User talk:Atsme

en:User:Serialjoepsycho/sunshine/message

Push to post a message

How is it that "experienced health topic editors" are allowed to synthesize summaries with statements like "no good evidence," or selectively highlight certain results because they are from types of studies that are considered higher quality, without explicit explanation? We remain anonymous editors, and verifiability has to take that into account, we have no special expertise when it comes to summarizing. And again, after more no direct addressing of the question: Do we recognize "experts" at Wikipedia who can essentially override core policy and guidelines? It seems what is being suggested is that, as a general encyclopedia reader (and editor), in cases where special technical knowledge is required that I don't possess, I should trust self-confirmed experts in that area to synthesize conclusions for me (at least, in cases where no secondary review source is there to do that)? Is that not what "no good evidence" is, a Wikipedia editor's "expert" summary of specialized medical data? ~User:DrChrissy

Perhaps the answers have not been forthcoming because the possibility of WP:NOR exists. Support groups are also a growing concern. WP identifies some of that activity as WP:Tag team but when it involves groups large enough to sway consensus, then what? Does it become WP:Soapbox? I'm having a bit of trouble deciding the best way to identify such activity. We all know it exists or there wouldn't be PAGs addressing it. I'm thinking perhaps WP has grown big enough that new PAGs need to be implemented to prevent mob mentality from taking it over by storm. Atsme☯^Consult 15:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The best response I've seen so far to the above concerns was made by a very wise administrator and former ARBCOM member, User:Someguy1221
Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, and is one of the policies that has served as part of the bedrock of editing philosophy. "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth." While this simple and strict statement has been a source of derision by many newcomers, switching the focus from truth to verifiability is part of what allows Wikipedia to function. In an encyclopedia built by volunteers, in which no real vetting of an individual's expert status is feasible, this policy simplifies discussion greatly. Instead of relying on debate over the validity of a fact or viewpoint, the debate focuses on the easier to tackle issue of whether it is verifiable. Even if experts could be vetted, this philosophy is still preferable. Allowing experts to run the show would merely invite them to introduce their personal biases into articles.

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme^📞📧

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme^📞📧 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)