Talk:GISAID

A concern

Hello, I have been taking some of my time on Wikipedia to improve this article, quite relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, with newer sources and a more readable intro. I am noticing multiple edits made (and re-inserted) by IP addresses appearing to have the single purpose of editing Wikipedia exclusively about GISAID, yet no other subjects. The basis of these edits repeatedly seeks to convey the perception that GISAID's terms of access are "restrictive". Ironically, GISAID terms of use are not at all dissimilar to those of Wikipedia itself. Participating scientists are free to contribute or read from the database, just as long as they agree to appropriately acknowledge the contributors of the information they use. Contributors of data can freely choose whether they don’t care about any of their rights and deposit in public-domain archives, or whether they share in a transparent manner preserving some of their rights, and thus share with the public via GISAID. It's obviously a model that works -- Wikipedia has millions of articles under the Creative Commons Attribution license, and GISAID has over a million flu and about 50k genomic sequences of the virus causing COVID-19, contributed by thousands of laboratories under its usage license. Calling this a "restriction" is far less accurate than calling it "terms of use" or "regulating" how data are shared. I would like other contributors to consider this and respond, as I fear that this IP editor (or editors) is pushing an agenda and may be unlikely to form consensus. - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

No response to this note, nor anything heard from the IP editors (who were notified). Given that, I am going to revert the single-purpose IP edits at this time. Happy to engage in more discussion (anything is better than zero), if that's seen as problematic. - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to concern: First, GISAID's terms of use do not only require that scientists cite the data that they use. The terms also require that scientists "agree to make best efforts to collaborate with representatives of the Originating Laboratory responsible for obtaining the specimen(s) and involve them in such analyses and further research using such Data." This is now hidden further in the submission process, but you still have to sign it to get access. Second, these terms are quite dissilimiar to those of wikipedia: wikipedia does not restrict people from reading it, but GISAID does. Third, I think that GISAID is most naturally compared to other DNA sequence databases, not wikipedia. Since those databases do not impose terms forbidding users from sharing data or reading data, I think that saying that GISAID "restricts" the use of data helpfully clarifies how GISAID differs from other similar databases. However, I do not think this is a hill worth dying on. If you want to say "govern" I don't care that much. Fourth, the original article sought to suppress debate and discussion about whether restrictive access agreements promote data sharing by simply saying that GISAID promotes data sharing. In theory, this could be true. Perhaps scientists are more willing to share their data when they know they will have more control over it after they share it. But the fact that GISAID has taken this path should not be hidden, nor should disagreement be suppressed about whether this approach leads to science that is more open, or more closed. On a slightly different note... GISAID's divergence from its initial goal seems somewhat puzzling. It seems like the initial goal was to allow scientists to share data before first publication, and allow public domain usage after first publication. This is the general model of scientific data sharing, and it makes sense that scientists would be hesitant to share avian flu data before they had gotten any credit. However, at some point, this all changed to GISAIDs current model of public-domain-never, and it seems very unclear who made this decision, when, and why. It is also unclear (though I see no conspiracy here) when the "A" in GISAID changed from "Avian" to "All". Wouldn't you like to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:691:4:0:0:0:58 (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

An inverse concern

Much of this page appears (i) overly positive, to the extent that it serves as an advertisement for GISAID and (ii) uses sources that simply quote GISAID's positive description of itself. For examples, GISAID's web page says that it overcomes "disincentive hurdles and restrictions". The claim about disincentive hurdles is interesting, though vague. However, no example of "restrictions" is given. And yet, the current page repeats the claim that data sharing was "restricted". Additionally, the History section contains a list of "endorsements", which sounds like an advertisement, not a balanced description. Here are a list of other concerns:

• what are "submitters rights"? It is neither clear what specific "rights" are being claimed, nor what makes these things a "right".
• what does it mean that WHO member states were concerned about sharing data? As far as I know, countries and states do not share data: individual scientists do. If I am wrong, that would be interesting. However, if I am right, this makes no sense.
• what, exactly, does GISAID do to prevent sharing researchers being scooped pre-publication? And how does this different from post-publication?
• why exactly is "verification of users" supposed to be a positive thing that public-domain database do not offer?

Finally, user AppleBsTime has removed interesting facts, seemingly because they reflect negatively on GISAID. For example, the original signed letter calls for shared sequences to be deposited in public databases eventually, which would then allow scientists to share pre-publication data w/o being scooped while still not restriction post-publication data. But AppleBsTime removed this comment, even though it had a citation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:691:4:0:0:0:1B (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 

A response from an experienced editor

I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective. It is reassuring and a healthy process to mutually share a common goal to make this article as informative and accurate as it can be, especially within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The IP editor may not be familiar with all of Wikipedia’s practices, such as registering an account to build trust and gain access to more functionality, or such as signing comments with four tildes. I have been an editor for a number of years, having made over 500 edits to hundreds of different articles, and even created a handful of new articles. This is a nice opportunity to share with you some of what I’ve learned on Wikipedia, since you seem to have experience only with this one article about GISAID.

The first concern of the Duke University IP editor is that the page "appears overly positive". Given the significant amount of coverage of the role of GISAID from reliable sources over a considerable time period, versus the rather limited edits to this article during that same time period, no evidence is given to support your concern that "it serves as an advertisement for GISAID and uses sources that simply quote GISAID's positive description of itself."

Frankly, I suspect that we’re seeing an outcome of Wikipedia’s reliance on independent sources to reliably document how a subject topic should be characterized. This Wikipedia article has been built over the past 13 years and at that, very sporadically. If one looks up up "problems with GISAID" or "trouble with GISAID" in a search engine, one will not find anything. Try "criticism of GISAID" on any search engine, you will find about 2-3 results, which appear to be blog entries in the vein of rants, or Reddit posts, rather than the journalistic or peer-reviewed concerns for which Wikipedians search. Sources like websites operated by the originator of a complaint about a subject or a Reddit conversation about a subject are generally not allowed as reference sources in Wikipedia -- unless they become newsworthy themselves (e.g., if Dr. Ghebreyesus or Dr. Fauci were to start participating in the Reddit conversation, and this got picked up by the BBC or Associated Press).

A second concern presented by the Duke University IP editor is that some of the sources in the article are simply citations of GISAID's own material. While editors must ensure articles follow Wikipedia's content guidelines, see here on self-published sources used as sources of information which technically allows a limited amount of self-sourcing (but never in an unduly self-serving way). The suggestion that these edits are driven by GISAID itself seems far-fetched, as it is not substantiated. Nonetheless, it is clear that improvements to this article (in particular in sections that have not been vetted) can and should be made, and that finding independent, third-party sources to replace some GISAID.org sources would improve the article's quality, so it will not be merely categorized as a 'Start-Class Genetics' / 'Low-importance Genetics' / 'C-Class COVID-19' / or 'Low-importance COVID-19' article.

Currently, I count 3 references to GISAID materials out of 35 total references in this article. That doesn't seem undue or self-serving, compared to other Wikipedia articles about organizations.

With regard to the point-by-point "other concerns" itemized by the Duke University IP editor; allow me to address these as follows.

• What are "submitters' rights"?

GISAID's Terms of Use, aka the Database Access Agreement, states in section 2a: "This Agreement does not transfer any other rights or ownership interests in the Data" and further in section 2c, the rights of the "Originating Laboratory where the clinical specimen or virus isolate was first obtained and the Submitting Laboratory where sequence data have been generated and submitted" are acknowledged.

In addition to a significant number of published reliable sources, please take note of the written Statement to the World Health Organization, given by the Federal Republic of Germany in 2015, which makes it clear GISAID employs "a unique sharing mechanism which ensures that inherent rights (e.g. IPR) of contributors of GSD are not forfeit."

• What does it mean that WHO member states were concerned about sharing data? As far as I know, countries and states do not share data: individual scientists do. If I am wrong, that would be interesting. However, if I am right, this makes no sense.

Matter of fact, all countries and states decide how data are shared when it comes to pathogens, which is evident by governments regulating the safety levels of handling pathogens in the first place (see BSL biosafety levels, for example). The headlines we see read "Indonesia hands over bird flu data to new database", rather than "An individual scientist in Indonesia hands over bird flu data". It's also why we see wording in this article like, "China, Russia and other nations that have withheld virus samples...", rather than "Individual scientists in China, Russia and other nations…", or "… sequences for the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) … submitted by Chinese authorities to the GISAID platform" , rather than "submitted by a[n] [individual] Chinese scientist".

• What, exactly, does GISAID do to prevent sharing researchers being scooped pre-publication?

The article states "GISAID sought to address medical researchers' reticence about sharing." Reading GISAID's Terms of Use makes it crystal clear "Your rights and privileges under this Agreement will terminate automatically and without need for written notice upon any breach by You of any term of this Agreement." Given that a username/password procedure is in place, GISAID can very well enforce/sanction violators who scoop, irrespective of a paper having been peer-reviewed or not. The sheer number of emerging coronavirus genetic data and metadata in GISAID, but also influenza data, when compared to public-domain archives are evidence that GISAID has somehow addressed researchers' reticence about sharing. Though I should also say, it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to document a process, when the claim is merely that the organization sought to address a problem.

• Why exactly is "verification of users" supposed to be a positive thing that public-domain database do not offer?

I'm doubtful that this is Wikipedia's responsibility to prove. It's our job as editors to find if reliable sources say that it is the case that GISAID provides "verification of users" which, for example, public-domain archives that permit anonymous access do not. The Catherine Saez article in Intellectual Property Watch (a publication utilized in dozens of Wikipedia articles) says that verification of users is something that GISAID provides that other public-domain databases do not. We don't speculate on why that's a positive thing, because that would be original research, which is forbidden by firm policy on Wikipedia.

Per the complaint that I removed "interesting facts, seemingly because they reflect negatively on GISAID", sorry to say, I removed some content because it pertained to a correspondence letter that conceived of an idea prior to the formation of the actual organization that the Wikipedia article is about.

I considered it misleading to suggest to readers that the correspondence letter in Nature called for sequences to be "deposited in the three publicly available databases participating in the International Sequence Database Collaboration" while omitting the preceding text, i.e., the proposal "to expand and complement existing efforts with the creation of a global consortium".

A consortium is an association of two or more individuals, companies, organizations, or governments and will by default not be open to the public. Even a Nature editorial understood at the time that an "Agreement on the principles of GISAID is only a beginning, however. Prompt progress in establishing the ground rules for sharing will be essential to build confidence and momentum." The peer-reviewed Elbe et al (2017) also addressed this correspondence letter: "However, … notwithstanding its good intentions, the brief letter still lacked much practical detail, and that the core issues of transparency and equity of data sharing would likely remain unresolved if data archives with anonymous access to data (like Genbank) were used."

Eighteen months after the correspondence letter appeared in Nature, GISAID did provide ground rules for sharing, by providing immediate access to the public and not merely to a consortium.

It would be like saying that Thomas Edison should be extensively criticized in Wikipedia for not sticking to his initial idea that platinum should be the filament in an incandescent light bulb, when he later found that carbonized bamboo was a much more practical, inexpensive, and longer-lasting solution. So, please, I’d ask that you not assail my removal of some content in the interest of making an article less confusing. It wasn’t about something "reflecting negatively" on the subject.

The lede historically had been too promotional, but after it was cut back, it was rather confusing and didn't even mention GISAID's contemporary work on the coronavirus pandemic. That's when I stepped in to edit the article. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture, but the independent sources say things that simply recognize the success of GISAID.

I'll close with an interesting article from Duke University's publication Duke Today, where a professor of immunology, pathology, pediatrics, molecular genetics and microbiology is asked what she trusts for information about COVID-19… and without any complaint about restrictions, user verification, or submitters' rights, she says "For the latest on viral sequence dynamics, I check gisaid.org." - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A balanced view

There seems to be something of a disagreement in the 2 sections above. I just heard an excellent radio show/podcast on NPR, that gives a lot of info on this topic, but I wanted to check it out here. My general impression is that it considers the same disagreement as above with views from both sides.

• "On the Media - Not a Perfect Science" (podcast). National Public Radio. 28 May 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2021.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Journalist Meredith Wadman has kind of flipped back and forth on the issue, herself. - 97.64.141.154 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional discussion

From the Duke researcher mentioned above: these articles from Nature and Science also talk about this disagreement:

• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00305-7
• https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/critics-decry-access-transparency-issues-key-trove-coronavirus-sequences
• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01194-6

I also note that http://www.nextstrain.org has begun offering two coronavirus tree reconstructions, one labeled "Latest Global Analysis - GISAID data", and one labeled "Latest Global Analysis - open data".

I am still confused about whether GISAID is trying to restrict PRE-publication data sharing or POST-publication data sharing. It sounds to me like it restricts both equally. 2603:6080:6502:E900:B7F:3D05:7E:3E7C (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Open databases?

@Mhaeussl: Thanks for your addition 2021-12-10T23:52:14 that, "70% of the US SARS-CoV-2 sequences have been also submitted to open databases, so they can be processed and shared freely with anyone."

What open databases? How can I find them?

Is there in this or some other article a list of databases alternatives to GISAID, preferably in a table with pros and cons for each?

I tried to access GISAID for v:Externalities, contagious diseases and news and a manuscript submitted to the Real-World Economics Review, mentioned above. I gave up, because, as you indicated, the license restrictions were too great. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: It seems this sentence has been deleted, but the main alternatives to GISAID, which are open but have less data, are https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ , https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gwh/Genome/210/show , and https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/Taxon:2697049 (if you want raw reads)

A comparison betweem them and others can be found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7799334/ Leomrtns (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've retrieved the article and will study it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-adding "open" to the article lead, since there are numerous reliable sources that characterize GISAID as such, which trumps the opinion of one Wikipedia editor. E.g., "GISAID is the largest open-access portal", "GISAID’s data is open access", and "(Click "Terms", to see Type of access to research data repository: open". - Don't call me shorely (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to the re3data registry. Recently (March 2023) this registry changed the "type of access to research data repository" of GISAID from "open" to "restricted". Therefore it would not be wrong to consider GISAID "restricted access", but I simply removed "open" from the article lead as a compromise. I created a new section,Claim of open access, for further discussion. Leomrtns (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Claim of open access

Expanded section GISAID#Access_and_intellectual_property to include a longer explanation, with references, to why GISAID cannot be considered "open access". In summary:

• re3data now classifies the repository as "restricted access". Almost surely this is because of the scandal of suspended accounts of high-profile scientists (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.adh9055). Irrespective of who is in the right here, the fact that access can be revoked invalidates the openness claims. See also Samples from Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market above.
• It's been known since 2017 at least that they do revoke access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.1018
• GISAID uses this registry as the main reason to call itself "open access" (https://gisaid.org/resources/statements-clarifications/editorial-board-affirms-open-access-designation-of-gisaid/).
• Some papers do compare GISAID with open access repositories, highlighting the differences. Some are favourable to GISAID, some are neutral, but they all mention the fact that the repository is restrictive and thus not Open Access:
  • https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.patter.2022.100562
  • https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbib%2Fbbaa359
  • https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS2214-109X%2822%2900417-X
• There was a very public argument against GISAID's restriction and a push for openly sharing the data by scientists working on SARS-CoV-2:
  • https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-01194-6
  • https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-00305-7
  • https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abi4496

These are all in high-profile publications (Nature and Science, amongst others). It is natural that several publications replicate the "open access" statement since they see it here and in the main page http://gisaid.org. Even if such statement is wrong or outdated (I do believe in its launching, back in 2006, the idea was to be open access and shareable with other repositories, but nowadays it is clear not to be the case). Articles looking explicitly at the distinct sharing models conclude that GISAID is not open (see references above).

I would love if the text and specially the references are not summarily deleted from the main article, even if some rephrasing becomes necessary. As I remember, prolific wikipedia editors should be helping newcomers or inexperienced editors, instead of disconsidering their contributions. Leomrtns (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dispute with SIB

I previously added a mention of GISAID's legal dispute with the SIB, with multiple references. This is an important aspect of GISAID's history which was covered widely in the media at the time. This was removed by user Wacomshera. I am happy to have a wider discussion here about this content.

User Wacomshera recently reverted these edits from myself and another user, with the summary "Clean-up low-quality info inserted by IP address / single-purpose edits". It is entirely fair for this user to point out that our edits were anonymous and/or SPA, however WP:SOCKLEGIT makes clear that such edits are valid when "editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle". GISAID is clearly controversial, and has a history of retaliation against criticism.

Furthermore, I would like to point to the edit history for Wacomshera's account.

Since 2020, this account has performed edits in only 4 bursts of activity:

• 15-16 Aug 2021
• 12 September 2021
• 1 October 2021
• 21 November 2022

The 15-16 Aug 2021 burst involved two edits related to SARS-CoV-2, both of which added links to GISAID from other articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oswaldo_Cruz_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1039120130
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bette_Korber&diff=prev&oldid=1039123271

The 12 September 2021 burst involved four edits related to SARS-CoV-2, all four of which added links to GISAID from other articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cluster_5&diff=prev&oldid=1043899040
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SARS-CoV-2_Epsilon_variant&diff=prev&oldid=1043924227
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioinformatics_Institute_(Singapore)&diff=prev&oldid=1043925098
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agency_for_Science,_Technology_and_Research&diff=prev&oldid=1043925972

The 1 October 2021 burst did not involve any edits related to SARS-CoV-2.

After an absence of more than a year, this user returned on 21 November 2022. They made 3 edits related to SARS-CoV-2, the largest of which was to remove two passages that were less positive than the remainder of the GISAID article.

In every case where SARS-CoV-2 edits were made, these were sandwiched between non-SARS-CoV-2 edits made as part of the same burst.

This therefore appears to be a single-purpose account, or close to it.

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledging that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter feels that this article should include details of a legal dispute that took place 14 years ago between GISAID and the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. I disagree, for the following reasons.

The legal dispute may not be "an important aspect of GISAID's history", because one might say it was NOT actually "covered widely in the media at the time". A search of Newspapers.com for "GISAID" and "Swiss Institute" returns zero results, for example. However, in scientific circles, there were a few stories about the dispute (contemporary to the dispute, but also when GISAID relaunched a new database with the German government's support) published in Scientific American, in Nature, in CIDRAP and in CNET. It's not exactly a flood of media interest, but it's better than nothing.

Here is the problem, though. Both sides contended that the other party was in the wrong. We have no reliable secondary sources about the outcome of the dispute. I have not found something suitable to link to as a worthwhile citation for how this legal dispute ended. A supposed "Final Award" document is presented on a site called Jusmundi(dot)com, but it's a questionable source. Very few Wikipedia articles have ever used it as a citation source, and the document in question isn't complete and lacks clarity -- there are redacted items like "witness statements of Professor [Person 1] and Mr. [Person 2]", for example. The document was posted by Carole Malinvaud, who is not a representative of any court. This is why Wikipedia content guidelines state, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". Relying on websites that act as dumping grounds for primary texts puts Wikipedia editors in the role of expert analysts, which is outside of our remit.

Lastly, there is a disturbing trend here at this GISAID article of "drive-by" editors throwing bombs into the mix to try to portray the subject in a light that the reliable sources do not share. Dating back to 2010, we had Gsgs2 seeking (twice) to add "controversy" that was sourced to a blog post. More recently, there have been single-purpose IP editors poking away about different disgruntled competing databases. There was a briefly-active editor who wanted to add "criticism" and "numerous problems". Then another single-edit writer who was interested in this SIB "dispute", and now User:Tobeortobebetter exhibiting the same attempts to add non-reliable content that they believe is very important to add -- so focused that they perform not a scratch of work on any other Wikipedia article. If this dispute with the Swiss Institute of Bioinformation is so extremely important to the history of science, why is there no mention of it at all in the Wikipedia article about the SIB (which has a major contributor who appears to have a close connection with its subject)? Why is there no mention of the dispute in the Wikipedia biography of Ron Appel (which also just happens to have a major contributor who appears to have a close connection)?

My conclusion is that the incident does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, because there is no proportional support in coverage by reliable sources. - AppleBsTime (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

AppleBsTime raises concerns about JusMundi as a source (concerns which I do not think are valid). I am therefore surprised that they did not seek to WP:PRESERVE the initial reference to the legal clash, which is supported by a reference to a Nature article and, as AppleBsTime points out, several further articles. I think the fact that JusMundi is cited by 15 other Wikipedia articles shows that it is a perfectly reputable source, but given that AppleBsTime has questioned the sourcing of the claim that there was an award of $1M dollars, I have now added three additional references: casetext.com (cited ~812 times on Wikipedia) and VLEX (cited ~275 times on Wikipedia) both provide the judgement of US District Judge Reggie Walton, while a third citation, to Lexology, provides a summary of the judgement in the form that AppleBsTime requests.

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter believes that an opinion about use of primary sources is more persuasive than Wikipedia's community-aligned policy standards which have been developed over many years. But that is not the case. Adding select content from one particular arbitration case that appears not to have attracted the attention of any mainstream media, in addition to not having been covered by any qualified secondary sources, simply does not meet the threshold.

Allow me to respectfully outline why it is especially problematic in this particular situation. Per this Associated Press source (widely carried over numerous outlets) from the time of the apparent dispute which is most certainly connected to this discussion (note, this is a secondary source valued more highly than primary records by Wikipedia standards), "the WHO appears to be going to extreme lengths to stand in GISAID's way, including withholding funding that has been pledged for the database", and further states, "In the most recent dispute over GISAID's free database, the WHO has refused to hand over US$450,000 provided by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control for the database's development". Furthermore, from Spring 2010, in a paper by Rachel Irwin published in the scholarly journal Global Health Governance, we find that "Within four months of its launch, GISAID had become the world's largest and most comprehensive database (AP 2008). However, the WHO was reportedly withholding funds earmarked to support GISAID, and was in the process of developing their own database and tracking system. The dispute was over $450,000 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services and GISAID, this money was earmarked for GISAID. According to the WHO, the money had been earmarked for a database, but because of the amount involved the WHO was required to put out an open tender. According to the WHO's David Heymann 'for the first time in decades, developing countries are looking at the [WHO] with mistrust and officials cannot afford to be partial to any group,' and that this was a direct order from the Director-General Margaret Chan. Yet, many flu scientists and governmental officials felt that this situation actually did nothing more than to add to mistrust of the WHO." Additionally, per this recent article from the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations, "In the run up to GISAID's inception in 2008, for example, WHO unsuccessfully attempted to create its own public domain system of virus data sharing, and reportedly prevented the release of funds intended to aid the development of GISAID." I will remind anyone reading this that these secondary sources are valued by Wikipedia standards more highly than primary records.

Reading through all these documents, I am even concerned (perhaps dismayed) about a hypothesis: Can we rule out that the SIB conspired -- but failed in their effort with staff at WHO -- to sideline GISAID? Especially since it's reported that the WHO sought "US$10 million for its own database and virus tracking system"? Would it not be true that if the WHO would have succeeded, this could have meant a much bigger carrot looming for the SIB? Can we rule out that the WHO eventually paid out the US taxpayer funding from the CDC to SIB, but SIB claimed it was actually applied to something different than the funds earmarked for the GISAID database development? It would seem the CDC was quite committed to the development of GISAID, according to sources.

Thus, there is clearly more to any "story" about contentious financial claims that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter is attempting to introduce into Wikipedia, which raises red flags about a not-so-insignificant appearance of a conflict of interest. We need reliable, secondary sources to support controversial claims. They are not being provided here by the red-linked editor. I strongly urge User:Tobeortobebetter (as I have previously and painstakingly advised User:Mhaeussl) to abide by policy and guidelines and refrain from using Wikipedia to vent or even worse, to smear articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I thank User:AppleBsTime for providing the link to PDFs from "numerous outlets" that they have uploaded to https://ufile.io/f/9zbwn. AppleBsTime, I am interested to learn how you acquired copies of these articles, as they appear to be no longer online?

This WP:TEXTWALL seems to assert that Nature is not a qualified secondary source, and that court judgements may not be cited on Wikipedia. I do not believe that is an accurate reflection of Wikipedia's policy standards.

I would encourage AppleBsTime to add any well-sourced content they believe is missing from Wikipedia. I would also request that they confirm whether or not they have a direct connection to the GISAID Initiative.

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

— Tobeortobebetter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi, AppleBsTime. You have reverted my edits and you have requested more discussion, but you have not responded to my questions above. Please could you do so, ideally concisely.

I note that you yourself were absent from Wikipedia from April 2022 until 17 February 2023 (which is just after I created this thread calling out Wacomshera's editing history).

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the ufile.io link and the origination of the files listed there -- it's kind of like the Jusmundi site, right? Nobody knows who posted the documents or how they were acquired, or whether the re-publisher was satisfying an agenda in posting the documents, or even whether the documents have been altered before being published on the site. That's why it's important to recognize what are good sources for Wikipedia articles and what are not-so-good sources. I'd say more, but I understand that you dislike WP:TEXTWALLs and prefer concise answers. I'm looking forward to editing with User:AncientWalrus, given his good-faith intentions. Your interrogation of me, who has contributed very widely to various areas of Wikipedia, including the pending changes team, for several years -- not so much appreciated. I'll endeavor to try harder to be welcoming, though. Are you willing to commit to any cooperative pledges? - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I am grateful for the concision, which makes discussion much more possible. AppleBsTime is saying, as I understand it, that they did not upload these files and do not know who did – please correct me if this understanding is incorrect. This is surprising given that the files were uploaded to this website on exactly the same day that AppleBsTime made this comment (and therefore expire 30 days later on 1 April). AppleBsTime, above I also asked if you could confirm whether you have a direct connection to the GISAID Initiative. I would be grateful if you could respond to that also.

I acknowledge that an interrogatory mode is not much fun, and regret that it is necessary but I hope you can understand why I have questions. I am acting in good faith, and commit to continue to do so. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid your understanding of the point I made with ufile.io is off the mark; but I'm confident you can figure it out. Also, your use of the word "necessary" above is missing the target. Interrogating editors in good standing is not only not necessary, it is considered rude. But, to satisfy your eager (yet unnecessary) need to know more, I assure you I'm not an employee of GISAID. Please try to remember that, as mutual editors of Wikipedia, we deserve to keep our identities private so that we are not subjected to retaliation -- something you and other "new" editors have mentioned multiple times on this page. - AppleBsTime (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asserting that you are not an employee of GISAID. Thank you also for acknowledging that you did upload these files. This means that either you downloaded these files in 2009, or you are in contact with somebody who did, suggesting you have a relatively close connection to this topic. (To use your words above.)

Let's get back to the content, specifically the clause that I am trying to add:

After a legal clash with the SIB, in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,

Let me try to summarise your points above:

• you don't think JusMundi is a valid source
• you don't think this material is sufficiently notable to make it into the article
• you don't think Wikipedia should cite court judgements
• you believe there may have been a major conspiracy

On the last point, I again encourage you to add any well-supported claims to the article. I fear I must stand firm on the first three points. Perhaps we should put up an RfC to help resolve this: does that sound good? I would like to ensure in this case that we bring in people who have not edited the article previously. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I ended up asking for some opinions on sourcing from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jus Mundi. The response was that this claim is well-sourced (indeed over-sourced!) but there was an agreement with AppleBsTime that secondary sources, such as Lexology and the Nature article, would be substantially preferred over Jus Mundi. I will therefore add the material, using those sources, and also perhaps one of the articles that AppleBsTime points to above. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Wave of Single-purpose accounts

It is troubling to see this article visited and chopped up by no less than three different single-purpose accounts in the course of just a few days.

• Leomrtns - 75% of edits in past two years are to this article
• AncientWalrus - New account, 100% of edits related to GISAID
• Tobeortobebetter - Relatively new account, 100% of edits related to GISAID

I am going to take what I believe is the prudent step and revert the article to the last stable version, and I strongly recommend that these new and/or fixated users (or "user", as sockpuppetry may be likely) discuss their editorial ambitions here on the Talk page first, where we obtain consensus of at least a couple of established editors before substantial modifications are agreed to be included. For example, changing a database's terms from "open" to "restricted" based on one publicly-editable website's designation is foolish at best, malicious at worst. I encourage editors with experience (500 edits to various articles would be a nice start) to step in here to discuss! - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello AppleBsTime, thank you for raising your concern on the talk page. I would appreciate if you assumed good faith and did not use loaded language like "troubling" and "chopped" up, but stuck to objective facts.

I would like to clarify that I am a separate editor from Leomrtns or Tobeortobebetter. I am a longtime Wikipedia editor (created my first article almost 20 years ago), but due to the topic at hand I am using a legitimate alternative account (WP:VALIDALT), since GISAID is known to retaliate against critics [2]. The policy states:

"A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. "

My edits were made in good faith and based on reliable sources. If you have concerns about the accuracy or relevance of any of my changes, I would appreciate it if you could explain them in detail on the talk page. As a sign of demonstrating good faith, I will explain my edits in a new topic. I would politely ask you to not Wikipedia:PULLRANK (e.g. you wrote "I have been an editor for a number of years, having made over 500 edits to hundreds of different articles, and even created a handful of new articles." above Talk:GISAID#A response from an experienced editor). AncientWalrus (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Echoing the reply above, I can confirm that I am a separate editor to the other accounts named here. I am also not a meatpuppet. I have already described my reasons for editing under an alias above. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Not the welcome I was expecting to newcomers. The accusation of sockpuppetry does not merit comment. I did not change the database definition from "open" to "restricted", re3data did. And according to GISAID's Editorial Board itself, "re3data.org and DataCite, the world’s leading provider of digital object identifiers (DOI) for research data, affirmed the designation of access to GISAID's database and data as Open Access" in 2017 (before current events expose its restrictions). The affirmation that it's a "publicly-editable website's designation" is incorrect, for this and other reasons. Furthermore, as others mentioned before here and in academic publications (shared on this talk page but actively removed from the main page), e.g. 10.1126/science.abi4496, users fear retaliation from GISAID thus limiting their criticism using real names. Leomrtns (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

User:AppleBsTime potentially demonstrates ownership behaviour

I am raising this point in good faith, in appreciation all editors' contributions.

Reading the talk page, I have noticed that User:AppleBsTime appears to have issues with page ownership (Wikipedia:OWNBEHAVIOR):

Ownership behaviour 1: "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

Ownership behaviour 2: "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."

Examples from the talk page (unless linked to diff)

- Recent revert of edits by 4 different authors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&diff=1146479957&oldid=1146477364 with the message "Restore stable version prior to WP:SPA activity. Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID".

- "I strongly recommend that these new and/or fixated users (or "user", as sockpuppetry may be likely) discuss their editorial ambitions here on the Talk page first, where we obtain consensus of at least a couple of established editors before substantial modifications are agreed to be included "

- "Lastly, there is a disturbing trend here at this GISAID article of "drive-by" editors throwing bombs into the mix to try to portray the subject in a light that the reliable sources do not share."

"A response from an experienced editor -- I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective."

"A Concern -- Hello, I have been taking some of my time on Wikipedia to improve this article, quite relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, with newer sources and a more readable intro. I am noticing multiple edits made (and re-inserted) by IP addresses appearing to have the single purpose of editing Wikipedia exclusively about GISAID, yet no other subjects. "

Furthermore there is evidence of Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator!, with User:AppleBsTime repeatedly stating their authority:

- "I have been an editor for a number of years, having made over 500 edits to hundreds of different articles, and even created a handful of new articles."

- Consistently accusing other editors of being Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and using that as the main reason to revert, e.g. "Undid revision 1141758724 - revert SPA inserting primary sources" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&oldid=1142517914) AncientWalrus (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

My thanks to the good-faith concerns presented by User:AncientWalrus. There is probably a dash of reality in his or her list of concerns, that a mentality of "ownership" has emerged in my interactions with other editors. I hope there is some understanding that this can happen when primarily one editor takes an interest in a topic that one admires, finds that essentially no other established, long-term editors share this interest, and that the (primarily) only other interactions seem to be with IP and "new account" editors who seem to have an agenda to criticize the topic that the established editor happens to admire. Not an excuse -- it's an explanation. I will endeavor to embrace this new opportunity, where we have one or more EXPERIENCED editors who happen to be creating new account(s) to protect their privacy and avert potential retaliation. My promise: if you endeavor to broadly consider all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that form the basis of a content culture of neutrality and representative accuracy, you'll have an ally here on the article page. I always welcome more experienced, seasoned editors who can bring fresh perspectives. I will respond elsewhere to your good (!) point-by-point suggested edits; hoping you'll allow me another 24 hours to do that -- it's been a long day of volunteer work. - AppleBsTime (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Detailed justification for edits reverted by User:AppleBsTime

@AppleBsTime reverted all the edits I (and other editors) made in the last few days with a blanket reason: "Restore stable version prior to WP:SPA activity. Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID". [3]

While I consider the blanket reversion of a number of carefully sourced edits back to a "stable" version not in line with Wikipedia:PRESERVE, instead of starting an edit war by reverting the revert, I will demonstrate good faith and carefully justify each edit I would like to make. I do not accept @AppleBsTime's view to "Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID" which smells like Wikipedia:Ownership of content to me (for a more detailed discussion of this point see Talk:GISAID above). In addition capitalization of "FIRST" is widely considered shouting and hence possible in violation of Wikipedia:Civility.

To keep the discussion on point, I will start a new topic for each proposed edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition of relevant sourced information to Infobox

This topic is part of a series. For the series summary see [4] above.

I propose the following edits to the infobox template:

1. Add full_name = Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data
2. Change formation from {{start date and age|May 2008}} to {{start date and age|2006}}. GISAID was registered legally in 2006 as a non-profit corporation in 2006 in the District of Columbia, US. See: From a memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: "Claimant: Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data, 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 400 E, Washington, DC 20001, USA hereinafter referred to as "Claimant" or "GISAID". Claimant is a non-profit corporation formed in 2006 under the laws of the District of Columbia, USA. [5]
3. Add founder = Peter Bogner. Reference: GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data – from vision to reality - PMC (nih.gov)
4. Add founding_location = Washington D.C. USA. Reference: [6]
5. Add registration_id = VR 204844, Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts München
6. Add status = Registered association (Germany)
7. Remove education from purpose = Global health, research, education as education does not appear to a purpose, at least I couldn't find it supported in sources
8. Make wiki link to Ron Fouchier in `key_people` (it hadn't been a link)
9. Add the two GISAID board members besides Peter Bogner: German lawyers Christoph Wetzlerand Jörg Paura.
10. Add owner = Freunde von GISAID e.V.
11. Use canonical `website` instead of `homepage`
12. Remove `name` field (it gets auto pulled from the article name) and hence remove abbreviation, as it is already the name

AncientWalrus (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of point number 1, as this is how the organization has been referenced in mainstream sources since at least May 2020.

Point 2 should remain open for discussion, but the "memorandum opinion" is not a reliable source until it's published by an authoritative party on an official (legal/governmental) site. Jus Mundi is a site that itself warns, "You should not consider the content found on the Website as a proper legal assistance", and "Jus Mundi may allow the Users to publish on the Website", and "It must be underlined that Jus Mundi shall not review, moderate, select, check or control the Content." That's why it should not be used as a source for any "official" information on Wikipedia, just as we wouldn't use (for example) Fandom as a formal source for important information, because the content is submitted by anyone, and the publishing site doesn't stand behind it in any real editorial sense. Let's look for other sources that prove the establishment of a corporation in 2006. A Google search for "Global Initiative on Sharing" "1001 G Street" "Suite 400" returns only one document (from the unreliable Jus Mundi).

Point 3 has plenty of support in reliable sources.

Point 4 -- again, problematic due to the unique source that hasn't been corroborated elsewhere. Also, is "founding_location" an important infobox element? Seems to me that the current location info provides far more utility to the user. I'll take some time to see how often this element is used in other infoboxes of similar organizations.

I'd like to continue further, but I have to break away for a spell -- I'll be back to address the remaining points! Again, thank you for this more considered approach to consensus, AncientWalrus. - AppleBsTime (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@AncientWalrus, is there a reason you have seemingly abandoned my agreement with Point 1, and you have disregarded my concerns about Points 2 and 4? For someone who claims that if there is no response for a couple of days on a Talk page, then that equates to agreement, I will have to assume that you agree with all four of my Points above, since it has been well over 10 days that you've had an opportunity to respond. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Justification of removal of direct quotation

I removed a direction quotation in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&oldid=1146820840 and accidentally submitted before I could include an edit summary, so I'm posting the edit summary here:

"Removing inaccurate direct quotation. The Australian minister didn't actually say what was quoted in the article. The article used to say:

Australia’s Minister of Health Mark Butler commented on "frameworks that have been so important globally during the pandemic, such as the GISAID Initiative".

However, the actual quotation from the government source is:

The meeting will also discuss ways to build on some of the frameworks that have been so important globally during the pandemic. The Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID initiative) and the Access to COVID Tools Accelerator proved invaluable in sharing data and driving the development and rollout of COVID‑19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.

Note, there is no "such as the GISAID initiative" in the original quote. Direct quotes need to be absolutely accurate.

Also, inclusion of this quote may be against WP:NPOV as it is a primary source cherry picked for praising GISAID. If this was to be included, it should be in a section "Praise" and not in "History" - history should definitely be neutral. AncientWalrus (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Samples from Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market

Recent coverage from The Atlantic, Nature, and The Hindu about data posted and removed from GISAID from samples taken from the Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market. GISAID revoked account credentials from some scientists who downloaded the data. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ScienceFlyer, as an established Wikipedia editor with a clearly open mind it would be incredibly useful to have your input on this page, and the discussions above. This page has been dominated by a user who appears to have a close connection to the subject matter, and a number of other recent editors are reluctant to edit under our standard handles for fear of retaliation. If you have time to read through some of the recent discussions above and to give your views that would be very helpful for breaking deadlock. It appears that @Leomrtns has recently added some useful material that touches on the revocation that you mention. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about this topic here. Feel free to improve, I have no attachment to the exact words. This is just a starter. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Disputed claim of GISAID being first to share SARS-CoV-2 sequences

Earlier today, I removed the following paragraph from the lede:

On January 10, 2020, the first whole-genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 were made available on GISAID, which enabled global responses to the pandemic, including the development of the first vaccines and diagnostic tests to detect SARS-CoV-2.

with the following edit summary:

Remove incorrect claim that the first SARS-CoV-2 sequences was published via GISAID. It was not. It appeared first on virological.org (11th of January) according to e.g. this reputable Science article from the same day: https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak - edit summary by @AncientWalrus (me)

The reason I felt confident removing the sentence was that neither did the source appear reliable ("BioSpectrum - Asia Edition" (a trade journal that describes itself as "BioSpectrum is an integrated B2B media platform for the healthcare and bioscience industry in the Asia Pacific region.") not was the claim justified in the source, all it said was: "Since the first SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes were shared via GISAID on 10 January 2020, ..." - which could have well been part of a press release provided to the publication. In fact the whole quoted article appears to be a press release.

That by itself was a strong reason to question the inclusion in the lede. However, on top of these issues, I found a far more reputable source (Science (journal) insider) arguing the case convincingly that the first SARS-CoV-2 sequence was published via virological.org - in fact GISAID was not even mentioned once: https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak

A few hours later, editor @AppleBsTime (who shows evidence of WP:Ownership of this article discussed in detail here), reverted my edit (removing the paragraph) and thereby including the paragraph again with the following edit summary:

Contentious editor attempting to unilaterally revise historical record. Don't replace without extensive Talk page discussion. - edit summary by @AppleBsTime

Now, just a few hours ago, the topic of who published the first SARS-CoV-2 sequence has surprisingly, and coincidentally, received new in-depth coverage by Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome

Anyone who wants to discuss this topic should read this article. It makes clear how dubious and weakly supported GISAID's claim of being the first to publish is. While there are limited, seemingly independent, sources repeating GISAID's claim, it is clear that GISAID is pressuring third parties to support its claim, e.g from this article:

"GISAID officials kept asking the authors to remove the offending virological.org reference even after publication, Andersen says. “They’re basically asking you to participate in their revisionist history,” he says. “I’m not willing to do that.”

I hope we can reach consensus on the removal of the claim in the next few days.

Since the topic is of current interest and the evidence disputing the claim as included in the article is strong, I will add the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_inline template linking here. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I will remove the disputed sentences in 2 days unless there are objections discussed here. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Good thing I have visited the page to undo your agenda-driven behavior. - AppleBsTime (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by That's not how this works. Please address the content questions at hand instead of resorting to WP:ASPERSIONS arguments. Also, I saw that you had already been called out above for WP:OWN behaviour and had pledged to do better, please stick to those good intentions.

Per WP:NPOV, given that the truthfulness of GISAID's primacy claims has been disputed by reputable experts as reported in a reliable source, we must not report them in Wikipedia voice (as the version that you tried to restore does.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)