Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

4th WP:FAC nomination of β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid

Resolved

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Since this article is now a GA, I re-nominated this article at FAC a little under 2 weeks ago: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive4.

It would be very helpful and very much appreciated if other editors from this WikiProject would comment and review the article against the WP:Featured article criteria. It is incredibly difficult to get a pharmacology article promoted at FAC, and unless editors who are familiar with the subject matter (i.e., editors from WP:MED/WP:PHARM/WP:MCB) review and comment on a pharmacology nomination at FAC, it very likely will not be promoted. For instance, amphetamine required five consecutive featured article nominations before being promoted in WP:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive5 for that very reason.

So, if you're an active editor at WT:MED and edit drug articles on a somewhat regular basis, your input at the this nomination would be invaluable. Moreover, if any of you intends to nominate a drug article at FAC at some point in the future, reviewing another pharmacology nomination as well as reading the reviews by other editors at that nomination will give you a good idea of what to expect and prepare for at your own FAC nomination(s).

For those who haven't reviewed an article at FAC before, this is the "FAQ" page for reviewing articles at FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, I did the GA review on Norepinephrine but I couldn't do an FA review on my own for the first time. So I would be glad to help with the review and think if we could find another co-reviewer then this could really happen. I know there are biochemists in the project but can't recall who they are at the moment. I have created articles on medications, a degree in chemistry and coursework in pharmacology. I can't evaluate the referencing of an article because, well, I'm not the best editor for this task. The guild of copy editors might like to help. I would really be thrilled to see this happen. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The main difference between reviewing a FAC and a GA candidate is that there's no official reviewer or structured process for reviewing and the reviewers aren't the ones who decide whether or not the article is promoted or fails the FAC process, although there are structured review criteria. To review a FAC, you basically just add your comments about the article's compliance with the FA criteria to the FAC nomination page and, if the nomination has received sufficient support within 2 months of the nomination date, the FAC coordinators will promote it; otherwise, the nomination is archived (i.e., the article fails).

Just to clarify: the FAC coordinators decide whether or not an article is promoted based upon their assessment of the consensus among reviewers about its compliance with the FA criteria. If 3 reviewers oppose for a stupid reason (e.g., "I just don't like it") and 5 support it after extensively reviewing the article against the criteria, the coordinators will probably promote the article to FA status. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

As of right now, only 1 reviewer supports the promotion of this candidate and 0 reviewers oppose it. There's a lot of comments/discussion at the moment though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have also contributed. It would be appreciated if other editors could put in their 2¢ given that this is the fourth nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – this nomination will be reviewed by a FAC coordinator and archived or promoted sometime on or around March 15th.

In other words, there's only 1 month or so left to review this article at FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I think this article might actually be promoted to FA status this time around. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Kudos to Seppi333 and all who did the heavy lift for this FAC! — soupvector (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Great job Seppi333! Thank you for all your hard work and perseverance. Boghog (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. This article wouldn't have been promoted had it not been for the input from editors affiliated with this WikiProject, so I wanted to thank everyone from WP:MED who provided constructive feedback/comments or otherwise assisted with reviewing this article in any of the 4 featured article nominations (@Doc James, Jytdog, WhatamIdoing, Sizeofint, Axl, CFCF, Tom (LT), DePiep, Soupvector, Evolution and evolvability, and Barbara (WVS): i.e., you).  Thank you very much! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Boghog: exactly like the previous article you helped me with, getting this article promoted to FA status likely wouldn't have been possible without your assistance with writing the chemistry section or as a co-nominator at FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Congrats... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! You did all the work and deserve all the credit. Ping me when you want a review of your next FA. You should be proud to have brought the article to such a high level of scholarship. I admire your editing. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all) has statistics for 2016, but there is nothing for 2017. Has this effort been abandoned? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

per[1] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiding spam links with "good references"

Seeing this more an more such as:

• here
• here

Good ref does not support the content in question. Other is simple spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

will be more attentive to this type of spam--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably an SEO tactic, we discussed something very similar to this a while ago. They seem to have moved from replacing good but dead sources with spam; to now adding good but irrelevant sources alongside spam. Maybe this is something Beetstra would be interested in. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This post seems to have been pretty popular: https://www.matthewwoodward.co.uk/tutorials/easy-wikipedia-link-building/

... may have found the blog that suggested this first:

• https://exposureninja.com/blog/build-backlinks-wikipedia/

86.31.184.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) should be banned

Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If no recent edits why ban the IP? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a clear of paid editing, where several IPs associated to the firm that have edited. The blog strongly suggest that there are a number of accounts under that IP that actively edit. Block the IP would get rid of the accounts as well. It's a good first step before we start with a sockpuppet-investigation, but of course only doing that is rather pointless. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good point User:CFCF. How long does "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" last? Is it indefinite? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc James — It should be indefinite. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a quite normal technique - finding {{citation needed}} tags, and replace them with some document on the server which you want to spam. Specifically, find articles in your attention area - say a medical technique - find those with a missing citations, and then just spam your site there. To the untrained eye the references look to-the-point and appropriate, and there is a significant chance that your spam stays. Often it involves blogs or small (very localized) companies. See WP:REFSPAM.

In case of doubt, post the spammed links to WT:WPSPAM - if only to create a record, all others can quite directly go for blacklisting on WT:SBL. As it often includes SEOs (which tend to use multiple IPs/accounts) and persistent editors, all other methods of mitigation do not really help, the links are generally not suitable anywhere (except for primary data on own articles, if notability is reasonable - which can easily be handled by whitelisting). Please don't waste your time keeping reverting or removing this stuff (if possible, look for cross-wiki problems and go to the meta blacklist, but COIBot will take care of showing that).

Regarding the blog, I will blacklist material that is offered for paid spamming, even if it wasn't spammed yet if it is along material that was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolvins

• Resolvin (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I've tried to remove the primary clinical studies (and been reverted) - but more generally the entire article is heavily based based on primary sources. There appears to be a dearth of secondary literature discussing resolvins in a therapeutic context, but there is some discussing it pharmacologically e.g. PMID 29352860. Could use eyes. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Have left some feedback for the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

What template is that you used? Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

{{Reliable sources please}} but I think handwritten messages are better for this job since they don't look thoughtless (the editor was welcomed to Wikipedia years ago). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• god that is unreadable. somebody has mistaken WP for a journal or something. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • When I notice content like that I think it could be a copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, the editor who largely wrote it, Joflaher is active and appears to be creating quite a lot of article content which is similar in nature. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well some of their contributions are a little overly complicated, a good faith editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, good faith I'm sure but the writing is way too technical. Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

My editing on Resolvin viewed it as a biochemistry article in WikiProject Chemicals category rather than a medical or clinical article. Many articles on other bioactive fatty acid metabolites (e.g. see LTB4) are classified as such and focus on the biochemistry, biology, and preclinical aspects of the metabolites. While the Resolvin article is actually classified in the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology category, it always focused on Resolvin biochemistry, biology, and pre-clinical studies that allow that Resolvins may someday become relevant to Medicine. Are you judging Resolvin from a overly medical viewpoint? Should the Resolvin article be re-categorized as WikiProject Chemicals? And, is there anything editorially that I can do to maintain Resolvin's biochemical, biological, and preclinical emphases? As always, I follow your judgements. joflaher talk(please sign your post..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for entering residency

I've been reading about Competency-based Medical Education (CBME) and EPAs for something I'm writing. Y'all in medicine are doing groundbreaking work with regard to developing best practices for health profession education. At any rate, I wrote a list of the 13 Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Entering Residency for an eventual section or article on EPAs, although it's not something I can work on very much presently. The draft article is on a subpage in my user space: User:Markworthen/Core Entrustable Professional Activities list. Feel free to edit my draft article there (in my user space) or copy what you want for a new article or section.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My final batch of medicine-related links to DAB pages

These are the only medicine-related articles I know of which still have {{dn}} tags. As usual - search for "disam", and if you fix one, mark it here as {{done}}.

• Nucleoside-diphosphate kinase Done
• Hemidesmosome Done
• Prevertebral fascia Done
• Pleiotropy (drugs) Done
• Aminophenazone Done
• Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms Done
• List of diseases (H) Done
• Ubiquitin C Done
• Methylmalonyl-CoA mutase deficiency Done
• Severe cutaneous adverse reactions  Done
• Shirley Ratcliffe  Done (target page was a set index)
• Transurethral resection of the prostate syndrome Done

There may be a new article or two with a bad link which no-one has spotted yet. But, if you experts can solve those problems, WP:WikiProject Medicine might become one of those "clean as a whistle" WikiProjects. Thanks in advance. Narky Blert (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Treetear for getting two of them done so quickly. I've done two more.

It looks like that leaves us just 8 more (out of all of our 41,263 articles!) to fix up. Who else can help today? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. The last one (TURP syndrome) was a bit crude, because it had linked to hyperglycinemia but that term is used for inborn errors (ketotic and non-ketotic forms). A better solution would be a section of glycine or even a page on iatrogenic glycine toxicity, which is really what's going on with TURP syndrome secondary to glycine irrigation. — soupvector (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, may be that. So long as readers get pointed to the right places, job done. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI created article + changes to template/main MS article

Just an FYI, that I created an article on RIS, and made subsequent changes to the template. I am not feeling bold enough to add RIS in Multiple Sclerosis but welcome those with more medical knowledge to do so. Happy for any suggestions or changes/comments etc. Thank you.Calaka (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a great little beginning, Calaka. (I made the refs look a little fancier just now.)

If you (or we) could make it about four times as long in the next few days, then you could send it to WP:DYK and get it on the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea WhatamIdoing. I have access to the literature thanks to my university access. Any topics/headings you can suggest to add to the page?Calaka (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Findings can be a tough case for article structure. In this case, maybe you would find some of these be appropriate:

• Follow up (Explicitly specifying "nothing", if nothing is normally done, could actually be informative to readers)
• Prognosis (e.g., likelihood of developing MS symptoms)
• Epidemiology (e.g., gender predilection, typical age, prevalence if known?)
• Research directions (Is anyone trying to figure this out?)

I'd add that if there's something that the reviews/textbooks/good sources talk about a lot, then this probably belongs in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the pointers. I will do some research tonight and add them in to the article. Maybe you can have a look once I finish and tidy it up to Wiki standards? :) Calaka (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey @WhatamIdoing, I have tried expanding RIS and would love to see what you think. I am not a doctor (though I am studying MS) so apologies if I have mixed up the terminology in terms of prognosis, epidemiology etc. Also was wondering if there is an easier way to add the references from the link as I have found adding the names and details manually tedious. Getting an image on the article would be fantastic though I do not know of any sources where there are copyright free images of MRI scans showing RIS. Also happy for any other comments or suggestions you may have. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look.

Refs are super easy since you're using the visual editor. Click the "Cite" button in the middle of the toolbar, paste in the URL from PubMed in the "automatic" tab, and let the citoid service figure it out for you. ;-) It won't do everything (it's hopeless with PDFs, in particular), but it's excellent with PubMed links and okay with most DOIs. Formatting all but one took me just 10 minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I did some copyediting. I think you've done really well with expanding this. You cited a few reviews and a few primary sources – which is probably fine for such a rare (and newly described) condition, since you're either using them as footnotes on historical claims, or you've appropriately labeled them as being from single studies. Someday, we'll hopefully be able to replace them all with reviews and textbooks, but this looks like the best available sources at this point. I think you (or someone who knows more about nerves than I do) need to look at Radiologically isolated syndrome#Diagnosis to re-write it in your own words. Copying whole lists can be a copyright violation, and of course nobody wants that. But overall, I think you should be proud of what you've already accomplished here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the tip! It was right in front of me but I missed it. And yeah unfortunately I knew about needing to use secondary sources etc. but struggled to find much being said in reviews compared to the primary literature. Oh and yeah I tried to do my best to reword the list in my own words but perhaps it should be turned into a table like has been done for the McDonald_criteria#Diagnostic_Criteria, as it would be hard to change the wording so much that it is not a copyvio? Would you suggest I nominate the article to DYK? Calaka (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey WhatamIdoing, I decided to be bold and make the nomination. Let me know if its all good. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation

Over the past several years the bonanza in research into mindfulness meditation has been mirrored to give us a large amount of content here:

• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness-based stress reduction
• Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
• Acceptance and commitment therapy (article here mostly written by its inventor?!)
• Research on mindfulness
• Neural mechanisms of mindfulness meditation
• Brain activity and meditation

The content is popular: the main Mindfulness article currently averages over 2,300 hits/day. The content is also positive verging on brochure-esque and makes a number of therapeutic claims. In the main article Wikipedia states:

Clinical studies have documented both physical and mental health benefits of mindfulness in different patient categories as well as in healthy adults and children.^[3][24][25] Programs based on Kabat-Zinn's and similar models have been widely adopted in schools, prisons, hospitals, veterans' centers, and other environments, and mindfulness programs have been applied for additional outcomes such as for healthy aging, weight management, athletic performance, for children with special needs, and as an intervention during the perinatal period."

Buried in the "Scientific research" there is the caveat that "overall methological quality of meditation research is poor and thus yields unreliable results", but that doesn't stop the claims rolling on including that mindfulness meditiation leads to "a reduced risk of inflammation-related diseases and favourable changes in biomarkers". This last claim is sourced to a Frontiers journal and an alt-med journal. I'm seeing quite a lot of dodgy sourcing.

A recent Systematic review and meta-analysis (PMID 29455695) found "For all psychiatric disorders it has been tested, MBIs were judged to have weak or no empirical support. The conclusion of the study is that the evidence-base for MBIs for CMDs in the acute phase is weak." (quoting the abstract - I can't get the full text). In general I think we have a bit of a walled garden and NPOV problem here.

Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

My first thought is that the claim that mindfulness programs "have been widely adopted" and that "programs have been applied" is not a therapeutic claim at all. "We managed to get schools to buy this" or "We convinced some dieters to try this" is sales information, not biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And that's why it belongs in a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually with great respect to editors here and who I generally agree with, and I do agree in part with the comments, I'd add: There's no problem with charting the trajectory of mindfulness into the schools, and as well all the information on mindfulness does not fall under MEDRS, but what I object to, and maybe that is what others meant, is the way in which the content has been added. It becomes advertising because of the subtle and maybe not so subtle promotional quality of the writing which comes out context as well as undue weight. I've seen neutral content that when placed with other perfectly neutral content becomes either pejorative or promotional because of placement. If it were me I'd clean up the article by adjusting weight and context. Since I have edited other articles on meditation techniques the kind of extensive editing I'm talking about might be seen as non- neutral so I'll leave that to someone else. I realize I'm probably being somewhat obscure in my references; I want to remain somewhat removed from this article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC))

Excellent points all around. I’m old enough to have seen many “”breakthough!” psych treatments come and go. A few have done the hard work and over time generated empirical support, e.g., CBT; exposure therapies; SSRI/SNRI rx (although oversold to some extent); & modern ECT for severe depression. Perhaps mindfulness therapies will get there too, but not at present.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a re-write – I'm feeling grumpy, so I'd probably write that it "has been marketed to older people, dieters, athletes, teachers, and new mothers" rather than what's there at the moment – but I'd oppose anyone insisting upon "MEDRS sources" about marketing.

In the category of such sources, though, I remember reading that some sort of meditation/mindfulness kind of thing was done in prisons but found to be harmful (not just useless). So if I had an hour free, I'd probably look for contrarian sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is specifically about mindfulness and Mindfulness meditation and whatever research has been done on this form of meditation so sources would have to be specific to mindfulness-to save you time. Sorry if I am stating the obvious. And to clarify, I am in no way saying mindfulness is not effective-I have no idea if it is or not- simply that the article must be crafted so that it does not appear to be promotional- not to be confused with positive-and that health related aspects of the article have MEDRS sources. In a quick look it looks as if mindfulness in prisons is useful but I didn't check the quality of the sources. Mindfulness mediation research may be pretty new so research may still be in infancy and all that means in terms of quality.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC))

There is a meta-anlaysis on acceptance and commitment therapy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25547522) that claims "Our findings indicate that ACT is more effective than treatment as usual or placebo and that ACT may be as effective in treating anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, and somatic health problems as established psychological interventions." At the moment there doesn't seem to be a widespread consensus on the efficacy of these more recent psychological treatments. Lucleon (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Postpartum immune function

Resolved

I added some questions to Talk:Postpartum physiological changes about a paragraph in that article that I found surprising. The passage seems to say that after birth, it is routine for the mother to get a blood test to assess whether she is immune to rubella and other diseases. I have never heard of this being done. Does the passage make sense to the other editors here? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've commented there. — soupvector (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

I've found a stray, which as usual needs expert input to resolve. Japan Academy Prize (academics) links to DAB page Hyperglycinemia. Thanks in advance for any help, Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — soupvector (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Chromium

Chromium passed GA on April 29, 2009. The lead used to say the element is an essential human micronutrient. I reworded this to past tense and added the citation from EFSA from September 18, 2014. Just adding a !vote that nutrition belongs in this WikiProject. I am only a student but Cr⁶⁺ is highly toxic. Can anyone here help me fix Mineral (nutrient)? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to make this more difficult, here are two sources from the U.S. who still think chromium is essential. US NAS (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine) 2001 and US Office of Dietary Supplements March 2, 2018. The first from 2001 is our national reference. I expect but do not know that the second takes their cues from the first. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved my comments over to Talk:Chromium#Not_essential. — soupvector (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It uncovered ESPEN, a MEDRS. I can post follow up to Talk:Mineral (nutrient). -SusanLesch (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I commented there as well, but more eyes would be welcome. — soupvector (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

WHO Cancer update

The WHO cancer fact sheet from 2009 has been updated to its newest, 2018 version. This will impact many articles. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

it notes several refs including World Cancer Report 2014--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the "Cancer" article referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sponsored supplement?

Sucrose: a disaccharide of glucose (left) and fructose (right), important molecules in the body.

The Sugar article currently contains the statement "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases.". Both those refs are from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health". I'm not sure what that means. Is it a reliable medrs source, or a vanity publication?

Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the Corn Refiners Association (sic). The lead author of the second paper is James M. Rippe, the founder and director of Rippe Health. The other is written by John Sievenpiper [edit:name made into wikilink] and his postdoc. Dr. Sievenpiper has received media attention for the support he has received from the sugar industry.

There is a better source. A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about low-glycemic index diets for cardiovascular health, because all the evidence was poor-quality. But I'd like to know if the supplement should be used as a source at all, as it is also cited on sugar addiction (this paper). The entire Rippe supplement seems to be open access, which is nice, but I can't see a copyleft.

Finally, should I take Ozzie10aaaa's advice and request a GA reassessment for the whole article? I don't think I can bring, or keep, the medical section up to standard by my own efforts.

HLHJ (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Khan and Sievenpiper source has a very clear and broad COI, but that doesn't disqualify it immidately. The presence of other sources, and the fact that the systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not plagued with COI is a good reason to avoid it. It also doesn't really support the above statement, saying:

In fact, the harmful effect of SSBs is likely driven by a collinearity with an unhealthy lifestyle as SSB drinkers consume more calories, exercise less, smoke more and have a poor dietary pattern.

So I'm not going to say it has to be purged, but it should be given less weight, and maybe one could push the unhealthy lifestyle connection more, with the caveat that this is speculation.

The Rippe and Angeloupoulos source falls below this level of evidence, and is pretty much a narrative review of RCTs, which when we have meta-analysis and systematic reviews of the same topic — should not be included. It mentions systemic reviews in its summary, but the focus is squarely on RCTs. There is quite significant COI here as well, which further weighs it down. It also cites a systemtic review, focusing on a point that is omitted from the sentence above:

his caused these investigators to conclude “the most obvious mechanism by which increased sugars might promote weight gain is by increasing energy consumption to an extent that exceeds energy output and restores energy balance… we observed that isoenergetic replacement of dietary sugars with other macronutrients resulted in no change in weight. This finding strongly suggested that energy balance is a major determinant of the potential for dietary sugars to influence measures of body fatness… the data suggests that the change in body fatness that occurs from modifying intake of sugars results from in alteration in energy balance rather than physiologic or metabolic consequence of monosaccharides or disaccharides.”

So what I can infer here is that they both hypothesize that sugar consumption leads to weight gain, because(?) it causes increased caloric intake. This confounder is side-stepped by the authors focusing on the one systematic review on restricted diets, rather than the "ad libitum" or "at will" diets of the two available systematic reviews.

Point being, I Support removing that sentence, because it is not reasonably supported by the sources. They miss too many points, and the major findings are ignored. They could be used to support other statements in the Sugar-article, but I'm pretty sure there are better sources, with less COI-issues to be found. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Also why was this removed in April/May of 2017:

Studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk. Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.

Switching from saturated fatty acids to carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction. Other studies have shown that the risk of developing coronary heart disease is decreased by adopting a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids but low in sugar, whereas a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet brings no reduction. This suggests that consuming a diet with a high glycemic load typical of the "junk food" diet is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease.

The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.

Studies are suggesting that the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant than the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.

A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) can substantially increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases. According to a Swedish study of 4301 people undertaken by Lund University and Malmö University College, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood lipids, causing a high level of small and medium low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL). In contrast, the amount of fat eaten did not affect the level of blood fats. Incidentally quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to an increase in the good HDL blood fat.

References

Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC) [edited by HLHJ to put the entire quote in quote format]

Some of the section you quote was removed by Jytdog on grounds, mostly, that the sources were terrible or primary (details in his edit summaries). The section as edited by Jytdog still contained the bit about animal studies, but the section was entirely replaced by Zefr just after Jytdog cleaned up the section. Zefr's version is still current and cites only the Rippe Supplement refs I am worried about (I've told Zefr I was worried and would look into them).

Does anyone know what the European Journal of Nutrition (not to be confused with the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or other similarly-named journals) means when it describes a publication as being a sponsored supplement? HLHJ (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. yes we should be careful with regard to James Rippe and his practice, Rippe Health. See this 2014 NYT piece and this WaPo piece from the same time. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

not good[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the references, Jytdog. I've added them to my increasingly lengthy history of notgoodness at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information. HLHJ (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any generally-recognized database of the conflicts of interests of journals? Not Beall's list of predatory publishers, but a list of journals' funding, grants, reprint orders, etc.? Whether they print paid supplements, and on what terms? Or even just more basic stuff? In this case, I can't find a way to be sure who had editorial control of a sponsored supplement.

More subtle versions of the shill publication Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine might declare their funding and cite one another like mad. Has anyone heard of other sponsored journal-like things, or how to spot them? HLHJ (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Paging User:DGG... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Found it! Linked from the European Journal of Nutrition homepage (which I had looked for before, but absurdly, hadn't found). It turns out that the entire supplement was under the editorial control of James Rippe.

I am unconvinced that this form of publication funding serves the public good. Also, being the editor of a supplement containing a paper on which one is the lead author seems unusual.

I was curious to know who funded and edited the journal's other supplements; they publish a lot of them (23 of them, in fact, starting abruptly in 2002, after forty-odd years of the journal's existence). The resulting list was long, so I've posted it in my draftspace. In summary; I don't think I, personally, would cite anything from the European Journal of Nutrition. There are just too many conflicts of interest for my taste. I would heavily scrutinize any statement backed up by a paper they had published. They may well have published some respectable research; I didn't actually read the articles, although some of the stuff I skimmed I found worrying (the idea of supporting nutrition trends, for instance, and stuff that I would template as too advertising-like if I found it on Wikipedia).

Does anyone know anything about the history of this publication? It would be nice to be able to add something to the European Journal of Nutrition article. HLHJ (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Eur J Nutrition was by no means the only publisher to issue such sponsored supplements. A number of otherwise very high quality journals did, and they represent a disgraceful cheapening of the medical literature. I do not consider any such publication to be truly peer-reviewed--it has the same status as any other conference papers in a commercially sponsored conference. In many cases these supplements were included only in the issues sent to individual subscribers, not to libraries. Essentially, they were advertisements.

I am amazed and horrified to learn that they are still being published. I do not know how fair it is to stigmatize this particular journal. I know where to ask, and I shall inquire further.

What I am fairly sure about, is that ewe cannot use the material as a RS even in our usual meaning of RS, and certainly not a MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. There are "European+Journal+of+Nutrition"+&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1 39 other articles that mention the European Journal of Nutrition, and from a quick scan, some of them are from other sponsored supplements whose conflicts of interest I listed. Some references, like the one in the Vitamin A or Lactulose articles, are obvious because part of the citation mentions that they are from a supplement; you can see it from the search page. I'll replace them with {{citation needed}} and a suitable edit comment, unless there's a better route. But the formatting of the supplements was not very consistent, so if we are going to keep the non-paid-supplement articles from the European Journal of Nutrition, I'll go through and check them individually.

Should non-paid-supplement articles from the European Journal of Nutrition count as WP:RS or WP:MEDRS?

HLHJ (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I needd to revise my comment: On my talk page, you pointed out" this supplement article, cited in Venous stasis, from 2012. It includes a very precise breakdown of what the supplement sponsor is not allowed to do. HLHJ (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "

and indeed, this may be a different type than the earlier pseuo-peer-revieweed articles I remember. I will need to check further, but my feeling is that we should not necessarily ban all such references, but they do need a comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[edit:indent by HLHJ]

Fair. I should say that some Eur. J. Nutr. articles, even at least one in the Rippe supplement, appear not to have major authorial COIs. If they aren't properly peer-reviewed, though, I don't think they should be cited for anything important. The attitude of the EJN editorial board to peer review is a concern to me, based on the limited information I have. The stated policy of the EJN on supplements is available from the EJN homepage as a pop-up from the sidebar link "Aims and Scope":

Supplements: Symposia or workshop articles may be published as supplements in the EJN and are funded by their sponsors at a special rate. The EJN welcomes queries about the publication of supplements.

I think auto-commenting on reference COIs is a good idea in principle, and I'd be very glad of DGG's comments on the suggestions for that below. HLHJ (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

General policy on paid supplements

So then I searched for "Suppl", the abbreviation used for supplements in some citations. 7,855 Wikipedia articles contain it. The first one, apart from redirects of abbreviations to articles on journals (e.g. "Atheroscler Suppl"->"Atherosclerosis (journal)"), was Prebiotic (nutrition). It cited a 2007 paper from a supplement called "Supplement: Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics" in the The Journal of Nutrition, which is published by Oxford University Press. In only the PDF version of the article, there is a footnote:

Published as a supplement to The Journal of Nutrition. The articles included in this supplement are derived from presentations and discussions at the World Dairy Summit 2003 of the International Dairy Federation (IDF) in a joint IDF/FAO symposium entitled ‘‘Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics on Health Maintenance—Critical Evaluation of the Evidence,’’ held in Bruges, Belgium. The articles in this publication were revised in April 2006 to include additional relevant and timely information, including citations to recent research on the topics discussed. The guest editors for the supplement publication are Michael de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir.

Guest Editor disclosure: M. de Vrese and J. Schrezenmeir have no conflict of interest in terms of finances or current grants received from the IDF. J. Schrezenmeir is the IDF observer for Codex Alimentarius without financial interest. The editors have received grants or compensation for services, such as lectures, from the following companies that market pro- and prebiotics: Bauer, Danone, Danisco, Ch. Hansen, Merck, Mueller Milch, Morinaga, Nestec, Nutricia, Orafti, Valio, and Yakult.

The Internation Dairy Federation is an industry association. No full form of "FAO" is given; I don't know if they mean the Food and Agriculture Organization. I don't know who funded the supplement.

The Journal of Nutrition is in fact run by the American Society for Nutrition, whose Wikipedia article fails to mention their funding. Their website lists a some familiar large companies in the food industry, which list I have wikified at Talk:American Society for Nutrition#Funding. There is a general lack of Wikipedia content on the sponsorship of medical professional organizations.

This is one paper. I think I need some help. Should there be an edit filter that automatically warns any editor trying to add a supplement reference to check for supplement sponsorship? Or is this too broad? HLHJ (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There should not be an edit filter (which are "expensive" in computer terms). There could, however, be a bot that leaves a friendly note on the article's talk page, so that any interested editor is aware of the question.

BTW, are you aware of the template {{Better source}}? It's very handy for situations in which, for whatever reason, you think that the current source should be replaced by something more solid. Tagging a ref for improvement is often more practical than blanking it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I was aware of {{Better source}}, but hadn't thought of it in this context. Thank you, WhatamIdoing, it's a good idea.

That's a good reason for not using an edit filter. I think the basic problem here is that it can take time-consuming digging to uncover COIs. We need metadata that makes COIs jump out at the reader and the editor. I've started by posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Journal conflicts of interest, with a suggestion that Wikipedia articles on journals routinely contain statements about the journal's funding and COIs. I've also posted to Wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData#Conflict-of-interest metadata, asking if the metadata could help, say through parameters to make refs have a COI flag with a link to details. Opinions, wishlists? HLHJ (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lengthy treatment section

I can't help but feel that the treatment section of this article reads more like an advertisement for Anakinra. Could someone else take a look please. CV9933 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

SPA?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Typically we don't called editors with 3 edits SPAs. Their edits can still be problematic though. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns; the article looks in better shape now. CV9933 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. Have further worked over the Schnitzler syndrome page and the anakinra both of which were horrible. Our article on the drug was mostly copy/pasted from the label :( Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

List of mystery diseases

List of mystery diseases – This article needs to be defined. The article says it is a list of "disease[s] for which the cause has not yet been identified". Is it a list of diseases that are a complete mystery, like "nodding disease" in the article, or should it include all diseases of undetermined cause, like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and even major depression? The article description makes me think it is the latter, but I don't know if there's any need for an article on that topic. Natureium (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and would add that using the term "disease" in the name of this particular article seems unfortunate. Many strive to use "syndrome" for unhealthy conditions that have unknown or multiple causes, and reserve "disease" for unhealthy conditions with a defined cause. While this distinction is very far from absolute, the term "disease" tilts toward "known cause". — soupvector (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a conversation that will be most productively had on the article's talk page, i.e., where there will be a record for all future editors who are trying to figure that out. (Also, please document the result, whatever it is, in the article's lead, per standard WP:SALLEAD practice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The intersection of experimental, alternative, and cutting-edge cancer treatment

This news article:

Gellman, Lindsay (2018-03-22). "The Last Resort: Private clinics in Germany sell cancer patients hope — and mixed results — at exorbitant prices". Longreads. Retrieved 2018-03-24.

might be interesting to some editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Especially the last 5 paragraphs. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

See also here. I wonder whether this clinic is notable enough for an article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[3]probably is notable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What may also be notable is the phenomenon of private (oncology) clinics doing this — because the Hallwang clinic is far from the only. It also reminds me of a case where a woman had travelled to Germany for SLE treatment for a full bone-marrow transplant, an experimental and highly dangerous procedure. Fortunately for her it went well, but the marketing and atmosphere is remarkably similar to that in the article. I don't know where we could place such an article, but I think focusing too much on the single actor is only marginally useful.

In fact we have no article on Financial toxicity, which has been lifted to the forefront the past few years as a major negative effect of cancer treatment (then often focusing on the US). The current redirect is to Cancer#Economic_effect and only reads:

In 2007, the overall costs of cancer in the US—including treatment and indirect mortality expenses (such as lost productivity in the workplace)—was estimated to be $226.8 billion. In 2009, 32% of Hispanics and 10% of children 17 years old or younger lacked health insurance; "uninsured patients and those from ethnic minorities are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly."

References

There is a whole lot more we could write about here. RationalWiki has an article on the Hallwang Clinic https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hallwang_Clinic (which is CC-BY-SA, but does not adhere to our sourcing standards). Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

We have articles on the Oasis of Hope Hospital and (indirectly) the Burzynski clinic; it might be good to find a way to group all this stuff together rather than have one article per dodgy clinic - we could end up with quite a lot! Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

If for no other reason, writing ledes with "The xx clinic is a private oncology clinic alleged to engage in profiteering off terminal cancer patients, contributing greatly to financial toxicity of terminal cancer". That way we don't need to go into the details on each article, but can direct to a broader article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alex: I would rather not see articles on individual clinics.

In addition to the financial problem, we should probably expand our content on the "problem" of hope.[4] WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

User trying to use a self published book by Ann Hibner Koblitz as a source. They also wrote the article about her and her publishing company Kovalevskaia Fund. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the user probably saw Ann Hibner Koblitz and Kovalevskaia Fund to be red link and that's why they created their article. Looks like an enthusiast, but nothing really more than that. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

[5][6][7]agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Chromosome number for Mouse genes are wrong

• Module:Infobox gene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have noted that practically every gene I look up on Wikipedia shows a human and mouse gene in the panel on the right. The chromosome number given for the mouse ortholog position is always incorrect. Instead of the correct chromosome location, it always gives the human chromosome location in the place of the mouse chromosome location. I cannot figure out how to change this and is likely in error in the lookup code that populates that chromosome field for the mice.

For an example, look at this gene and view the summary data panel on the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corticotropin-releasing_hormone_receptor_1

Eakhiro (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a problem with Module:Infobox gene but I don't know how to fix that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

From a quick look at the infobox of CRHR1 I can't tell which data item is supposed to be wrong. The CRHR1 gene is said to be on Chromosome 17 (human) and on Chromosome 11 of the mouse. These locations agree with the references. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Look further below, in the "summary data panel", there it says:

Location (UCSC) | Chr 17: 45.78 – 45.84 Mb | Chr 17: 104.13 – 104.18 Mb

I think this is what user:Eakhiro means; the right-most value is for mouse and says "Chr 17" incorrectly. --Treetear (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis concerns

User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

I see that, for medical articles, Wikipedia is no longer primarily a collaboratively edited text & image encyclopaedia, but a platform for documentaries created by a private third party. Videos which Wikipedians have no ability to edit, nor our readers any ability to verify facts against sources. This is not Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 11:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

while I partly agree w/ your assessment, what similiar quality of videos do we have that is comparable w/ [8]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer-created collaboratively-written encyclopaedia. Their quality is a concern, actually, not a feature. If I want to watch a program on epilepsy, I'll turn on the BBC. If my attention span on the subject only reaches 8 minutes, then I guess there is YouTube. What part of these videos fits in any way whatsoever with Wikipedia? It is educational and has a free licence, so Commons can host it. But it doesn't belong here. I created WP:MEDRS so editors could work together on creating articles with the highest quality sources. Now we have one editor adding and edit warring unsourced videos into all our major medical articles. I ask myself what was the point of WP:MEDR if it can be ignored when the content is a video rather than text.

For the YouTube generation, this is now Wikipedia: unsourced content brought to you by a billionaire's private foundation. -- Colin°^Talk 12:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we need to review each on on its merits, and errors (if found) need to be pointed out to the creator. I must say, I thought watermarks were not allowed on images, in which case the intro with the name cant remain. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber, I don't think this is a "case by case" issue. The problems are fundamental. The topic of a Wikipedia article has been produced in video format, hosted here and embedded in the lead of 300 of our medical articles. This content is not collaboratively editable and does not conform to any of Wikipedia's fundamental polices or guidelines. I have now found three articles where Doc James edit wars to retain these videos when editors find problems, and I have no doubt there are many more. I'm not surprised by this because I have not found Doc James capable of collaborative editing, but these videos take that to the extreme. Since when did fixing issues on Wikipedia require "pointing out to the creator" and waiting for them to get around to re-doing a video. This is a wiki. I'm supposed to be able to change it. Quickly. This is article content WP:OWNED by Osmosis and forced upon us by Doc James. Additionally, is anyone here happy that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply? The fundamental for Wikipedia use by students, journalists, etc should be that we provide sources so they can check the facts and jump off to other professional publications where they can read more. This is not possible in an "article-as-as-video". This stuff belongs on YouTube.

Cas, would you be happy if someone came along to one of your featured articles, and inserted a bold paragraph in the lead. It begins with "Content created by Osmosis", contains several factual errors, and ends with Facebook and Twitter links to Osmosis. When you press the Edit button to revise it, you are told to fill in a form and your complaint will be forward to Osmosis for consideration. Meanwhile you are unable to remove or revise it. That's what we have here. It is "content" and our content and behavioural policies must apply. I think all of it should be removed from WP. Editors may link to it if they find it meets our WP:EL policy. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You raise some valid points but I am unhappy with your approach. You talk about Doc James being uncooperative, but you are insisting that your solution be implemented immediately regardless of the views of other editors. It seems to me that there is a possibility of a productive discussion that reaches a consensus. (My own view is that I would like to know more about this. Having worked on a lot of neuroscience articles, I understand very well how valuable media is and how difficult it is to get media that we can use at all, so I'm afraid that applying a strict MEDRS approach will simply result in us having nothing but text in our articles.) Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Where have I "insist[ed] that [my] solution be implemented immediately"? I have started a discussion. Unlike some here, I'm not edit warring on any articles. Looie496, which part of "collaboratively edited" is not important aspect of Wikipedia to you? This isn't a animation clip of some neurons firing. It is the entire article topic in video format. Written by a paid employee of private foundation. I'm all for short video clips. They can be individually sourced if they make any claims or are inserted into an article in a way that makes a claim. And they can be replaced just like photos and other static images. An entire 10 minute documentary that covers the whole article topic and yet obeys none of the rules of Wikipedia is not appropriate. -- Colin°^Talk 14:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Looie496: I have broad concerns about the direction WP:MED has taken in recent years, and this is a very good example of the other, similar problems. For a good view of history, I recommend that everyone reading today click on the History tab at WP:MEDRS, and go to the first, oldest entries. This project seems to have lost its way since the time we fought so hard for quality sourcing in health and bio medical content. Editing for the overall medical integrity of our articles has been replaced by three competing concerns: translating leads, building some little box thingie to spread our increasingly outdated content, and installing videos that are against the very core of everything we accomplished with MEDRS. We used to work beyond leads of articles; have we given up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• It would be fine to add a link to their YouTube videos under External links, but embedding them into articles means we are offering free advertising to a company that is selling these videos to medical students. There are free videos and then there is Osmosis Prime at $9–$18 a month. Clearly having the free videos embedded in high-traffic Wikipedia articles means more people might sign up for Osmosis Prime. According to Osmosis's terms of use, the company behind it is Knowledge Diffusion Inc., 571 Mather Mail Center Cambridge, MA 02138 (see Bloomberg).

I've already seen two cases of volunteer editors explaining at length what is wrong with a video, and either the company rep or Doc James saying the video will be updated. This is the worst aspect of paid editing: that unpaid volunteers end up doing their work for them. Doc James and Ocaasi, can you say how this came to happen and what the role of the WMF was? SarahSV ^(talk) 14:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SlimVirgin:. WMF played only an initial role in this. We fielded the request from our partnerships team who had been contacted by Osmosis. I set up an initial meeting. From there it was a handoff to Wiki Project Med Foundation, and I was acting in my capacity as a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation where I was previously the outreach coordinator and a board member. I documented our plan here Wikipedia:Osmosis, laying out what was intended on a public page. That was the entirety of my role; the rest was handled by several members of Wiki Project Med Foundatin. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jake, thanks for the reply. Because you created Wikipedia:Osmosis with your WMF account, I assumed the WMF was involved. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

SV, I am having problems with them even as an External link. They raise concerns for me with respect to verifiability and reliability, and in the medical case, are quite at odds with MEDRS (which we would not likely have today were it not for Colin's insight and incisive editing). These people are creating videos without the knowledge of the recent highest quality sources we require in medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandy, I should have said that they might be okay as External links, but not if there are sourcing and accuracy issues. Allowing a private company to host its own material within the body of articles is an odd thing to have done, especially when it's in the business of selling paid versions of the videos, so I'd like to know how this came about. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree they are better in EL, based on what I've seen. If they are seriously outdated, then they should be removed until they have been updated. On most topics there is a ton of serious medical vids that could be used. Having just watched an Osmosis one for the full 10 minutes, on PanNETs (not yet linked from the article, it had a clear if slow-moving explanation of what the pancreas does, and where tumours can start, but only super-brief bits on diagnosis and treatment. In my usual area of art history, we have large numbers of 4-5 minute videos from Khan Academy embedded in articles, which I'm fine with. The video is obviously helpful, they use decent academic art historians, and being out of date is not a serious issue. Actually many medical articles would benefit from a curated group of say 3-4 video links in EL. I don't at all like the DMOZ/now Curlie links that is all many articles have in EL - I think most have not been properly updated for years, and they are wildly US-centric. There is a lot of excellent stuff on You Tube, but also a lot of mediocre stuff by doctors, and of course much pure crap/fringe. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I see it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 76#Videos in December 2015. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There are some valid concerns being raised here but the sloppiness and cow-having in this thread is not conducive to working anything out. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to translate "cow-having ". Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

have a cow, verb. cow-having = nominalization. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not known in UK. We have kittens. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin good on you for finally going and finding the original discussion. It has been discussed other times as well as this search shows. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Currently travelling. So will comment in full in a bit. A few points, the videos are under an open license. Readers have requested videos for a long time. The scripts for the videos are posted for comments by our community before they are produced. The group will make updates and corrections based on feedback. References are previded. Might be good to have refs by page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

reset

• (edit conflict) As I understand it the "unmet need" being addressed here is video content that is appropriately licensed and good quality. Along with more and more users accessing WP via mobile (which has led us to put more work into ensuring that first sentences are tight and not cluttered) another thing that is happening is that more and more readers want video content (this was discussed a bunch in the movement strategy discussion).

I look at the video thing with some askance and have not engaged with it - I work on text, exclusively. A-V content is never going to be editable by dinosaurs like me (and apparently, like Colin) - we will need good collaborators to work with, on creating and updating such content, where we have it.

But as I understand it, the desire here was/is to meet that stated "unmet need" of our users -- people who want knowledge. That is kind of the baseline that in my view this discussion should start from.

With that in mind, it is my understanding that per open.osmosis.org the for-profit company has made a ton of videos available under the CC 4/0 license, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

That's a good thing.

That is also advertising for the for-profit company.

The question as always with these things, is where in the line between what helps us meet our mission and what is too much helping the company with advertising?

The same kind of issue arises with many collaborations - the Cochrane people sometimes overcite Cochrane, WiRs sometimes end up promoting their host institution. These are not simple issues.

If we keep the osmosis videos (and I am not opposed to keeping them) I think there are some things that could be done to make them less advertising-y, like getting rid of the social media links. I think it is OK that they would be named as creators at the end. A link to their website there would be OK too, I ~think~. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

So why not just add links to videos as ELs? Well one is that this does not promote OA licenses. Note Khan videos are not under an OA license. Second is that these ELs do not end up in offline versions of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not okay, because they are using the free videos to get people to buy Osmosis Prime. The free videos are on YouTube (under the standard YouTube licence), and the pitch is "if you do like those videos, you should definitely try out OsmosisPrime". If we want videos so badly that we're willing to hand over free advertising space inside articles, I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry (or really anyone) would happily produce high-quality "free" videos in exchange for being allowed to advertise. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No they are not using the free videos to get people to buy Osmosis Prime. The videos are useful to many independent of other ways they raise money (such as providing quizes) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To be clear the cc 4.0 videos are on the commons, not on youtube. we are not linking to the youtube videos. Bringing in the youtube postings is not helpful and distracting. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube links are relevant because you can see there that the free videos are offered as a taster to encourage people to buy Osmosis Prime. It's therefore important to them to get eyes on those free videos, and Wikipedia is ideal for that purpose. As part of the arrangement with Wikipedia, they asked to be placed in the first section of articles (above the fold): "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate." [9]

Re: Knowledge Diffusion Inc., they were given a $250,000 grant in January 2017: "In collaboration with WikiProject Medicine and the UCSF-UCB Joint Masters Program, Osmosis will undertake a 12-month pilot project ..." [10] Funding from TEDCO in December 2017. [11] In January 2018 Coverys, the insurance provider, announced that it was investing in them: "To date, Osmosis has focused on medical students but is working to gain traction with a number of additional healthcare provider segments including nursing, physician assistants, pharmacy, dentistry and others." [12]

Pinging some editors interested in WP:PAID: @Smallbones, Coretheapple, Kudpung, and TonyBallioni: SarahSV ^(talk) 21:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledged above that they get advertising from it; that is basic business - we don't need any "proof" of that; the youtube videos are indeed completely irrelevant and a distraction. We are not linking to them.

Any partner with whom we collaborate, from the British Museum to Cochrane, gets exposure through those collaborations.

There are obvious problems with execution of this specific collaboration. That does not mean the whole thing is Evil.

Doc James is generally very, very leery of collaborations with businesses and as he is one who has been most involved in this, I am withholding judgement until he has a chance to weigh in with more background. Maybe we will keep them and fix them; maybe we will get rid of them. The drama is premature and unhelpful. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly premature; this was set up in December 2015. What happened here is that someone decided it was okay to let a for-profit company effectively add a few unsourced paragraphs to medical articles—paragraphs not written by specialists and not capable of being edited—topped and tailed with their company logo. And hard to work with because you have to sit through a whole video. And when people tried to remove them because they contained mistakes (or disputed material), they were reverted and told to seek consensus, even though there was no consensus to add them in the first place. See this revision for apparent WMF involvement. That's the sort of thing you were railing against when it came to Wikidata. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What is premature is the judgement embedded in the section header and the part above the break, and the framing you, Colin, and SandyGeorgia have put on this, that the collaboration is fundamentally evil. I set up this sub-section as a "reset" to try to have a calm discussion.

We may decide that the existing videos are too promotional for the collaboration partner and should come down. That is one issue. (I lean that way btw)

Whether the whole collaboration is unworkable is a separate issue. That is a larger discussion and we don't have the background from Doc James to understand that yet; that part is premature to actually figure out now. It may well be that the Osmosis folks represented that they were going to set up a separate nonprofit to carry this stuff and never did. It may be that the execution turned out different than what was planned. It may be that we should walk away from this -- it may be that we can reset it. There is a lot to discuss and it isn't cut and dry.

A collaboration partner willing and able to make high quality, cc 4.0 licensed video is not a potato to be thrown out the window in some mad rush to judgement spurred by someone acting like our house is burning down. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: interesting (and troubling) info you are producing. Thanks for taking the time. I am also wondering about the Wiki Project Med Foundation role relative to WMF.[13] I do not know how the relationships are set up, but I would think that WMF would not want anyone serving in any WMF capacity to participate in creating content on medical articles, or determining what goes in them. It has immunity as an internet service provider that hosts user-generated content; as such, it is typically concerned that neither it nor its employees run the risk of creating medical content which could be wrong, misleading, or incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Another perennial ax-grinding issue. This discussion is hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jyt, you are generating the appearance that anything you disagree with is ax-grinding. No matter how many people chime in to say they see the problem. And yet, you do not seem to see how this approach stalls WP:MED, how that has affected content, and how the stalling leads to fallout at places like Jimbo talk. What I am seeing lately in here is that we just can't talk about, and work on, content anymore. I no longer even consider bringing my requests for help on articles to this talk page. I just don't see a content focus anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I was wondering about that too. Jake, would you mind telling us whatever you know about this? You created Wikipedia:Osmosis in December 2015 with your WMF account, and listed on the page the five people who were involved: James Heilman, representing WikiProject Med Foundation; Rishi and Kyle from Osmosis; Sylvia Ventura, WMF Strategic Partnerships, and Jake Orlowitz, WMF Community Engagement. That does make it look like a Wikimedia Foundation–Osmosis–WikiProject Med Foundation project. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you also noted above the 4th point, "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate." How did the idea of placing videos below inboxes come about, in terms of standard layout? Do none of our MOS guidelines matter anymore, and why did we allow an external organization, making money off of this, a preferential place in Wikipedia articles? Who makes decisions of this nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the page Wikipedia:Osmosis posted by Jake (User:Ocaasi), I see issues from point 3 onwards ...

1. Jake will document the pilot plan (this page)
2. James will introduce this concept and sample videos to Wiki Project Medicine
3. WikiProject Medicine will decide if the video content, quality, and type is appropriate for a pilot on 10-50 articles.
4. James will work with Rishi to identity most-needed videos for popular articles (use mobile pageview data and v:1.0 tool)
5. Kyle and Tanner will upload the videos to commons using a compatible format with complete metadata and useful descriptions
6. Fil will assist Kyle in uploading translated subtitles to videos on commons, and place the videos in the first sections of non-English articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate
7. James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate
8. Osmosis will track video views and traffic and report back on changes
9. Additionally, Osmosis will add an edit/comment link to their internal teaching tools which incorporate embedded Wikipedia content
10. Future opportunities may explore using Osmosis learning tools (flash cards/quizzes)

Starting with point 3, what I see in archived discussions are samples of the problems now being revealed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was all in 2015. The vids put up for editor review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis have mostly not received any, and where they did there is no indication that comments were acted on to change anything. No sign of "Osmosis will track video views and traffic and report back on changes" there - has that happened? On a project I did with the Metropolitan Museum of Art their stats often showed the bulk of their views for a particular item coming via WP links. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a good point about the lack of review of the content and lack of response when there were reviews. We have not been keeping up with that. (good on User:soupvector for having done some of that) Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That editing did not feel particularly collaborative. I urged that the script editing be done in WP space so that it would be "our" content to retain/reuse as desired, to no avail. — soupvector (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That is a useful datapoint, yes. A collaboration partner that is not responsive, is not optimal. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Above User:Doc James claims "more and more readers want video content". I see from the linked page that it actually includes my video of a plasma globe! Does it actually say in the link that our readers don't want to read articles, they want the article as a video instead? Or that they'd like our text articles to have more videos for visual content. You see, unlike The Blue Planet nature documentaries, Epilepsy is not a visual topic. You can illustrate a few things like neurons firing or a person having a seizure with a short video clip. But fundamentally, readers come to Wikipedia to read sourced articles on topics. They don't come to spend 10 minutes watching a YouTube video instead, because, well, because YouTube. Is this actually WMF policy now, to just forget collaboratively editing text by volunteers, adding sources, and just get some billionaire foundation to create article videos instead? Please let me know if it is, so I can shift my talk page from "semi-retired" to "fully-retired". -- Colin°^Talk 21:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

When I researched subjects finding out about pancreatic cancer online, some did look at videos, but these were mostly shortish "my story" ones by patients. The prominence the medical research charities and NHS etc. give these shows that they appeal to many. Some did look at "a doctor explains" ones though. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I will dare a response here. You have come at this like a bull in a china shop. I linked above to the WMF strategy effort, which includes surveys showing that our userbase wants video content. That is a thing.

My sense is that videos are intended to serve as an AV version of the WP:LEAD. One can, in good faith, view that as useful or not. It is kind of an interesting idea in my view.

There are other issues about collaborations generally that arise here.

There are also issues about the specific execution - the links and logos on the videos, whether we have carried our weight in reviewing them, and whether Osmosis has been responsive when changes were requested.

And the issue of who has the skills to edit something is quite distinct from whether people can edit them. The videos are cc licensed so anybody can make a derivative work of them, who has the skills and software. I cannot edit lua templates, but that doesn't mean that templates in lua are unWikipedian. I just don't have the skills. Other people do.

Those are all things that rational people can discuss. Running from forum to forum (I think you are up to 4 now) screaming bloody murder is not rational nor much "grown up" (à propos your remark here) Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone say we should stop providing text content? Nope not once, not ever.

Do we have data on viewership? Yes we do, at least on Wikipedia / Commons. Some data is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Medical/health related editing

• edit conflict

There are two issues here: One, that an aspect of WP editing is being supported monetarily by a wealthy foundation. Second, and the one I want to comment further on is that medical/ health related articles have real world consequences. All content in health related articles must be verifiably and reliably sourced. As well, and because of that editors must be able to edit the content. I have long felt that health related articles should be edited by experts and then locked. But then who are the experts one wonders. Second to that, if not locked readers should be welcomed with an article tag telling them the article can be edited by anyone. Now adding video content that is not sourced and that cannot be edited is a further step in the direction of content that is "dangerous". While this problem could extend to all articles there is an aspect of danger present when dealing with MEDRS.

There is an issue underpinning much of this problem and that is a desire to have articles so accurate that can be safely used by physicians and medical students. It scares me to think medical students and physicians could be using articles which can be edited by anyone, anyone at all, even 11 year olds. No one can watch all of these article all of the time...and all that means.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: Yes (as you supported back then). This is another discussion, so I hope you don't mind the new break (please change it to a title of your choice). No one should be trying to watch every medical article on Wikipedia; a prominent disclaimer would still help. And I am pretty sure the number of active medical content editors has declined since the problem was first raised at RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all in separating this out. And thank you. I think there is a bottom line, which is my point on this, to which all other arguments must take second place and that is the articles must be as accurate as is humanly possible. That means videos which are not editable, verifiable or reliable cannot be used. Everything else is layered on top of that. I'm writing the obvious but sometimes the obvious gets lost in the complex, and sometimes, once the obvious is taken care of everything else falls into place.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

utterly dead, beat to death, smitheereened issue. for crying out loud. I am logging out for today, i have had it. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jyt, this is looking much too personal for you. Could you allow any discussion to proceed on its merits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Abscesses 1.webm - Cut version

As a proof of concept, I've just edited File:Abscesses.webm and uploaded a new version File:Abscesses 1.webm, which is resized to 720p (to reduce the file size for Wikipedia use) and has the opening and closing credits removed, although I've left the "Open Osmosis" logo at the end. It's not a difficult job to do in Open Shot Video Editor (FOSS), nor did it take more than about 15 minutes. I understand that I couldn't correct any factual errors, but it may assuage some of our concerns about promotion. I also expect that Osmosis may not be too pleased (or maybe they won't worry), but their videos are released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and are therefore "fair game" from that perspective. I can see that re-doing 300 videos would not be a trivial task, but we do have crowd-sourcing on our side. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Medical editor trends for 2013 to 2016. Includes editors from across all languages. (data)

User:RexxS please see Commons:Watermarks. In particular the legal issues wrt removal of "copyright management information" (such as the title, author's name, copyright notice, etc.) Moving them to the file description page may not be viewed as sufficient by some, as the file still becomes more able to be copied elsewhere and then without the title, organisation name, copyright notice, etc, etc. The WMF advice is that "due to this lack of clarity, individual editors who are considering removing watermarks "should seriously consider the legal issues involved and consider consulting an attorney before doing so"". In other words, don't do this without explicit written permission from the copyright holder. Users should also be aware of the legal requirements in the CC licence wrt documenting changes made. For Wiki text this is done for you in the file history. For media, you have to do it explicitly on the file-description page. "shortened by 24 sec and resized to 720p for use in Wikipedias" is probably not sufficient unless you explain what you cropped out. -- Colin°^Talk 08:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Colin I think you need to read c:Commons:Watermarks and understand that it has no more standing than an essay. Nevertheless, it is clear there that promotional watermarks are unacceptable and should be removed. I'm afraid that the rest of what you wrote is simply scare-mongering (especially as the DCMA has no standing where I live). To be specific, you misquote the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, This what it actually says:

You are free to ... remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose ... Under the following terms: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

It defines "appropriate credit" as "the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material" and "indicate if changes were made" as "indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications". In addition it's obvious that your concern about future illegal adaptations cannot restrain an editor from creating legal derivatives that comply with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence: no-one can be held responsible for future misuse by others, otherwise no adaptation would ever be possible. My adaptation meets every condition of the licence – in fact it goes beyond what is required: I am only required to indicate if I made changes; there is no requirement to document what the changes were. Since I have not replaced the original, but have linked to it on the file description page, anyone can compare the files freely. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer, Rexxs? Really, you can do what you like because fundamentally the only person at legal risk when you upload content is you. But please don't offer legal advice or suggest other editors are safe to remove "copyright management information" from videos. Commons editors have largely stopped doing this. We're volunteers and nobody has your back. It isn't worth the risk. -- Colin°^Talk 11:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

We always get the scare of "are you a lawyer?" don't we? Well, let's say I am (or was, or my daughter is), does that alter your position? No, I thought not. Please stop trying to frighten people away from legitimately editing content that is freely licensed, simply because you want no solution other than complete removal. Of course everybody is free to remove promotional watermarking; this isn't "copyright management information", it's merely an advert. If you're so sure that my adaptation is a breach of copyright, feel free to go ahead and nominate it for deletion on Commons - they take copyright very seriously there - and see where that gets you. Until then, you need to stop trying to patronise other adults who are perfectly capable of reading a licence. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:RexxS we can simply request that they do this going forwards. And ask them to update all the ones going back.

Per a wealthy foundation, I do not get it, what is wrong with the creation of content being supported monetarily? The NIH allows some of their staff to edit Wikipedia on staff time. Do we now have members of this project who are going to decry that? Are we out to end the existence of WiRs?

The videos ARE being produced based on reliable sources and by experts. Yes I realize that you prefer academic to more easily accessible language. Academics do not need us though. And we do a greater good by using accessible language. I have been in disputes with a few people over this including SV and Sandy.

Here are the sources for this video.[14] Sources ARE provided if you look / ask.

The main page of Wikipedia announces "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We also have a disclaimer at the bottom. Sure some people want more.

How is the health of the medical community? I have been tracking that from 2013 to 2016. It appears to be fairly stable. Still trying to get numbers for 2017. Am likely going to hire someone to calculate the numbers as I do not have the technical skills to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc, we need to move in a direction where there is recognition: a) they are commercial links, not even acceptable in External links; b) editors can remove them just like any other ELNO, without c) being responsible for making sure they fix their inaccurate content. You have an example as real as can be at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies. The consensus criteria is dated 2017 (and contains knowledge that pre-dates 2017). The video is 2018. Either they don't know how to do the research, or they don't understand the topic; they don't understand REM sleep behavior disorder, they don't understand the onset of symptoms in DLB, and they don't understand the different kinds of memory. It is not my job to help them make money-- I am a volunteer Wikipedia editor. My role is to delete content that doesn't meet our guideline and policy, and that is a disservice to our reader. How can we be expected to find the time to write articles, deal with trolls, and also educate these people so they can make money, and why should we? The DLB example is much too clear to be ignored, and we've now got about a half dozen others that we know of. It is pretty unlikely that most of their 299 videos do not have similar problems. Without a workable solution that recognizes how serious this is, an RFC to the broader community should be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sandy,

1) The claims that they contain grave error is false. Even after I showed that they did not mis a core symptoms you persist. Yes they do not use the exact language you wish or the font you like. Yes they are written for a general audience. But that is who we are supposed to be writing for.

2) No they are not "commercial links". They are videos about medical topics released under a fully open license. This is exceedingly rare and in fact amazing.

3) With respect to REM sleep behavior disorder they state "symptoms: sleep disorder like sleep walking and talking in sleep" I also do not think we should use the exact technical language you want in the lead. Does that mean that they and I do not understand REM sleep behavior disorders? No, what it means is that we care more that Wikipedia's leads are accessible to people than that every complicated detail in it complete fullness ends up in the leads of our articles. Our leads and these videos are overviews. The body and sub articles are there for the full details.

4) My goal is to try to make our content accessible to a very large number of people. I do this in multiple ways a) by writing the leads in easy to understand language b) by working to provide video content for those who might have limited reading ability (through partnerships with Osmosis) Or simple prefer to learn by video c) by translation into other languages in collaboration with many folks both inside and outside Wikipedia d) by building offline apps in partnership with Kiwix e) by working with folks at Internet-in-a-Box to get Wikipedia's medical content out to those with no access to the Internet f) by improving our content here in collaboration with medical schools, schools of pharmacy, Cochrane, the NIH, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and other.

From what you write here and elsewhere maybe our goals are not compatible. I have discussed these goals at length here on this talk page for years. I have developed consensus for this goals both through discussion and by being bold. This has required countless hours of personal effort, with great personal and financial sacrifice. The efforts have been gradual over years. You have not joined these prior discussions. Now here you are criticizing all this work after being absent for so many years, without reviewing all the discussions that have come before. Apologies but this makes me deeply disappointed... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

James

1) I hope that, as a physician, you value precision in medical terminology. They are wrong. Not just in language. In timing of onset, and in distinction of types of memory and in the onset of that memory loss. They were wrong at Breastfeeding. Quick vs. sudden are significant terms in neurology-- they are wrong at Tic disorders. The answer to those, of you accusing me at WT:V of falsehoods are on my talk, but please, hear what others are trying to tell you.

2) They are making money off of the advertising that is driven to them thanks to us ... well, not all of us. If commercial is the wrong word for that, my apologies, but same thing.

3) REM sleep behavior disorder is not "sleep walking and sleep talking". You are aware as a physician that those are separate entities. RBD is dream enactment behavior during REM sleep. It can be as simple as flinching, flailing legs or arms-- no walking, no talking need be involved (although they may be). The description is inaccurate in ways that leads to misdiagnosis, so who are we educating, and why educate them incorrectly? That matters to us, right? We wouldn't do it in an article, so why a video? They Are Wrong. You are trained to value precision in medical description and terminology. They don't seem to be. I am surprised at you defending them.

4) Some of the direction here is driving inaccuracies into the leads of every article I see. This is not Simple Wikipedia. (A thought: why not have the translation project work off of simple Wikipedia, since that is the level they want?) Seeking the most dumbed-down sources and driving them into the lead of every article quite often has resulted in errors-- both blatant, and of significant nuance. Leads are summaries per Wikipedia guideline for a good reason.

I recognize and appreciate your personal sacrifice, dedication, and effort. It is indisputable. I do.

But. I ask that you listen to other editors, and realize some of these projects are costing us (us being WP:MED in terms of content guidelines we fought to gain long ago, that are now being undermined ... do you know what it is to have gotten MEDRS accepted as a guideline?? What other Project can claim a change as important as that one was? Why would we now defend poor content, because it is in videos?

The loss of Colin to medical editing was no small thing. Why do you think I have also been absent, Doc? Content is being degraded, and working on it is harder and harder, with less and less of a collaborative spirit. I merrily left behind the utterly inexcusable prostate suite to go work in an entirely different area, where an article badly need to be rebuilt from the ground up, knowing I could do it, not remotely expecting to hit this wall. Editing here is supposed to be fun, not driven by the commercial interests of outside projects. I would not be pointing out that two of the editors who were the first involved to bring this Project MEDRS are uncomfortable editing in this environment. Please, listen to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

1) "Quick" versus "rapid" are not exceedingly different. Yes the DSM5 refers to tics as rapid.

2) They are not making money off of us any different than say the Lancet or the BMJ.

3) They say "Sleep disorder" first. And than mention a couple possibilities. Many sources mention sleep walking during REM as one aspect of DLM.[15] And it is a classic one.

4) Are these videos perfect? No. Could they be improved sure. Is Osmosis will to collaborate definitely. Should the Osmosis 2 sec intro be trimmed? If we want we can, meh. Should we be deleting every video made by this group because one or two people do not like the font they use? No definitely not. Not without a clear consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Doc your Lancet/BMJ analogy does not work on any level. We are putting videos with prominent advertising of a link to a source that hosts a commercial store with products for sale in the leads of articles, which our readers can't miss. Lancet/BMJ are in sources, at the bottom. Which readers may not even click on. And our readers aren't driven first to advertising when they click on a source-- they are driven first to the content of a journal article.

If an editor puts sleep walking incorrectly as text into an article to describe RBD, any other editor can instantly fix it. We cannot fix Osmosis errors, nor should we have to. We are not paid to edit for them, yet they make money off of being given a highly preferential position on Wikipedia.

It is curious that there was no consensus, either here or wiki-wide to breach so many content policies and guidelines with these videos, but now you want consensus to delete them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing that when clicked on brings you to the site in question. This of course is unlike DOIs. When you click on these you are often brought to a page were you can pay for the article in question.

Yes I get it, you do not want to edit or work on videos. Others of us feel differently. And finally sleep walking is not incorrect. It is indeed a symptom of DLB.

Osmosis actually makes more money off of Youtube (they get more views there plus they get ad revenue). What they do allow by using an open license is for use to also have there videos which people can watch for free without ads on Wikipedia and in our offline compilations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned by this statement "My goal is to try to make our content accessible to a very large number of people. I do this in multiple ways a) by writing the leads in easy to understand language b) by working to provide video content for those who might have limited reading ability (through partnerships with Osmosis) Or simple prefer to learn by video c) by translation into other languages in collaboration with many folks both inside and outside Wikipedia d) by building offline apps in partnership with Kiwix e) by working with folks at Internet-in-a-Box to get Wikipedia's medical content out to those with no access to the Internet"

These are perhaps goals of some in WikiMedia Foundation generally and some are goals for third parties (Kwix, Internet in a box) and some are goals for other Wikipedias (translation). The are not obviously and naturally goals for English Wikipedia, which is our primary purpose. This is a text-based hyperlinked encyclopaedia where we collaboratively edit text (and only text) to produce educational encyclopaedic content. We supplement these articles with images and other audio-visual clips, which reside on Commons, and are not collaboratively editable. If you have a mission to create educational videos, covering whole article topics, then that is not Wikipedia's mission. We are not YouTube. Go talk to WMF about creating a sister project WikiVideo. I have seen too many times Doc James pervert our article content to suit his pet projects, which are not aligned with English Wikipedia. Four years ago I saw him spend his time dumbing down our leads to baby language in the assumption that this made it easier to translate or with the idea that this was Simple English wikipedia, for those who find English hard to read. We saw him try to force one citation style template on us, in order to make copy/paste translation easier. We now see him claim these videos must be embedded into articles so that his offline app partnership can include the video. That's your partnership Doc James, your goal. When has the wider Wikipedia community agreed to have a commercial third party create article-videos embedded in the lead of our articles? Would you be happy to read political articles on Wikipedia created and sponsored by Fox News? Get a grip. -- Colin°^Talk 09:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

How are these not spam?

There are definitely issues surrounding the medical appropriateness of these videos, which others have brought up. There is even the philosophical question of Wikipedia having essentially "frozen" and practically unverifiable content. Putting that aside, as reasonable people may differ on those questions. There is one point where I can see no reasonable argument and that is the matter of hosting advertisements for an outside organization and from what I have seen these are straight up spam.

Sure, they allegedly provide some good information but they exist to promote a company and sell subscriptions. Issues with medical content aside, these videos simply fail WP:NOTPROMO and, in their current form, are unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. Period. I sure would like to hear how anyone thought these were acceptable. Really, I am all ears. Do we now differentiate between good spam and bad spam? Anyway, my thought is that any discussion of the merits of these videos should probably take a back seat to this fundamental violation of Wikipedia core content policy.

The simplest way to address this would be to edit each of the video files to remove the spam sections of the video. I have, however, read that these files are not editable? Is that the case? If so I assume that it is but a minor thing for those who arranged for these videos to ask Osmosis to provide the content without the advertisements and links. If Osmosis is not willing to do so then they are intended as spam and need to be removed for that reason.

Long form video may have a place in Wikipedia's future but not as an advertising vehicle for an external organization. Jbh ^Talk 00:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

They can be edited, of course. See above. --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

and RexxS example ameliorates the main problem ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned the videos couldn't be edited based on this comment posted by Colin. I could be wrong. Apologies if so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC))

Well....they can be edited as long as by "edited" one only means "cut down". Practically speaking, it's extraordinarily difficult to make even minor changes or additions to the content of these videos. (Though removing the Osmosis logos and credit sequences would resolve one of the issues with this content: the violation of the spirit of WP:WATERMARK and MOS:CREDITS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be extraordinarily difficult, and probably require expensive technology, to make changes or additions in the style of the original video. It would probably be quite hard even for Osmosis to do this because some of the original creators of the videos no longer work for the company. But hey, it wouldn't be too hard to splice in new content if we weren't trying to make it look consistent. A Wikipedian could, for instance, create a 60-second clip, in whatever tool and style they want, that summarizes the errors in the video and points out that the author of the video is a nonspecialist medical resident. And then that clip could be quite easily spliced into the start of the Osmosis video and re-uploaded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

oh, I like the way you think, Clayoquot! Jbh, "I sure would like to hear how anyone thought these were acceptable." 'Tis a mystery. And I have pondered it. Fundamental violation of ... just about everything ... and no one even noticed for years (I have an excuse, I wasn't editing :)

Perhaps people have found creating content to be too hard, so are happy to outsource content they just manage? Perhaps with the overall decline in Wikipedia editing, no one is home anymore? Perhaps ... no one cares anymore? I really cannot understand how we got so far off track with this. I just wanted to work on a really badly outdated article, and hit this. We can't edit away the errors, and I can't understand why we would want to. Dementia with Lewy bodies had 100,000 hits on one day only this week (I can't figure out why), on March 21,[16] and the article was a wreck at that point. How many of those people said to heck with Wikipedia, and went first to this video? Our medical content has become a vehicle for someone else to make money, while we slave away like ninnies.

So, in the series from Ocaassi I re-posted above, Step 3 never happened. We could start with asking why that never happened, and why the project proceeded without that consensus, and even if it had happened, why anyone ever thought that WP:MED was a place where consensus could be generated to breach all manner of policy and guideline.

Or we could get on with figuring out how to get rid of the things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I support Colin's position. There is no "case by case"--the issue here is an over-arching one and he is absolutely correct in his interpretation of consequences. I won't write at length here. Outriggr (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Some people (in fact many people) want video explanation. All the videos this group makes are going to be released under an open license so that we can potentially use them. All the ones we currently use are under an open license currently.

Yes they also have a subscription model for test questions from what I understand. If people are unhappy with the opening and closing credits they can be removed. Just because they produce other stuff that they offer under a subscription model does not mean that they stuff they offer under an open license is an "ad" for that subscription stuff. Their viewership via Youtube is greater than that via Wikipedia and they earn ad revenue there. Other medical video produces have declined to release there videos under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Claims of COI

With respect to COI editing, the concern occur when the person producing the content in question have a COI with respect to the subject area in question. That is not the case in these examples. This is a red herring which distracts from the difficult work of actually dealing with serious COI issues. Osmosis do not manufacture a treatment for the condition in question. They are not paid by a PR agency or company that does.

Another examples is that the NIH does not have a COI when working on Wikipedia about PTSD. Osmosis does not have a COI when they produce a video about abscesses. If people are unhappy with the social media links I am sure they would be fine with removing them and because these videos are under an open license we can remove them ourselves.

The claims that there is a grave COI issue here is like arguing we should not use references to the Lancet as that advertising the Lancet or data from Cancer Research UK as that is an add to that charity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Open-Osmosis are funded by a foundation created by the billionaire behind Jonhson & Johnson. As a private foundation, albeit one that on superficial examination appears to be a good cause, they can emphasise and censor whatever aspects they wish. Do they support abortion, promote abstinence from drink, encourage condoms for safe sex, support vaccination, deny global warming, accept the medical use of marijuana, promote equal education and opportunities for women, think AIDS is God's punishment to gay people, condone prostitution, think vitamin C is the answer to all heath problems, etc, etc, etc. No idea, but as a private foundation, they are totally entitled to believe and promote whatever nonsense they want, should they wish to. The same is not true of the NIH or Cancer Research UK. What we do know is that Osmosis is "A better way to learn", "A fully customized learning platform driven by data, science, and the technology of the future." and you can start your free trial here. :-) -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This comparison is only smoke and deception.

• Suppose that, in some future, Wikipedia advertises for the Lancet. How many physicians would change their mind about subscribing to the Lancet (apart, may be, from cancelling their subscription) ?
• Suppose that, here and now, Wikipedia advertises for Osmosis. How many students will subscribe to Osmosis (despite the warning: never ever trust Wikipedia about human health, or any other critical topic) ?

Pldx1 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your two suggestions. Wikipedia does not "advertise" for anyone, and has no plans to. The degree to which the Osmosis videos are adverts or fremium content teasers for their paid subscription videos, is up for debate. If the Lancet were to recruit doctors to create content for Wikipedia I would also be concerned, as such content would be subject to the editorial focus of the Lancet and its publisher. This is why Wikipedia is fundamentally a volunteer created collaboratively edited project. I have no problem with commercially created images or short video clips such as an electron microscope image of cells or a chemical reaction. These single-topic media files are self-asserting -- editors can judge if they are what they say they are, and add or remove them if there is conflict. Entire article-topic videos are a different matter, where a narrator presents their own version of the article text spoken out loud, and offers their own personal opinion on what aspects of the topic to cover and avoid. It is quite notable that these clips were originally created for medical students -- the focus is all wrong for the general reader. So we have the editorial focus of Osmosis, not of Wikipedia. That is the very definition of "Conflict of Interest". And any complaints by editors on Wikipedia are met with edit warring by Doc James, and a possible promise of a future revised video, which it seems, does not often come. These are well documented facts. -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Colin. Sure, you don't understand what I have written: an hypothesis is not a suggestion ! Reading again, may be ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1:, you say that Wikipedia does not "advertise" for anyone, and has no plans to, but that is a substantial part of what this is about. A (prominently placed) link to an external site that advertises. It has long been accepted that links to copyright infringing sites were themselves contributory copyright infringement. If WP accepted links to {political|medical|media|fashion|younameit} advertising, how much worse would the fake facts problem get? If the video has intrinsic value, clean out the advertising (it isn't CC-BY-SA-ND), host it on Commons, and give the same simple attribution as any other media there to satisfy CC-BY-SA. If it doesn't, then there's no hiding behind the offsite hosting: linking to it is contributory to advertising. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

ongoing?

Doc James it appears from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis that no new videos have been posted since 2016. Is this collaboration no longer active?

Also are you are aware of any instances where Osmosis has changed a video in response to feedback? If so would you please provide diffs of that? thx Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality of Ketogenic diet

I stumbled upon Ketogenic diet this morning while trying to figure out what the term 'keto' meant, and I noticed that it's a featured article with what I perceive to be non-encyclopædic tone and content. Some sections are better than others, but overall the article feels promotional and how-to-ish. I lack both the time and the experience in editing medicine-related articles that I would need to improve the article directly or even to start a constructive talk-page discussion that would precede a FAR. Another editor recommended to me that raising the issue with an associated WikiProject would be a good way to get the issue in front of neutral editors who may be better equipped to make a good judgement about its featured status. I'd appreciate any extra eyes on this! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 13:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

jameslucas, thanks for your comments. I think initially the best approach with article concerns is to raise issues on the article talk page. This is considered more polite that tagging the article (which I see you did), unless one's concerns are so serious and obvious that one needs to shout them to every reader (for example, copyright issues). I don't see how you need experience in editing medicine-related articles in order to discuss concerns on a talk page. The article authors are often in a best place to address those concerns, being familiar with the topic and source material. Sadly, the last time I checked, there were no epilepsy specialists at WP:MED, nor many writers capable of writing at Featured Article level. FAR really is reserved for articles where serious issues have been raised and they have not been resolved after a period of time. In terms of the tone and content, this is not significantly different to when it was awarded Featured Article, and the consensus of medical and experts in prose was that it was high quality. It has been reviewed by a world authority on the subject, and copyedited by one of our finest writers. As the main author of Ketogenic diet, I'm open to suggestions for improvement. -- Colin°^Talk 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll say this directly: I'm concerned that this is fringe medicine being promoted with a Wikipedia page and not an example of neutral encyclopædic content. Citations include Redox Biology, a medical journal which I'm not convinced would be accepted by mainstream practitioners, and the Epilepsy Foundation, whose Wikipedia page is mostly about its controversies. My kneejerk reaction is that a large amount of content on this page should rightfully be removed, but in the absence of careful review, I'm limiting my suggestion to the downgrade of this article's class, probably to B. I don't think it's overreaching to say that this is very far from feature-article worthy, and to your point that it's been largely unchanged since it was promoted in 2010, I say that that it should never have been made a feature article. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 14:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Redox Biology is MEDLINE-indexed and the review article being cited is hardly even supporting a strange claim. However it is a concern that our article seems rather positive about this diet's usefulness in a way which seems a bit out-of-kilter in the light of recent secondary literature, which appears a bit more equivocal.[17] This is not, though, fringe science but well established as a mainstream seizure control treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Given all the ruckus above I am rather surprised to see a big picture of a branded MCT product (of which there are zillions of brands) in the article. actual image (and actual size) is here.

Medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil emulsion

Hard to reckon why we are featuring this product so prominently, and in an FA. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)