/or other admins who might be concerned I might inadvertently screw something up, or who just enjoy ^{stalking stealthily in the background} Atsme☯^Consult 16:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I like your essay and your writing. Thank you for putting it together! The one thing I would urge caution over, and I was thinking of mentioning this to Petra too, is criticism of MEDRS. I know it has been misused (and misunderstood), but the people at WikiProject Medicine are very concerned about COI. Doc James, for example, is a strong MEDRS defender and COI opponent. MEDRS provides some defence against COI because for the most part it doesn't allow primary sources (e.g. individual studies). It's a conservative approach, but it's one that keeps out all kinds of misuse of primary sources, including by COI advocates. The more I've seen MEDRS in action, the more I've come to appreciate it, not only for COI but for quality in general. (That's assuming it's used correctly; it's worth reading carefully.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(For my part, I would much rather address Advocacy editing and leave the COI issue to those already covering it.) My concern is not about MEDRS when used correctly. I do have a problem with the fact that the American medical model has taken over WP, and that WP Project Medicine does not include practitioners from Chinese medicine, Indian (Aryuvedic) medicine, natural healing, ancient forms of healing, etc. When I think of an encyclopedia, I expect to see a rounded picture with the full history and all nations included. Instead, other forms of medicine are *judged* rather than described by this website.

I was dismayed to say the least when WP Project Medicine took over all of the Cannabis articles even though 2 of the 3 editors responsible admitted to a strong bias against herbal medicine. They also did not know anything about the subject, and made the articles sound more like an FDA warning than a presentation of all the facts to date. I actually brought in a Cannabinoid researcher to help them interpret studies in a field that is very new and complicated. I expected he would be welcomed and utilized (I introduced him via the Project Medicine talk page), but instead he was ignored and I was accused of canvassing, with one of the editors *still*, a year later, trying to get sanctions against me for that.

The MEDRS guideline does indeed allow for primary sources to be used with due weight, and we are being told otherwise, which is one way the guideline is being misused and misinterpreted. The misuse of MEDRS is a very complex issue, and is the very reason I would encourage Atsme to share her insights on this matter. She is seeing the exact things I am seeing and describes them clearly. I am sure Doc James does tremendous work, although again, he works in the very field he edits and it is possible that a worldview (encyclopedic view) of medicine might be harder to embrace.

You may remember, Sarah, when I came to you to ask about MEDRS - it was the first time I had heard of it. Jytdog used it as a way to keep information about RoundUp's potential health effects out of the Pedia. How would any human have been harmed by seeing that information? Only Monsanto stockholders would have been harmed. Yet here we are, 2 years later, and WHO is admitting RoundUp probably causes cancer. In hindsight, it seems that if the edit had been allowed to remain, some people may have made different buying choices and potentially have a lesser chance of getting cancer. MEDRS in this case was not used to protect human health, but rather a large corporation. petrarchan47tc 21:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are high quality secondary sources that support health effects / concerns WRT pesticides and there has been for years. We hardly give the substances our blessing per Health_effects_of_pesticides. Just because some primary sources are good does not mean we should not do better and use secondary sources.

That you consider the enforcement of using high quality sources to be an example of COI is unfortunate. WP:MEDRS is one of the few effective methods we have of dealing with COI in medicine. One can cherry pick primary sources. It is a little harder to do that with recent systematic reviews and meta analysis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, DocJames, reliable sources is exactly what defenders of genetic engineering lack—see here for a specific discussion of this point—yet the exact same users cry "MEDRS" when it suits their purposes. Despite continual warnings about the state of the genetic engineering articles, which for years have make highly problematic claims about food safety, would-be enforcers of scientific rigor have been conspicuously unwilling to make the necessary changes. The medical "authorities" on Wikipeida lack credibility so long as they continue to enable this whitewashing. shalom, groupuscule (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

^Strongly agree. David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Doc, please note that I began my piece by saying that I am talking not about COI editing, but advocacy editing. I have had unfortunate experiences with MEDRS being misused. Another example is here (scroll to the bottom for complete context and Atsme's response). (Here is a direct link to the edit in question). I am not talking in absolutes here, either. I'm not saying it's a bad guideline. I am simply pointing out that is being misused in a way that does not serve the reader, and likely reflects the bias of the editor rather than the "spirit of the [MEDRS] law".

Secondary sources can be cherry-picked as well. Viriditas is aware of this in relation to the Medical Cannabis article. Many editors have pointed out that the Cannabis articles are now POV, and in my attempt to counter what I saw as a coatrack of negative information added to the MediCann article during the great overhaul, I compiled this list using primarily MEDRS-compliant sources. I was told by Alexbrn that none of this was acceptable for the article. petrarchan47tc 03:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is just a starting point. One then needs to than balance the sources based on how good they are. " Front Public Health" has an impact factor of zero and thus not a very good source.[8] We also need sources that have a reputation for acuracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets look at this edit [9]

The first ref is popular press [10], this is a primary source [11], this is more popular press [12] Gah

This is exactly the sources we should be keeping out of Wikipedia. If they were important we would see a review on Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or RA discussing it. There is not a lack of high quality recent literature reviews in top medical journals on these topics. The fact that they do not discuss it means it is not widely believed to be important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Might you be placing too much faith in the neutrality of the top medical journals? The fact that they do not discuss some things has to do with which studies receive funding, no? I think the Pedia is worse off without this information, and no one was being harmed by its inclusion. Popular press has been the lifeblood of this encyclopedia as long as I have been here, but with the MEDRS rule, people who know more than the rest of us can make sweeping statements and deletions based on it, leaving other editors and piles of information in the dust. I would rather have an encyclopedia that includes more information, not less, unless that info could cause harm to human health (if proven later to be false). MEDRS should be used to protect readers, but I see it used to censor information and to spin articles and attack alternatives so that the American medical industry and it's twin, the pharmaceutical industry, are seen as nearly infallible, when indeed they remain among the leading causes of death in the US. I wouldn't expect anyone receiving a paycheck from this industry to have a truly neutral view of this system and its inherent flaws, which is why it's beyond upsetting that WP has signed off on allowing professionals to control content, and even create policies (or guidelines being used as policy), in their chosen field. This seems the epitome of conflicted to me.

However, WP has signed off on this, for whatever reason, and I have retired. Please rest assured that I am not going to become a disruption to the collegiate atmosphere and the good work you all are doing to fight COI. Thanks for hearing me out. petrarchan47tc 21:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, you are a breath of fresh air, and so is Petra. I fully understand your concerns, and if you get a chance, please read my response to Petra on my TP because I actually addressed your issues in that wall of text (which I apologize for but it's as much a part of me as are my blue eyes and blonde hair, except those are colors I can change much easier than I can change the color of my dissertations. I am trying, promise). [13] Atsme☯^Consult 21:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme, I'll take a look at your post. Don't apologize for your writing. I like it! Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WRT an essay

1) How one should edit Wikipedia

• Find a good source such as a 2015 review in the Lancet [14]
• Paraphrase said source and add it (you can use one excellent source many times)
• Discussion may then occur regarding the paraphrasing or placement of the info

2) How one should not edit Wikipedia

• Come up with a conclusion you think is true
• Search the literature to find evidence to support this position
• Attempt to edit war it into place

If we use the best available sources we have a much better chance of having the best available content Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV), what else needs to be done in order to make COI duckery a main space essay? Thanks for all you do!! Atsme☯^Consult 14:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, you can add your essay to project space at Wikipedia:COI duckery (or whatever title you prefer) by moving it using the move tab at the top of the page under "More" (that way preserves the page history), or by copying it onto the new page.

Again, I would urge caution re: MEDRS, particularly the sentence "MEDRS is a content guideline, not a policy." It's widely accepted as a policy, despite the guideline label, though you'll see on talk that there's sometimes disagreement about how to apply it. One thing that might help is to read up about medical sourcing so that you're in a better position to find good sources and recognize when MEDRS is being mis-applied. Suggestions: Trisha Greenhalgh, How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine, and some useful links here at the BMJ, including this article by Greenhalgh. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This is important - it's a guideline, but is widely accepted as policy? The lack of clarity is causing much strife amongst users; a handful have been complaining about this on my talk page. The murkiness surrounding MEDRS needs to be remedied or the conflicts won't end. petrarchan47tc 20:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petra, There are uses of MEDRS that are strongly supported, and then there is the misuse of it. One idea might be to take your strongest case – one that was dismissed per MEDRS but that you feel was policy-compliant or ought to have been – and ask for opinions about it on WT:MEDRS. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Break

Thank you for the tip, Sarah. I'll take another look at it. While I completely understand the purpose and benefit of MEDRS (and have read it), I agree with Petra and the other editors who expressed concern over its misuse and the need for clarity. One of my concerns is censorship of information which inadvertently places WP in the role of advising readers rather than informing them, and doing so is not NPOV. While the information we provide should certainly be RS, we are still an encyclopedia providing general knowledge, the point being WP:NOTJOURNAL. It is extremely fortunate that we have volunteers in the highest levels of academia, medicine and science writing and collaborating on articles about such topics but WP should maintain a more sterile position in lieu of promoting one view over another or protecting readers from learning about one treatment over another. For example, MEDRS basically prevents inclusion of integrative and alternative treatments in an article even though NIH recognizes it [15], as does the Mayo Clinic [16] and other reputable medical clinics around the world. I generally steer clear of these types of articles but MEDRS occasionally bleeds over into related BLPs which is how I initially got involved. WP is global but there have been occasions where MEDRS was used as an excuse to exclude information from Chinese and Indian Journals as not RS. Their health systems can't be too bad considering population numbers: China in the lead with 1.34 billion, India with 1.19 billion, and the United States with a mere 311.1 million and the highest rate of autism in the world. Also, if the NY Times or ABC News runs a story reporting a pattern of behavioral issues or deaths linked to a certain drug, it should not be censored from inclusion in the relative article as long as it includes an inline citation and inline text attribution. I'll close with another concern. We can probably all agree that most people have become quite skeptical of big pharma and its perceived control over government; some of the reasons shown here: List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements. Now look at the following series of reverts regarding the exclusion/inclusion of governmental health: [17] [18] [19] [20], and the following series of reverts regarding academic sources: [21][22][23][24] [25]. I look forward to your response, and thank you very much for the time and attention you've contributed to addressing our concerns. Atsme☯^Consult 05:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Sarah (SV), take a gander at it when you get a chance...almost a total revamp. User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. I'm also planning to change the title to COI ducks. Hopefully you'll like it better now. Atsme☯^Consult 22:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I'll take a look at it shortly. Just one point for now in response to your post. You wrote:

"... if the NY Times or ABC News runs a story reporting a pattern of behavioral issues or deaths linked to a certain drug, it should not be censored from inclusion in the relative article ..."

When newspapers run that a study has shown a new drug to be helpful (and these stories appear all the time), you would have to include that too. Given that such stories are regularly planted by pharmaceutical companies, you can see where that would lead. Ditto with allowing primary sources: you would have to include individual studies funded by the companies. How would we decide which primary sources to allow in?

The point of relying on secondary sources in medical journals is that those authors make that choice for us. The alternative is to leave it to individual editors, perhaps without relevant training, perhaps with a COI. That's a problem with primary sources in every field, not just medicine, but the risk of COI editing based on primary sources is high in medicine. If you were to allow primary sources, how would you protect articles against this? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Censoring information is far more harmful. If cutting edge or break-thru information is reported or published in RS, such as the NY Times, ABC, CNN, and/or in peer reviewed medical journals that publish independent studies with conclusions from different labs, I would think yes, we include it per NPOV in a dispassionate tone with proper weight and categorization as ongoing research or hypotheses. Hypothetical scenario: major research company in US announces plans to conduct further research into a natural substance as the result of new discoveries of unknown mechanisms that show positive results (citing 6 different laboratory tests from different labs in the US, China, India) in-vitro and/or in laboratory animals. Can we not include a short paragraph about it in the relative article under a section titled hypotheses, and/or research directions? It's no longer pseudoscience or fringe because it is ongoing research. We're not calling it a cure - it's ongoing research. Who knows - a young student might be inspired by the information and set a new course in life as a scientist, researcher or doctor. Why would we want to keep such knowledge from our readers? Also, if we can trust CNN, ABC, the NY Times, etc. for breaking news about war, our national defense, politics, ebola, fracing, meteors, etc. why can't we trust them to give us cutting edge reports about science and medicine? If we adhere to policy using inline text attribution, and make sure to not give it UNDUE per the guidelines, why not? Atsme☯^Consult 02:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Partly because journalists sometimes get it wrong (or often, in the view of scientists), partly because the pharmaceutical industry is active in guiding news sources (read Ben Goldacre on the manipulation of patients' groups), and partly because there would be no end to it. You can find a study on PubMed to show just about anything.

Your suggestion would mean that journalists would guide which medical primary sources were allowed as sources on WP. That would mean that researchers good at PR would be included in Wikipedia more often than researchers who don't court publicity. But we don't let journalists do that with history articles – we don't decide which Auschwitz survivors have offered credible testimony based on the view of CNN. We rely on the work of Holocaust historians, academics able to judge which primary sources are credible.

News sources can be used for current-affairs issues in articles about medical issues, though I'm not a regular editor of medical articles, so I don't know where the lines are drawn. It might be fruitful to start a discussion on WT:MED about the parameters, and ask for examples of appropriate current-affairs reporting in medical articles or of the appropriate use of primary sources. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not much hope either way....[26]....see following excerpt:

Big Pharma Sways Opinions - Doctors may be persuaded to allow ghostwriting, which involves Big Pharma paying physicians to attach their names to positive articles about a particular drug with the goal of seeing it published in a reputable medical journal.

Often the commentary is little more than an advertisement penned by a company-paid copywriter showcasing a newer product. Big Pharma used ghostwriting to promote numerous drugs, including the antidepressant Paxil, the recalled weight loss drug Fen-Phen, the anti-epilepsy drug Neurontin, the antidepressant Zoloft and painkiller Vioxx, to name a few.

In addition, even when a medical reviewer, who is an expert in the field, writes a comprehensive assessment of a new drug for a medical journal, it is common practice for those supposedly unbiased professionals to be on Big Pharma’s payroll.

In a 2011 investigation into conflicts of interest in medical literature, an international team of researchers reviewed the funding sources of 29 meta-analyses, or studies of past studies, that involved 509 individual drug trials. Researchers identified seven meta-analyses in which all studies mentioned were funded completely or in part by the manufacturer of the drug being evaluated — or where the study authors had direct financial ties to the drugmaker. In six out of the seven meta-analyses, investigators did not disclose the source of funding.

These slanted studies appear in medical journals that are widely hailed as collections of unbiased scientific evaluation and separated from the long financial arm of pharmaceutical industry influence. Yet Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, says, “All journals are bought – or at least cleverly used – by the pharmaceutical industry.”

Atsme☯^Consult 03:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: Who is drugwatch.com and why do they want me to call them for "a free case review"? Have you ever used them as a source in a Wikipedia article? Geogene (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Geogene, I saw you add a ping (fix a typo) to your edit after you'd signed it. That doesn't work; they need a sig after the ping, so I'll re-ping Atsme for you. There's a script that produces the ping template to avoid typos. I'll find it and post it to your talk. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarah. @Geogene:, I found them on the internet last night when I Googled the phrase "big pharma influence on medical journals". I just now went to the site again, and found their "about" link if that helps. [27] All I know about them is what the website says. I don't normally write about health or medicine, so to your question, "no", I never used them as a source. They appear to be a law firm who specializes in medical claims and malpractice, etc. I'm not sure, but if they publish a conclusion about a case they handled, it wouldn't actually be OR, but it might be considered a primary source, or would it be self-published? They actually "called you"? Atsme☯^Consult 19:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: That's exactly what it seems to be. I looked up the host information for the site, and all I saw is that it's hosted by GoDaddy. It seems to be an intake point to recruit medical malpractice plaintiffs. I don't mean to imply that what they are doing is in any way unethical, or that the information there is necessarily wrong...just that I can't work out who has editorial control of the site. I think that, like pharma companies, they have a horse in the race. Their sources sections could be useful, though. Geogene (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS - worse yet: "But while the popular press celebrated this sudden attack of nanoconscience and while we still gravely debate whether physicians’ loyalties can really be bought for a disposable pen or a free lunch, the $310 billion pharmaceutical industry quietly buys something far more influential: the contents of medical journals and, all too often, the trajectory of medical research itself." [28] Atsme☯^Consult 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PSS - It might also be of interest to note that the FDA is headed by an ex-Monsanto lobbyist (Michael Taylor), so is a questionable RS when it comes to the issue of GM foods, etc. Also, the FDA is subservient to the White House, it is not an independent scientific organization; it takes money from the pharma industry. (Examples from: FORBES and Harvard)

And again from Harvard:

"The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.

"This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA. Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information. The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge. Patients are the innocent victims."

But the FDA is accepted by WP as a trusted source for biomedical claims. petrarchan47tc 05:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Atsme and Petra, I agree that the funding and ghostwriting problems stretch beyond the primary sources. I think the hope is that it's less likely that a secondary source will have these problems, because the review articles give an overview of multiple studies, so it's harder to interefere with that. It might be worth having a discussion about funding and sources with WikiProject Medicine because I know they do care a lot about COI. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Atsme and Petra make some very good points about how money corrupts scientific publishing and regulatory agencies. I can think of no simple solutions to this problem. I do think that identifying funding sources for studies and review articles and connections of authors/editors that have significant ties to industry through current or past employment is helpful. I strongly disagree with a comment made above that because a university performs a study or review that is funded by industry that the study is "independent". Universities rely heavily on industry funding and there is immense pressure to report the result the industry wants reported. See for example this article.. Quotes from that article:

"The odds of coming to a conclusion favorable to the industry are 3.6 times greater in research sponsored by the industry than in research sponsored by government and nonprofit groups, according to a published analysis by Justin Bekelman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues." (paraphrase of comments by Joseph Ross, a professor at Yale Medical School.)

...

“It used to be that drug companies would hand their new drug over to an academic center to have it tested, and then they sat back and waited,” said Marcia Angell, who retired as editor in chief of NEJM in 2000 after more than 20 years at the publication. “Now they’re intimately involved in every step along the way, and they treat academic researchers more like hired hands.”

This article refers to this meta-analysis showing how funding corrupts review articles too with regard to cancer risk from second hand smoke:

However, studies have shown that when industry pays for research, it may influence the outcome. A 1998 analysis of more than 100 articles published on secondhand smoke reported that 37 percent found no health risk. At least 74 percent of the articles exonerating cigarette smoke were written by scientists with ties to the tobacco industry.

The meta-study concluded:

The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an article's conclusions.

Based on this I think Wikipedia should do the same whenever possible. David Tornheim (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of good ideas were presented in this discussion, and certainly a lot of information to wrap our heads around. FYI, I finished the essay and it is now online, WP:COIducks. I took the advice of several editors and polished it up a bit, only this time during normal daylight hours instead of late night with only half a brain as I have been. It's far from perfect, but it's still editable. I am duly impressed by Petrarchan47 and the inspiration that has grown out of her retirement. Imagine what we could accomplish if she was back full time!

I also wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge Sarah's FA accomplishments. I am in awe. I learned of Sarah only recently, but it was not difficult to recognize her outstanding abilities as an editor and exceptional qualities as an administrator. If only there were more like her! In the recent past, I suggested making FAs a prerequisite for an administrator position. I truly believes it provides for a better understanding of the actual work involved in getting the article right beginning with the most intricate of details from proper citations to comma placement. I have the utmost respect, admiration and appreciation for the work performed by the FA review team and the article nominators/collaborators throughout the process. To have gone through and passed so many FA reviews, Sarah clearly is a shining star, and I say that with the utmost sincerity. Atsme☯^Consult 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

She certainly is - that's a well known fact. Sarah, thank you for once again hosting an incredible discussion and sharing your insights. Atsme, you're hilarious and a burst of sunlight. Applause all around ~ petrarchan47tc 23:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As an example of how the MEDRS rules of using secondary sources do not help, take a look at what is happening here. Any review article that suggests that organic is healthier than conventional food is rejected as "too old" from a "fringey" journal, etc.David Tornheim (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

RFPP

I've done an RFPP that you declined. Don't mean to step on your toes, but the title seemed worthy of salting. If you disagree, feel free to unprotect. Deor (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, Deor, and thanks for letting me know. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice please

Hi Sarah. Thanks for your cool and measured responses to the RfC at (I won't mention the page in case this is inappropriate). I have just seen an interchange on the user page of one of the editors in this drama which indicates there may be an alliance relating to that RfC. I appreciate this appears all very "cloak-and-dagger", and perhaps even slight paranoia, but, should I do something about this? I am getting extremely weary of all the drama going on over there, so if you suggest I drop this alliance possibility, I most certainly will. Of course I can provide the diff for this but felt better not to make this public at this stage.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrChrissy, I think the best thing for you at that RfC is not to comment on it anymore. It's getting bogged down with "meta" issues, and if that continues the closing editor might have problems closing it. As things stand, most people want the legislation section to be in the main article. That may or may not change as the RfC progresses.

Often with an RfC, the best approach is to ask a clear question, link to what you want, create a separate survey section so that it's not overwhelmed by threaded replies, then stand back and let it happen. Sometimes things work out as we want, and sometimes not. I think focusing on possible alliances will lead to more distress for you, so I'd drop that aspect and focus only on steering the RfC to a conclusion (and, as I said, the best way to do that might be to do nothing). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Great advice, thanks very much. As to correctly wording an RfC - I don't think I will be trying this again any time in the near future ;-) Enjoy your evening, morning or wherever you are in the world.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello?

I pinged you today.[29] Did you not receive a notice? Lightbreather (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, I saw it about ten minutes ago, and that it was closed. I wasn't sure what the request was for. If you want to give details, I can take a look, but can't promise anything. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I also meant to say that I'm sorry about your elbow and that your friend is ill. I'm sorry for saving the post without saying that. I hope you're not in too much pain. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rape article bias?

Sarah, I just read our Rape article hoping to find stats on convictions and was surprised to find only a tiny section on convictions as opposed to a very large section on false allegations, with a link to a false allegations article to boot. Even the recent article 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations was included in the false allegations for good measure. Beginning an attempt to expand the Convictions section, I began with the wording, "The courts have been criticized for the surprisingly low rates of rape convictions" with a source, and a UK article. It was immediately deleted. Would this be the sort of article that may need help from a more balanced group of editors, meaning more women involved in the editing, rather than the assumed 10 to 20 percent? While I am not suggesting that only women can edit the rape article without bias - I believe that most WP male editors are perfectly capable to do that - it does seem odd to me to find such an apparent long-standing gap in the amount of space given to these two sections. But for all I know, since one's own bias can be hard to spot, the bias can be on my part and for that reason I'd like some feedback from other women. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandy, I agree that it would be good to develop that section. Perhaps start by discussing with Andy on talk (he may only have objected to "the rapist was acquitted," so a quick ce might do it). Posting on WT:GGTF might bring in people willing to help expand it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This bias seems to be present on all of the rape articles I've read on Wikipedia. For example, Mattress Performance now has issues with editors adding negative commentary into section where it's off topic such as "university hearings" (with no balance of supportive commentary). Pretty much all of the neutrality improvements from when task force was working on it were removed except for the removal of accused name (that's still off). Campus Accountability and Safety Act has an entire section for "criticism", but not for support for this proposed legislation. All of the rape articles I've read on WP seem to have a strong POV regarding false allegations. I've had a similar experiences as Gandydancer where attempts to improve or balance are quickly reverted (like completely reverted, along with normal fixes being undone). The articles related to rape seem to need more balance and neutrality and I'm not sure what's the answer. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: I've only briefly looked at the suite of rape articles, and as you say I always noticed a bias. Time is the issue. People get burned out trying to deal with it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the essay

One of the reasons I felt clarity of the guidelines was important is evidenced here [30]. It is quite interesting to see the activity the essay has provoked. Atsme☯^Consult 14:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

ok, let's talk about the reasons for the essay shall we? What is up with all the stuff about MEDRS in this essay? Atsme, you wrote that you have little experience on medical articles in WP, and as far as I know you have not worked on COI issues in WP.

What is described in the essay, Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks, are ways that members of WP:WikiProject Medicine keep WP:FRINGE material out of Wikipedia. This essay seems driven in part by your content dispute over FRINGE content (the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment in the article about G. Edward Griffin) - (where I am no longer active except for a recent RfC vote, but you are still very active).

In that article, you been trying for months now to remove MEDRS-sourced content critical of the use of amygdalin as a cancer treatment, and instead to write more positive content based on sources like naturalnews.com. For opposition to your efforts, see this discussion at BLPN, this discussion at Fringe noticeboard, this additional discussion at Fringe noticeboard, this discussion at RSN, and innumerable discussions on the article Talk page. including a current RfC there. Guy has been the one of the editors most consistently upholding policy against your efforts.

COI has never come up in that article.

your claim - highlighted in the quote box - that health-related articles are among the most conflicted ones in WP is not accurate in my experience, and discredits the essay. In the opinion of others who are experienced in these matters, such as Smallbones (see here for example) and DGG (see here), other subject matter fields are far more rife with COI editing. I believe that SV disagrees with your claim as well, as far as I can tell from her comments above.

In the discussion about developing this essay, you wrote about how policy is used to "censor" content on the basis of MEDRS. G. Edward Griffin is known for promoting conspiracy theories - for example, that the medical establishment has conspired to suppress amygdalin. Hm.

I'll end this by noting that the promotion of amygdalin as a cancer treatment is actually called quackery in the reliable biomedical literature (PMID 219680). There is quacking here, but it is not financial, but rather advocacy for FRINGE medicine.

I'll really end this by saying that the gemisch of ideas in the essay is exactly the reason why lowering the bar to tag someone as a conflicted editor, is a really bad idea. Way too often, editors in content disputes stoop to personal attacks out of an unWikipedian lack of imagination that people can, in good faith, have different perspectives. This essay is just not a good idea. This realization of it, especially ill-founded. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will give you the opportunity to strike your comments and apologize to me, so consider this a warning which I will also post on your TP. Since the article you mentioned is under DS for both BLP and FRINGE, I hope your behavior on this TP is actionable since BLPs apply to all articles and TPs. Your incivility, the unwarranted PAs and casting aspersions against me is deplorable behavior, and so is your misrepresentation of the situation at Griffin using diffs that do not support your claims. If Sarah (SV) cannot take action on it, I hope she will advise me on what steps I should take. You also need to strike what you included here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks in an effort to gain advantage at the MfD, apparently the reason for your comments here considering you linked to it. Perhaps you should read the essay more closely. You just crossed the line. Atsme☯^Consult 16:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)