User talk:ElisabethF

Welcome!

Hello, ElisabethF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing and conflict of interest

Hi ElisabethF. Thanks for disclosing at your userpage that you are working as an intern for JDCA.

The editing community considers internships a form of payment, per the WP:PAID policy. Paid editing is just one form of conflict of interest.

So here is the deal...

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. And you have now done that.

The second step is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts about the organization (for example, correcting the facts about where the organization has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

This only applies to editing about JDCA or citing JDCA. If you want to add well-sourced content about diabetes (diagnosis, management, epidemiology, etc, cited to non-JDCA sites, that is fine. Those edits will be treated like anyone else's.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to edit about JDCA or cite them? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jytdog for your response. I will continue to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines. However, I am still a little bit confused as to what makes the edits I added controversial. Again, I really appreciate your help.

JDRF’s mission statement is: For over 40 years, JDRF has been a global leader in the search for an end to type 1 diabetes (T1D), through both research funding and advocacy.

The information I added was simply a year by year overview of how much money the organization spent on research, which is available through JDRF’s public tax forms. It was 100% factual and can be sourced to JDRF itself, the IRS, the JDCA (the organization I work for), or GuideStar (A source you used previously). If the JDRF’s stated mission is research, can you please help me understand what about a research spending chart is controversial? I don’t want to make unnessasarry work for you, but from what I can tell, this is simple, factual, non-promoting uncontroversial content.

Again, thank you for your help. ElisabethF (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that JDCA believes that JDRF has been failing its mission with "record low levels" of grant funding per the JDCA link you included.

With regard to your trying to re-create that analysis using the data from propublica or guidestar or whatever here in WP -- you cannot do that. It violates the WP:OR policy. We summarize sources here. We do not analyze them.

The appropriate thing to do, is to propose content at the article talk page, Talk:JDRF, sourced from the JDCA page, disclosing that you work for JDCA, and ask others to review and implement. I would be surprised if any one thinks it is OK (WP content should be based on high quality independent sources, and JDCA is an advocacy group, and WP is not a platform for advocacy of any kind. See WP:SOAP). But that would be the appropriate thing to do. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Jytdog, so from my understanding of what you said, the JDCA is a weak source because there is a bias, which is understandable in this case. I will note I went to the NYC wiki conference last January and spoke to multiple editors, all of whom said that JDCA was the perfect source for T1D websites because we did very specified analysis, which is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for. They just told me that I would need to remove any commentary from the images or text I posted, which I believe I did. The JDCA lists these images with commentary and uses colors to draw attention to the decline. However, for the purposes of the wiki post, I removed all bias, so I am still confused because what I posted was a straightforward representation of facts available from multiple websites. Is it simply that the content is linked to a weak source? I also understand that linking the information to GuideStar or ProPublica is not an appropriate source because this information is not being shown on those websites in a graphic. Alternatively, if I were to list the numbers out as bullet points rather than in charts, both GuideStar and ProPublica do, and linked them to GuideStar or ProPublica, would that meet the Wikipedia guidelines? I do believe this information is relevant because the JDRF's mission is to fund research. Therefore, the amount they spend on research annually is important and useful for the overall community. Sorry for the trouble and thanks again! ElisabethF (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here, is your conflict of interest. You should not be editing directly in mainspace to further your employer's objectives. Please post whatever you like on the talk page for others to consider. Do you understand? Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand how direct editing of WP under a conflict of interest is problematic, please read Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (an actual article). Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above -- What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at JDRF shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threading talk page comments

Please be aware that on talk pages, we "thread" discussions. See WP:TPG and for the details, see Help:Talk_pages#Indentation. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I know that the discussions are threaded. I have been threading them. I accidentally forgot this time, my apologies. Will not happen again! :) ElisabethF (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYTALK

About your long comment here which included Please address all the questions in my response.

Please read WP:PAYTALK. If you have any questions about the background of that, please see User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular which might be useful. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I have read both articles and am still left confused as to how this is a response to the questions I had for you. You asked for the whole story, so I expanded the edit to include it, and now you are rejecting your own suggestion. I am simply asking for an explanation as to why.

We have discussed in the past the issues with COI and Paid Editing. I am aware of them and have taken every precautionary step per Wiki protocol. The only conclusion I came to after reading User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular is that you believe I am taking time away from your editing because I am asking for your assistance. I apologize for that, but I am just making the effort to learn the correct way to implement my edits. The edits I am trying to make are not promotional in any way, but factual and unbiased. They are useful to the community and add to the overall WP project.

Also, I do care for WP and find it lovely that so many editors volunteer their time to mold it, which is why I am doing my best to understand it. ElisabethF (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing long notes and demanding that I respond to "all" your arguments is not reasonable. Most of the arguments you are making on behalf of the content you wish to add have nothing to do with how we generate content. If you have questions about what I have written - if you want to understand it better -- I would be happy to answer. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my tone came off as abrasive, I was not trying to demand you to answer my questions. I just have only ever asked 3-4 questions and it seems you always overlook them. Also, I do not mean to sound argumentative, I am not in the business of arguing, just looking for a middle ground. I believe I have done everything in my power to appease everyone, yet you are still denying the edit. I would very much like to hear your explanation as to why. Thank you for taking time out to patiently explain things to me and helping out with my edits. I understand you care a lot about WP and want to make it clear that I do as well, even if I am new here. ElisabethF (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People come to Wikipedia for many reasons. Many people come because they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword -- it is great because it drives contributions, but at the same time the passion makes it hard for people to listen, and forms a lens through which people view things. We get the same issue with people who are paid - they come here because they are paid, and they want to make their employer happy. So they too have a hard time listening, and have a very fixed perspective anchored in things outside of WP.

Passionate people often turn to the attack when their edits are not accepted.

You are a) being paid; c) by an advocacy organization. Double whammy.

In the same diff I cited above, you wrote Additionally, there is no rule stating that an editor must make multiple edits to a page. All edits, if they are factual, straightforward, unbiased, and relevant are acceptable. Respectfully, the JDRF and ADA pages, as they stand now, are almost incoherent. Not only did you edit the pages down to a point where they make little to no sense, you did not add any new sources to the page. And now you are blocking new and useful information. I want to make it clear that I think this type of editing is and harmful for the wiki community. Edits should be replaced with new sources or revised whenever possible.

This is very typical of people in your situation, as described above. No question in that, just attacking argumentation.

I am about out of patience.

Again, if you have any actual questions about what I have written on a talk page or edits I have made, I will be happy to answer them. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

"No question, just attacking argumentation."

You only quoted a very small part of that diff and completely ignored the multiple questions which I had asked you to please address... How is that fair?

I'm condensing all my questions here so we both have visibility to them.

You quoted: "This is still not telling the whole story, which is -- again -- the key underlying problem here."

If I put up information which provides a full picture of spending (i.e., charts on all major spending areas) does this solve your problem? What is wrong with putting public spending information up on the page?

Alternatively, can you suggest another way to put up the spending information, (not just research, but also fundraising, management, etc.) Should I leave out research and just put the other three charts? How do I accurately provide a full picture? Can you please give me guidance. I'm asking for your help... I appreciate your time, but I feel like I've made various changes to the edit to try and acquiesce to your issues and you have repetitively shot down my revisions even when they were directly related to your suggestions.

I was planning on adding this information to multiple other sites so I'd like to solve the issue here. ElisabethF (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final note, I saw your last comment on the JDRF talk page and understand I cannot use the JDCA as a source. There are plenty of other sources with this information and I will site them instead going forward. Thanks. ElisabethF (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted to clarify.

Turning back to the broader issues.... at the talk page WhatamIdoing mentioned the lack of context. The context isn't just the other kinds of spending -- that is part of the context, for sure -- but more importantly, it is independent sources talking about JDRF's stated priorities and how they have changed. You keep writing that JDFR should be spending high on research, but I did some fairly cursory searching and they have said several times that other kinds of work have become important to them, like lobbying insurance companies and congress, and patient education. That seems to be reflected in their spending. The key context is independent sources talking about JDRF's actual priorities.

In WP we use primary sources sparingly, and very cautiously. If you insist on presenting their spending data based on primary sources, please find a way to do that with absolute neutrality, not emphasizing the decline in research spending. I understand that the research spending is important to you --- to you -- and that is why you need to absolutely set that aside, especially when working with primary sources. You would do better to avoid them altogether. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Honey-roasted peanuts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Honey-roasted peanuts, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey-roasted peanuts until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]