User talk:SandyGeorgia

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Doc James, Bondegezou and Ocaasi, is this that? There was no date on the post, and I was just archiving my talk and see that I never responded. Of course, any one of my talk page stalkers could have responded, so I'm not sure about the adequacy of that survey methodology.

So, the alarming info in the Op-ed is that of 32 respondents, 6 had high school education or less. Would you consider a percentage that high to really be "reassurance about the reliability of content"? I find it troubling.

I'm also wondering about the conclusion that "three articles (autism, Asperger's syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome) showed a very different pattern with considerable editing by patients and others affected by those conditions". How do we know who has what (anyone can be anything on the internet)? Autism and Asperger's syndrome were almost wholly authored by Eubulides, so I'm not sure what that statement is saying, but then, I don't have access to the full journal report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No this is prior work. The above barnstar survey is still in publication. Many of those without an educational background are involved with non clinical stuff like categorizing, fixing refs and dealing with vandalism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: So, the post above wasn't dated ... should I respond? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The post above was from 6 or 7 months ago. No need to respond now. Data analysis has occurred and been submitted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and i was so hoping for my 15 minutes of statistical fame ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Doc James has clarified, that was a different survey to my study with User:Hydra Rain. James's study will be out in due course, but in so far as the two studies overlap, they broadly agree. Studies like these do rely on self-report, but self-report is generally reliable. If we have a mix of editors, the next question is how that mix contributes to the final result. If many of the editors are healthcare professionals, will their input be sufficient to catch any errors introduced by other editors? What sorts of edits are different people making? I concur with James that many editors without a relevant educational background are making useful edits of a gnomic nature.

The bit about 3 articles with significant patient input was from a pilot study that hasn't been properly written up. It also reflects the situation a few years ago rather than those articles now. I offer it as an observation, but it requires more investigation. Again, the article is the product of many different editors, so multiple people may be involved, but the end result still largely reflect the work of just one person. An editor may have a very important role reverting vandalism to an article, yet never contribute any original content themself. But these are challenges for future research.

Thanks for your interest. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postrel article

FWIW, a great deal of what I see in the Postrel article rings true with me. I don't see that Adrienne's contributions are key to its thesis; you could just as easily have substituted Giano's early architecture articles ('07ish?) which I rather vaguely recall as having the same sort of strong, sweeping editorial voice. I'm not convinced the lack of such a voice is a problem–that can be a very destructive style in the hands of lesser mortals, myself included–but I think the bulk of the article stands without it: knowledgeable amateurs find it hard to make substantive contributions because it can take years of marinating in our internal processes full-time to achieve mastery of them. You and I both contribute somewhat sporadically; we don't find this a problem because we've been here for years and are laden with knowledge of the processes that grew up around us, but if I were starting to edit Wikipedia today, I'm not convinced I would *ever* be able to make what substantive contributions I can now manage. I'd just be doing mindless things like tweaking categories and tagging talk pages for projects. But after all the vaporing over Doc James' recent block, my enthusiasm for arguing "lower barriers for good people vs. higher barriers for disruptive people" has dropped to "Thbbft!" (in the immortal words of Bill the Cat). Choess (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ah, Choess, there is so much to be said about the Postrel article, and I still hesitate to weigh in because I find it hard to say what has to be said without speaking ill of the dead. But I shall give it a try after several more cups of coffee :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes:

"... doesn’t degenerate into gibberish and graffiti".
It does. Routinely. Postrel and the editors interviewed perhaps have not surveyed our extensive and dangerous gibberish in the psych and neuropsych realms, or the extensive POV gibberish and graffiti in the suite of Venezuelan articles. Of course, I might have a different view of Wikipedia if I edited in the relatively safe cookie-cutter realms of ships, hurricanes, or coins. Every time another article spreads the notion that Wikipedia is not gibberish, they are potentially pointing people to and endorsing the seriously bad medical info in here, or seriously POV political info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike open-source software contributions, working on Wikipedia provides few career advantages."
Not entirely true. First, let's consider what is going on these days with WMF funding, and the growing number of paid staff (running programs like the Education Program, that are making volunteer editors' work more difficult). Second, anyone who thinks Awadewit's Wikipedia career had no impact on her academic career wasn't paying attention. She's not the only example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Jensen, a retired history professor, is a credentialed scholar, which makes him unusual among Wikipedia’s editors."
We frequently see the claim that editors like Jensen are unusual. In terms of sheer numbers, they may be. In terms of who is adding and vetting meaningful content, I doubt it. And, one wonders if Postrel has ever had the unique opportunity to edit with and around Jensen. If s/he had, she might have offered a more detailed analysis of the very issues raised in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Forced to defend the site’s integrity, incumbent editors become skeptical, even hostile, toward the newcomers who could ensure its future."
As usual in these articles, cast the "hostility" endemic to Wikipedia as "us vs them", but nowhere in the article is there mention of the much bigger problem in here of "us vs us". Postrel didn't do his/her homework, and on that score, I will say no more (see my comments above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... one of the few academics who contribute heavily to the site".
See 3, superficial.
" In his introduction, Jemielniak explains he will “try to solve the puzzle of why Wikipedia’s novel organizational design works; it should not, but it does.”" Followed, ironically, by a discussion of the Five pillars.
Seriously? Specifically on the five pillars, Wikipedia is a failure. Of the many things Wikipedia is, it is not the five pillars. It is not neutral, it is not based on reliable sources, it is an anarchy, it is not free of advertising and spam, it is ALL ABOUT COPYVIO (and who remembers how Wikipedia drove the SOPA debacle?), shall I go on? Superficial. Another missed journal opportunity for an author to really highlight the problems in here. But we don't do that ... we get reports of deceased Wikipedians in the New York Times because we (WMF) want to promote Gender Gapism, but when medical editors ask, beg, plead for something to be done about the dangerous medical content and student edits affecting same, we get silence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Contrary to widespread belief, the most controversial pages are often the most substantial and balanced, ... "
Bologna (see all of the above). And then go read Hugo Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Disputes end only when an arrangement acceptable to all participants is reached."
What does that even mean? Sheesh, certainly not the case. No mention of admin abuse, bad ArbCom decisions, unfortunate bans, abusive blocks, and just how bad it gets in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"These debates and discussions give participants a strong sense of agency and belonging."
I don't think so; see the posts at the top of my user page. They give participants quite often a sense of despair and a desire to walk away. "Us vs them"? The "us vs us" costs us many good and experienced editors, who have no desire to belong to a club like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In reality, Wikipedia functions as a largely closed community, using procedural knowledge and a sort of passive-aggressive resistance to deter outsiders." Followed by long discussion of treatment of "outsiders" and "new editors", but nothing of the internal problems with long-standing or former editors (several of whom he mentions in the article, who I will refrain from naming).
See all of the above, and I will sit on my fingers on where I've encountered both passive-aggressive and outright aggression from "us vs us". The us vs us problem in here is far worse than the us vs them, where at least we have WP:BITE.
"But the us-against-them attitude threatens Wikipedia’s future, as existing editors drift away and aren’t replaced." Followed by Awadewit as an example, and a superficial and incomplete analysis of her participation and legacy.
Sitting on my fingers. See all of the above.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moni3: @86.164.164.29: @Choess: @Eric Corbett: @Casliber: @MastCell: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'd LOVE for someone to have dealt with the POV-pushing on Middle Ages late last year and early this year by immediately blocking the guy. I should have been so lucky. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts with respect to students. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it's a killer in here :) Thanks, Doc. I do it as long as I can, and then ... leave. It is just too discouraging to spend all of one's time cleaning up bad edits after editors who never return. I always liked mentoring new editors, because of the payoff in turning them into good contributors, but there is no payout here, either in content or in developing new editors. We have ill-prepared, under-supervised kids adding medical content to one of the world's top websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we/they could be using some input from here... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On that User:WhatamIdoing has a list of gaps in basic nursing concepts such a class ought to be able to helpfully add to. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Helpfully add[ing] to" the website involves engaging the website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fortunate example, I think, of a student who seems to display internal as well as external motivation. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's not a username violation, it ought to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, some people just love pessimism--and manage to create negativity absolutely uselessly. --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jelly Bean MD; nice to meet you! Would you agree that, per Wikipedia:Username policy, presenting yourself as an MD when you're not is misleading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps--yet the deception will soon be over! --Jelly Bean MD (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civic pride for you! (new wiki-love message)

Dear Sandy, do please consider visiting the real Bologna – a damn fine city!

While in Bologna, you'll get the chance to enjoy some of the many local delicacies, including genuine mortadella and other salumi, which you might like to wash down with a glass of sparkling pignoletto at the Osteria del Sole. Just don't expect to find any spaghetti bolognese (or other baloney). Though there'll certainly be plenty of good tagliatelle al ragù...

Cheers! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

goodness me, 86, why would you think I haven't visited Bologna? It's not my favorite Italian city, but nonetheless ... I did live in Italy, 'ya know :) (I'm personally a risotto and carpaccio type.) 86, methinks you're just being nice to me because you can tell I'm about to give up and go away again :) As in, ci vediamo dopo !!!! For general jollies, I've posted below for you one of my most treasured barnstars from one of Wikipedia's finest (now banned) editors; folks in here could learn a lot from our favorite portly gentleman. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the First Lady of (April)-Tomfoolery

The Fat Man is pleased to present his favourite taskmistress with this vile, pungent wheel of wriggling Casu marzu in recognition of her heel-nipping, whip-cracking, arm-twisting, irrefutable-offer-making illustriousness. The product of her beneficent tyranny is evidenced here and, like, a zillion other places. Please age this cheese in a cool, damp place (away from direct sunlight) until a suitable occasion arises for its reemergence. Enjoy responsibly.

This made my day, and I totally mean it. Your friend, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks Sandy (I think...). That's actually brought back a series of recollections, including one about something that had to be moved from a cupboard following complaints. As a renowned president of the Bologna football team is said to have opined when interviewed on the radio after a resounding win, SINE QUA NON... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize

I shot my mouth off, overreacting to your comments. This semester has been difficult and many student editors have caused me stress. Although I thought about what I typed and considered your intent understood, I've apparently misjudged your statements. Wikipedia is supposed to be about building something and I don't want to harm good-faith contributors like yourself. I retract my foolish comments towards you.

In the future, always feel free to let me know about anything going wrong in situations like this. I value your input. When I see stuff on a noticeboard I assume you've given up on letting me handle it myself and are just "putting me on blast", as the kids say. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]