Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OsmoseIt (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 28 March 2018 (→Update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcut

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

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

    List of archives

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

    Resolved
    Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

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

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

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

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

    Seppi333, I did the GA review on Norepinephrine but I couldn't do an FA review on my own for the first time. So I would be glad to help with the review and think if we could find another co-reviewer then this could really happen. I know there are biochemists in the project but can't recall who they are at the moment. I have created articles on medications, a degree in chemistry and coursework in pharmacology. I can't evaluate the referencing of an article because, well, I'm not the best editor for this task. The guild of copy editors might like to help. I would really be thrilled to see this happen. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The main difference between reviewing a FAC and a GA candidate is that there's no official reviewer or structured process for reviewing and the reviewers aren't the ones who decide whether or not the article is promoted or fails the FAC process, although there are structured review criteria. To review a FAC, you basically just add your comments about the article's compliance with the FA criteria to the FAC nomination page and, if the nomination has received sufficient support within 2 months of the nomination date, the FAC coordinators will promote it; otherwise, the nomination is archived (i.e., the article fails).
    Just to clarify: the FAC coordinators decide whether or not an article is promoted based upon their assessment of the consensus among reviewers about its compliance with the FA criteria. If 3 reviewers oppose for a stupid reason (e.g., "I just don't like it") and 5 support it after extensively reviewing the article against the criteria, the coordinators will probably promote the article to FA status. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As of right now, only 1 reviewer supports the promotion of this candidate and 0 reviewers oppose it. There's a lot of comments/discussion at the moment though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also contributed. It would be appreciated if other editors could put in their 2¢ given that this is the fourth nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI
     – this nomination will be reviewed by a FAC coordinator and archived or promoted sometime on or around March 15th.

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

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

    Kudos to Seppi333 and all who did the heavy lift for this FAC! — soupvector (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Great job Seppi333! Thank you for all your hard work and perseverance. Boghog (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. This article wouldn't have been promoted had it not been for the input from editors affiliated with this WikiProject, so I wanted to thank everyone from WP:MED who provided constructive feedback/comments or otherwise assisted with reviewing this article in any of the 4 featured article nominations (@Doc James, Jytdog, WhatamIdoing, Sizeofint, Axl, CFCF, Tom (LT), DePiep, Soupvector, Evolution and evolvability, and Barbara (WVS): i.e., you).  Thank you very much! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boghog: exactly like the previous article you helped me with, getting this article promoted to FA status likely wouldn't have been possible without your assistance with writing the chemistry section or as a co-nominator at FAC. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    well done!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations! You did all the work and deserve all the credit. Ping me when you want a review of your next FA. You should be proud to have brought the article to such a high level of scholarship. I admire your editing. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 15:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

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

    @Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    per[1] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can make a place where old scripts can be archived and maybe even make archiving a requirement for using a script? It seems strange that we keep every old article version yet keep losing important scripts and other tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing this more an more such as:

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

    will be more attentive to this type of spam--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an SEO tactic, we discussed something very similar to this a while ago. They seem to have moved from replacing good but dead sources with spam; to now adding good but irrelevant sources alongside spam. Maybe this is something Beetstra would be interested in. Carl Fredrik talk 17:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This post seems to have been pretty popular: https://www.matthewwoodward.co.uk/tutorials/easy-wikipedia-link-building/
    ... may have found the blog that suggested this first:
    86.31.184.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) should be banned
    Carl Fredrik talk 17:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If no recent edits why ban the IP? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a clear of paid editing, where several IPs associated to the firm that have edited. The blog strongly suggest that there are a number of accounts under that IP that actively edit. Block the IP would get rid of the accounts as well. It's a good first step before we start with a sockpuppet-investigation, but of course only doing that is rather pointless. Carl Fredrik talk 20:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point User:CFCF. How long does "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" last? Is it indefinite? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James — It should be indefinite. Carl Fredrik talk 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Thanks, Carl Fredrik talk 12:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolvins

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

    Have left some feedback for the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What template is that you used? Alexbrn (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Reliable sources please}} but I think handwritten messages are better for this job since they don't look thoughtless (the editor was welcomed to Wikipedia years ago). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for entering residency

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

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

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

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

    Thank you, Treetear for getting two of them done so quickly. I've done two more.
    It looks like that leaves us just 8 more (out of all of our 41,263 articles!) to fix up. Who else can help today? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The last one (TURP syndrome) was a bit crude, because it had linked to hyperglycinemia but that term is used for inborn errors (ketotic and non-ketotic forms). A better solution would be a section of glycine or even a page on iatrogenic glycine toxicity, which is really what's going on with TURP syndrome secondary to glycine irrigation. — soupvector (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And that, ladies and gentlemen, may be that. So long as readers get pointed to the right places, job done. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI created article + changes to template/main MS article

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

    That looks like a great little beginning, Calaka. (I made the refs look a little fancier just now.)
    If you (or we) could make it about four times as long in the next few days, then you could send it to WP:DYK and get it on the Main Page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a great idea WhatamIdoing. I have access to the literature thanks to my university access. Any topics/headings you can suggest to add to the page?Calaka (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Findings can be a tough case for article structure. In this case, maybe you would find some of these be appropriate:
    • Follow up (Explicitly specifying "nothing", if nothing is normally done, could actually be informative to readers)
    • Prognosis (e.g., likelihood of developing MS symptoms)
    • Epidemiology (e.g., gender predilection, typical age, prevalence if known?)
    • Research directions (Is anyone trying to figure this out?)
    I'd add that if there's something that the reviews/textbooks/good sources talk about a lot, then this probably belongs in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the pointers. I will do some research tonight and add them in to the article. Maybe you can have a look once I finish and tidy it up to Wiki standards? :) Calaka (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @WhatamIdoing, I have tried expanding RIS and would love to see what you think. I am not a doctor (though I am studying MS) so apologies if I have mixed up the terminology in terms of prognosis, epidemiology etc. Also was wondering if there is an easier way to add the references from the link as I have found adding the names and details manually tedious. Getting an image on the article would be fantastic though I do not know of any sources where there are copyright free images of MRI scans showing RIS. Also happy for any other comments or suggestions you may have. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look.
    Refs are super easy since you're using the visual editor. Click the "Cite" button in the middle of the toolbar, paste in the URL from PubMed in the "automatic" tab, and let the citoid service figure it out for you. ;-) It won't do everything (it's hopeless with PDFs, in particular), but it's excellent with PubMed links and okay with most DOIs. Formatting all but one took me just 10 minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some copyediting. I think you've done really well with expanding this. You cited a few reviews and a few primary sources – which is probably fine for such a rare (and newly described) condition, since you're either using them as footnotes on historical claims, or you've appropriately labeled them as being from single studies. Someday, we'll hopefully be able to replace them all with reviews and textbooks, but this looks like the best available sources at this point. I think you (or someone who knows more about nerves than I do) need to look at Radiologically isolated syndrome#Diagnosis to re-write it in your own words. Copying whole lists can be a copyright violation, and of course nobody wants that. But overall, I think you should be proud of what you've already accomplished here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the kind words and the tip! It was right in front of me but I missed it. And yeah unfortunately I knew about needing to use secondary sources etc. but struggled to find much being said in reviews compared to the primary literature. Oh and yeah I tried to do my best to reword the list in my own words but perhaps it should be turned into a table like has been done for the McDonald_criteria#Diagnostic_Criteria, as it would be hard to change the wording so much that it is not a copyvio? Would you suggest I nominate the article to DYK? Calaka (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey WhatamIdoing, I decided to be bold and make the nomination. Let me know if its all good. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mindfulness meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My first thought is that the claim that mindfulness programs "have been widely adopted" and that "programs have been applied" is not a therapeutic claim at all. "We managed to get schools to buy this" or "We convinced some dieters to try this" is sales information, not biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's why it belongs in a sales brochure, not an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually with great respect to editors here and who I generally agree with, and I do agree in part with the comments, I'd add: There's no problem with charting the trajectory of mindfulness into the schools, and as well all the information on mindfulness does not fall under MEDRS, but what I object to, and maybe that is what others meant, is the way in which the content has been added. It becomes advertising because of the subtle and maybe not so subtle promotional quality of the writing which comes out context as well as undue weight. I've seen neutral content that when placed with other perfectly neutral content becomes either pejorative or promotional because of placement. If it were me I'd clean up the article by adjusting weight and context. Since I have edited other articles on meditation techniques the kind of extensive editing I'm talking about might be seen as non- neutral so I'll leave that to someone else. I realize I'm probably being somewhat obscure in my references; I want to remain somewhat removed from this article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Excellent points all around. I’m old enough to have seen many “”breakthough!” psych treatments come and go. A few have done the hard work and over time generated empirical support, e.g., CBT; exposure therapies; SSRI/SNRI rx (although oversold to some extent); & modern ECT for severe depression. Perhaps mindfulness therapies will get there too, but not at present.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with a re-write – I'm feeling grumpy, so I'd probably write that it "has been marketed to older people, dieters, athletes, teachers, and new mothers" rather than what's there at the moment – but I'd oppose anyone insisting upon "MEDRS sources" about marketing.
    In the category of such sources, though, I remember reading that some sort of meditation/mindfulness kind of thing was done in prisons but found to be harmful (not just useless). So if I had an hour free, I'd probably look for contrarian sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is specifically about mindfulness and Mindfulness meditation and whatever research has been done on this form of meditation so sources would have to be specific to mindfulness-to save you time. Sorry if I am stating the obvious. And to clarify, I am in no way saying mindfulness is not effective-I have no idea if it is or not- simply that the article must be crafted so that it does not appear to be promotional- not to be confused with positive-and that health related aspects of the article have MEDRS sources. In a quick look it looks as if mindfulness in prisons is useful but I didn't check the quality of the sources. Mindfulness mediation research may be pretty new so research may still be in infancy and all that means in terms of quality.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    There is a meta-anlaysis on acceptance and commitment therapy (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25547522) that claims "Our findings indicate that ACT is more effective than treatment as usual or placebo and that ACT may be as effective in treating anxiety disorders, depression, addiction, and somatic health problems as established psychological interventions." At the moment there doesn't seem to be a widespread consensus on the efficacy of these more recent psychological treatments. Lucleon (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Postpartum immune function

    Resolved

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

    Yes. I've commented there. — soupvector (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another link to a DAB page

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

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

    Chromium

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

    Just to make this more difficult, here are two sources from the U.S. who still think chromium is essential. US NAS (National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine) 2001 and US Office of Dietary Supplements March 2, 2018. The first from 2001 is our national reference. I expect but do not know that the second takes their cues from the first. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved my comments over to Talk:Chromium#Not_essential. — soupvector (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help. It uncovered ESPEN, a MEDRS. I can post follow up to Talk:Mineral (nutrient). -SusanLesch (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented there as well, but more eyes would be welcome. — soupvector (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WHO Cancer update

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

    it notes several refs including World Cancer Report 2014--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the "Cancer" article referencing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sucrose: a disaccharide of glucose (left) and fructose (right), important molecules in the body.

    The Sugar article currently contains the statement "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases.[1][2]". Both those refs are from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health". I'm not sure what that means. Is it a reliable medrs source, or a vanity publication?

    Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the Corn Refiners Association (sic).[3] The lead author of the second paper is James M. Rippe, the founder and director of Rippe Health.[4][5] The other is written by John Sievenpiper [edit:name made into wikilink] and his postdoc. Dr. Sievenpiper has received media attention for the support he has received from the sugar industry.[6]

    There is a better source. A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about low-glycemic index diets for cardiovascular health, because all the evidence was poor-quality.[7] But I'd like to know if the supplement should be used as a source at all, as it is also cited on sugar addiction (this paper[8]). The entire Rippe supplement seems to be open access, which is nice, but I can't see a copyleft.

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

    1. ^ "Controversies about sugars: results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses on obesity, cardiometabolic disease and diabetes". European Journal of Nutrition. 55 (Suppl 2): 25–43. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1345-3. PMC 5174149. PMID 27900447. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
    2. ^ Rippe, J. M; Angelopoulos, T. J (2016). "Sugars, obesity, and cardiovascular disease: Results from recent randomized control trials". European Journal of Nutrition. 55 (Suppl 2): 45–53. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1257-2. PMC 5174142. PMID 27418186.
    3. ^ http://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm
    4. ^ http://www.rippehealth.com/aboutdrrippe/cv.htm
    5. ^ http://www.rippehealth.com/rippehealth/staff.htm
    6. ^ http://nationalpost.com/health/canadian-researchers-have-received-hundreds-of-thousands-from-soft-drink-makers-and-the-sugar-industry
    7. ^ http://www.cochrane.org/CD004467/VASC_low-glycaemic-index-diets-cardiovascular-disease
    8. ^ Westwater ML; Fletcher PC; Ziauddeen H (November 2016). "Sugar addiction: the state of the science". European Journal of Nutrition. 55 (Suppl 2): 55–69. doi:10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6. PMC 5174153. PMID 27372453.

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

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

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

    So I'm not going to say it has to be purged, but it should be given less weight, and maybe one could push the unhealthy lifestyle connection more, with the caveat that this is speculation.
    The Rippe and Angeloupoulos source falls below this level of evidence, and is pretty much a narrative review of RCTs, which when we have meta-analysis and systematic reviews of the same topic — should not be included. It mentions systemic reviews in its summary, but the focus is squarely on RCTs. There is quite significant COI here as well, which further weighs it down. It also cites a systemtic review, focusing on a point that is omitted from the sentence above:

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

    So what I can infer here is that they both hypothesize that sugar consumption leads to weight gain, because(?) it causes increased caloric intake. This confounder is side-stepped by the authors focusing on the one systematic review on restricted diets, rather than the "ad libitum" or "at will" diets of the two available systematic reviews.
    Point being, I Support removing that sentence, because it is not reasonably supported by the sources. They miss too many points, and the major findings are ignored. They could be used to support other statements in the Sugar-article, but I'm pretty sure there are better sources, with less COI-issues to be found. Carl Fredrik talk 19:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also why was this removed in April/May of 2017:

    Studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction. Some experts have suggested that refined fructose is more damaging than refined glucose in terms of cardiovascular risk.[1] Cardiac performance has been shown to be impaired by switching from a carbohydrate diet including fiber to a high-carbohydrate diet.[2]

    Switching from saturated fatty acids to carbohydrates with high glycemic index values shows a statistically-significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction.[3] Other studies have shown that the risk of developing coronary heart disease is decreased by adopting a diet high in polyunsaturated fatty acids but low in sugar, whereas a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet brings no reduction. This suggests that consuming a diet with a high glycemic load typical of the "junk food" diet is strongly associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease.[4]

    The consumption of added sugars has been positively associated with multiple measures known to increase cardiovascular disease risk amongst adolescents as well as adults.[5]

    Studies are suggesting that the impact of refined carbohydrates or high glycemic load carbohydrates are more significant than the impact of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease.[6][7]

    A high dietary intake of sugar (in this case, sucrose or disaccharide) can substantially increase the risk of heart and vascular diseases. According to a Swedish study of 4301 people undertaken by Lund University and Malmö University College, sugar was associated with higher levels of bad blood lipids, causing a high level of small and medium low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL). In contrast, the amount of fat eaten did not affect the level of blood fats. Incidentally quantities of alcohol and protein were linked to an increase in the good HDL blood fat.[8]

    References

    1. ^ Brown, Clive M.; Dulloo, Abdul G.; Montani, Jean-Pierre (2008). "Sugary drinks in the pathogenesis of obesity and cardiovascular diseases". International Journal of Obesity. 32: S28. doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.204. PMID 19079277.
    2. ^ Pôrto, Laura C. J.; Savergnini, Sílvia S. Q.; de Castro, Carlos H.; Mario, Erica G.; Ferreira, Adaliene V. M.; Santos, Sérgio H. S.; Andrade, Sílvia P.; Santos, Robson A. S.; de Almeida, Alvair P.; Botion, Leida M. "Carbohydrate-enriched diet impairs cardiac performance by decreasing the utilization of fatty acid and glucose". Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease. 5 (1): 11–22. doi:10.1177/1753944710386282. ISSN 1753-9455. Retrieved 21 March 2018.
    3. ^ Jakobsen, Marianne U.; Claus Dethlefsen; Albert M. Joensen; Jakob Stegger; Anne Tjønneland; Erik B. Schmidt; Kim Overvad (2010). "Intake of carbohydrates compared with intake of saturated fatty acids and risk of myocardial infarction: importance of the glycemic index". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91 (6): 1764–8. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.29099. PMID 20375186. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
    4. ^ Stanley, William C.; Keyur B. Shah; M. Faadiel Essop (2009). "Does Junk Food Lead to Heart Failure? Importance of Dietary Macronutrient Composition in Hypertension". Hypertension. 54 (6): 1209–10. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.109.128660. PMC 2803034. PMID 19841293. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
    5. ^ Welsh, Jean A.; Sharma, Andrea; Cunningham, Solveig A.; Vos, Miriam B. (2011). "Consumption of Added Sugars and Indicators of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Among US Adolescents". Circulation. 123 (3): 249–57. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.972166. PMID 21220734.
    6. ^ Siri-Tarino, Patty W.; Sun, Qi; Hu, Frank B.; Krauss, Ronald M. (2010). "Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91 (3): 502–9. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26285. PMC 2824150. PMID 20089734.
    7. ^ Hu, Frank B. (2010). "Are refined carbohydrates worse than saturated fat?". American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91 (6): 1541–2. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29622. PMC 2869506. PMID 20410095.
    8. ^ }} Sonestedt, Emily; Wirfält, Elisabet; Wallström, Peter; Gullberg, Bo; Drake, Isabel; Hlebowicz, Joanna; Nordin Fredrikson, Gunilla; Hedblad, Bo; Nilsson, Jan; Krauss, Ronald M.; Orho-Melander, Marju (2011). "High disaccharide intake associates with atherogenic lipoprotein profile". British Journal of Nutrition. 107: 1062–1069. doi:10.1017/S0007114511003783.
    Carl Fredrik talk 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC) [edited by HLHJ to put the entire quote in quote format][reply]
    Some of the section you quote was removed by Jytdog on grounds, mostly, that the sources were terrible or primary (details in his edit summaries). The section as edited by Jytdog still contained the bit about animal studies, but the section was entirely replaced by Zefr just after Jytdog cleaned up the section. Zefr's version is still current and cites only the Rippe Supplement refs I am worried about (I've told Zefr I was worried and would look into them).
    Does anyone know what the European Journal of Nutrition (not to be confused with the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or other similarly-named journals) means when it describes a publication as being a sponsored supplement? HLHJ (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this. yes we should be careful with regard to James Rippe and his practice, Rippe Health. See this 2014 NYT piece and this WaPo piece from the same time. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    not good[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the references, Jytdog. I've added them to my increasingly lengthy history of notgoodness at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information. HLHJ (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any generally-recognized database of the conflicts of interests of journals? Not Beall's list of predatory publishers, but a list of journals' funding, grants, reprint orders, etc.? Whether they print paid supplements, and on what terms? Or even just more basic stuff? In this case, I can't find a way to be sure who had editorial control of a sponsored supplement.
    More subtle versions of the shill publication Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine might declare their funding and cite one another like mad. Has anyone heard of other sponsored journal-like things, or how to spot them? HLHJ (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Paging User:DGG... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it! Linked from the European Journal of Nutrition homepage (which I had looked for before, but absurdly, hadn't found). It turns out that the entire supplement was under the editorial control of James Rippe.
    I am unconvinced that this form of publication funding serves the public good. Also, being the editor of a supplement containing a paper on which one is the lead author seems unusual.
    I was curious to know who funded and edited the journal's other supplements; they publish a lot of them (23 of them, in fact, starting abruptly in 2002, after forty-odd years of the journal's existence). The resulting list was long, so I've posted it in my draftspace. In summary; I don't think I, personally, would cite anything from the European Journal of Nutrition. There are just too many conflicts of interest for my taste. I would heavily scrutinize any statement backed up by a paper they had published. They may well have published some respectable research; I didn't actually read the articles, although some of the stuff I skimmed I found worrying (the idea of supporting nutrition trends, for instance, and stuff that I would template as too advertising-like if I found it on Wikipedia).
    Does anyone know anything about the history of this publication? It would be nice to be able to add something to the European Journal of Nutrition article. HLHJ (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Eur J Nutrition was by no means the only publisher to issue such sponsored supplements. A number of otherwise very high quality journals did, and they represent a disgraceful cheapening of the medical literature. I do not consider any such publication to be truly peer-reviewed--it has the same status as any other conference papers in a commercially sponsored conference. In many cases these supplements were included only in the issues sent to individual subscribers, not to libraries. Essentially, they were advertisements.
    I am amazed and horrified to learn that they are still being published. I do not know how fair it is to stigmatize this particular journal. I know where to ask, and I shall inquire further.
    What I am fairly sure about, is that ewe cannot use the material as a RS even in our usual meaning of RS, and certainly not a MEDRS. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, DGG. There are "European+Journal+of+Nutrition"+&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1 39 other articles that mention the European Journal of Nutrition, and from a quick scan, some of them are from other sponsored supplements whose conflicts of interest I listed. Some references, like the one in the Vitamin A or Lactulose articles, are obvious because part of the citation mentions that they are from a supplement; you can see it from the search page. I'll replace them with {{citation needed}} and a suitable edit comment, unless there's a better route. But the formatting of the supplements was not very consistent, so if we are going to keep the non-paid-supplement articles from the European Journal of Nutrition, I'll go through and check them individually.
    Should non-paid-supplement articles from the European Journal of Nutrition count as WP:RS or WP:MEDRS?
    HLHJ (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I needd to revise my comment: On my talk page, you pointed out" this supplement article, cited in Venous stasis, from 2012. It includes a very precise breakdown of what the supplement sponsor is not allowed to do. HLHJ (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "[reply]
    and indeed, this may be a different type than the earlier pseuo-peer-revieweed articles I remember. I will need to check further, but my feeling is that we should not necessarily ban all such references, but they do need a comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[edit:indent by HLHJ][reply]
    Fair. I should say that some Eur. J. Nutr. articles, even at least one in the Rippe supplement, appear not to have major authorial COIs. If they aren't properly peer-reviewed, though, I don't think they should be cited for anything important. The attitude of the EJN editorial board to peer review is a concern to me, based on the limited information I have. The stated policy of the EJN on supplements is available from the EJN homepage as a pop-up from the sidebar link "Aims and Scope":

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

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

    General policy on paid supplements

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

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

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

    The Internation Dairy Federation is an industry association. No full form of "FAO" is given; I don't know if they mean the Food and Agriculture Organization. I don't know who funded the supplement.
    The Journal of Nutrition is in fact run by the American Society for Nutrition, whose Wikipedia article fails to mention their funding. Their website lists a some familiar large companies in the food industry, which list I have wikified at Talk:American Society for Nutrition#Funding. There is a general lack of Wikipedia content on the sponsorship of medical professional organizations.
    This is one paper. I think I need some help. Should there be an edit filter that automatically warns any editor trying to add a supplement reference to check for supplement sponsorship? Or is this too broad? HLHJ (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There should not be an edit filter (which are "expensive" in computer terms). There could, however, be a bot that leaves a friendly note on the article's talk page, so that any interested editor is aware of the question.
    BTW, are you aware of the template {{Better source}}? It's very handy for situations in which, for whatever reason, you think that the current source should be replaced by something more solid. Tagging a ref for improvement is often more practical than blanking it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was aware of {{Better source}}, but hadn't thought of it in this context. Thank you, WhatamIdoing, it's a good idea.
    That's a good reason for not using an edit filter. I think the basic problem here is that it can take time-consuming digging to uncover COIs. We need metadata that makes COIs jump out at the reader and the editor. I've started by posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide#Journal conflicts of interest, with a suggestion that Wikipedia articles on journals routinely contain statements about the journal's funding and COIs. I've also posted to Wikidata:Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData#Conflict-of-interest metadata, asking if the metadata could help, say through parameters to make refs have a COI flag with a link to details. Opinions, wishlists? HLHJ (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lengthy treatment section

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

    SPA?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically we don't called editors with 3 edits SPAs. Their edits can still be problematic though. Carl Fredrik talk 22:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for addressing my concerns; the article looks in better shape now. CV9933 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this. Have further worked over the Schnitzler syndrome page and the anakinra both of which were horrible. Our article on the drug was mostly copy/pasted from the label :( Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of mystery diseases

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

    Agree, and would add that using the term "disease" in the name of this particular article seems unfortunate. Many strive to use "syndrome" for unhealthy conditions that have unknown or multiple causes, and reserve "disease" for unhealthy conditions with a defined cause. While this distinction is very far from absolute, the term "disease" tilts toward "known cause". — soupvector (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a conversation that will be most productively had on the article's talk page, i.e., where there will be a record for all future editors who are trying to figure that out. (Also, please document the result, whatever it is, in the article's lead, per standard WP:SALLEAD practice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This news article:

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

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

    Interesting. Especially the last 5 paragraphs. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also here. I wonder whether this clinic is notable enough for an article. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [3]probably is notable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    In 2007, the overall costs of cancer in the US—including treatment and indirect mortality expenses (such as lost productivity in the workplace)—was estimated to be $226.8 billion. In 2009, 32% of Hispanics and 10% of children 17 years old or younger lacked health insurance; "uninsured patients and those from ethnic minorities are substantially more likely to be diagnosed with cancer at a later stage, when treatment can be more extensive and more costly."[1]

    References

    1. ^ "Cancer Facts and Figures 2012". Journalist's Resource.org. Archived from the original on 8 March 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

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

    We have articles on the Oasis of Hope Hospital and (indirectly) the Burzynski clinic; it might be good to find a way to group all this stuff together rather than have one article per dodgy clinic - we could end up with quite a lot! Alexbrn (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If for no other reason, writing ledes with "The xx clinic is a private oncology clinic alleged to engage in profiteering off terminal cancer patients, contributing greatly to financial toxicity of terminal cancer". That way we don't need to go into the details on each article, but can direct to a broader article. Carl Fredrik talk 13:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Alex: I would rather not see articles on individual clinics.
    In addition to the financial problem, we should probably expand our content on the "problem" of hope.[4] WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Abortion

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

    I think that the user probably saw Ann Hibner Koblitz and Kovalevskaia Fund to be red link and that's why they created their article. Looks like an enthusiast, but nothing really more than that. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [5][6][7]agree w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Chromosome number for Mouse genes are wrong

    Hello,

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

    For an example, look at this gene and view the summary data panel on the right: CRHR1

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

    Seems like a problem with Module:Infobox gene but I don't know how to fix that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick look at the infobox of CRHR1 I can't tell which data item is supposed to be wrong. The CRHR1 gene is said to be on Chromosome 17 (human) and on Chromosome 11 of the mouse. These locations agree with the references. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look further below, in the "summary data panel", there it says:
    Location (UCSC) | Chr 17: 45.78 – 45.84 Mb | Chr 17: 104.13 – 104.18 Mb
    I think this is what user:Eakhiro means; the right-most value is for mouse and says "Chr 17" incorrectly. --Treetear (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am talking about the box on the right of the screen, where at the bottom it list the chromosomes for human and mouse orthologs. user:Treetear is exactly right. I noticed that the mouse gene summaries are now missing from the box. I assume this means that someone is trying to fix this.
    Eakhiro (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Osmosis concerns

    Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues

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

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

    while I partly agree w/ your assessment, what similiar quality of videos do we have that is comparable w/ [8]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a volunteer-created collaboratively-written encyclopaedia. Their quality is a concern, actually, not a feature. If I want to watch a program on epilepsy, I'll turn on the BBC. If my attention span on the subject only reaches 8 minutes, then I guess there is YouTube. What part of these videos fits in any way whatsoever with Wikipedia? It is educational and has a free licence, so Commons can host it. But it doesn't belong here. I created WP:MEDRS so editors could work together on creating articles with the highest quality sources. Now we have one editor adding and edit warring unsourced videos into all our major medical articles. I ask myself what was the point of WP:MEDR if it can be ignored when the content is a video rather than text.
    For the YouTube generation, this is now Wikipedia: unsourced content brought to you by a billionaire's private foundation. -- Colin°Talk 12:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, we need to review each on on its merits, and errors (if found) need to be pointed out to the creator. I must say, I thought watermarks were not allowed on images, in which case the intro with the name cant remain. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber, I don't think this is a "case by case" issue. The problems are fundamental. The topic of a Wikipedia article has been produced in video format, hosted here and embedded in the lead of 300 of our medical articles. This content is not collaboratively editable and does not conform to any of Wikipedia's fundamental polices or guidelines. I have now found three articles where Doc James edit wars to retain these videos when editors find problems, and I have no doubt there are many more. I'm not surprised by this because I have not found Doc James capable of collaborative editing, but these videos take that to the extreme. Since when did fixing issues on Wikipedia require "pointing out to the creator" and waiting for them to get around to re-doing a video. This is a wiki. I'm supposed to be able to change it. Quickly. This is article content WP:OWNED by Osmosis and forced upon us by Doc James. Additionally, is anyone here happy that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply? The fundamental for Wikipedia use by students, journalists, etc should be that we provide sources so they can check the facts and jump off to other professional publications where they can read more. This is not possible in an "article-as-as-video". This stuff belongs on YouTube.
    Cas, would you be happy if someone came along to one of your featured articles, and inserted a bold paragraph in the lead. It begins with "Content created by Osmosis", contains several factual errors, and ends with Facebook and Twitter links to Osmosis. When you press the Edit button to revise it, you are told to fill in a form and your complaint will be forward to Osmosis for consideration. Meanwhile you are unable to remove or revise it. That's what we have here. It is "content" and our content and behavioural policies must apply. I think all of it should be removed from WP. Editors may link to it if they find it meets our WP:EL policy. -- Colin°Talk 13:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You raise some valid points but I am unhappy with your approach. You talk about Doc James being uncooperative, but you are insisting that your solution be implemented immediately regardless of the views of other editors. It seems to me that there is a possibility of a productive discussion that reaches a consensus. (My own view is that I would like to know more about this. Having worked on a lot of neuroscience articles, I understand very well how valuable media is and how difficult it is to get media that we can use at all, so I'm afraid that applying a strict MEDRS approach will simply result in us having nothing but text in our articles.) Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I "insist[ed] that [my] solution be implemented immediately"? I have started a discussion. Unlike some here, I'm not edit warring on any articles. Looie496, which part of "collaboratively edited" is not important aspect of Wikipedia to you? This isn't a animation clip of some neurons firing. It is the entire article topic in video format. Written by a paid employee of private foundation. I'm all for short video clips. They can be individually sourced if they make any claims or are inserted into an article in a way that makes a claim. And they can be replaced just like photos and other static images. An entire 10 minute documentary that covers the whole article topic and yet obeys none of the rules of Wikipedia is not appropriate. -- Colin°Talk 14:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Looie496: I have broad concerns about the direction WP:MED has taken in recent years, and this is a very good example of the other, similar problems. For a good view of history, I recommend that everyone reading today click on the History tab at WP:MEDRS, and go to the first, oldest entries. This project seems to have lost its way since the time we fought so hard for quality sourcing in health and bio medical content. Editing for the overall medical integrity of our articles has been replaced by three competing concerns: translating leads, building some little box thingie to spread our increasingly outdated content, and installing videos that are against the very core of everything we accomplished with MEDRS. We used to work beyond leads of articles; have we given up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be fine to add a link to their YouTube videos under External links, but embedding them into articles means we are offering free advertising to a company that is selling these videos to medical students. There are free videos and then there is Osmosis Prime at $9–$18 a month. Clearly having the free videos embedded in high-traffic Wikipedia articles means more people might sign up for Osmosis Prime. According to Osmosis's terms of use, the company behind it is Knowledge Diffusion Inc., 571 Mather Mail Center Cambridge, MA 02138 (see Bloomberg).
    I've already seen two cases of volunteer editors explaining at length what is wrong with a video, and either the company rep or Doc James saying the video will be updated. This is the worst aspect of paid editing: that unpaid volunteers end up doing their work for them. Doc James and Ocaasi, can you say how this came to happen and what the role of the WMF was? SarahSV (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @SlimVirgin:. WMF played only an initial role in this. We fielded the request from our partnerships team who had been contacted by Osmosis. I set up an initial meeting. From there it was a handoff to Wiki Project Med Foundation, and I was acting in my capacity as a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation where I was previously the outreach coordinator and a board member. I documented our plan here Wikipedia:Osmosis, laying out what was intended on a public page. That was the entirety of my role; the rest was handled by several members of Wiki Project Med Foundatin. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jake, thanks for the reply. Because you created Wikipedia:Osmosis with your WMF account, I assumed the WMF was involved. SarahSV (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SV, I am having problems with them even as an External link. They raise concerns for me with respect to verifiability and reliability, and in the medical case, are quite at odds with MEDRS (which we would not likely have today were it not for Colin's insight and incisive editing). These people are creating videos without the knowledge of the recent highest quality sources we require in medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I should have said that they might be okay as External links, but not if there are sourcing and accuracy issues. Allowing a private company to host its own material within the body of articles is an odd thing to have done, especially when it's in the business of selling paid versions of the videos, so I'd like to know how this came about. SarahSV (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree they are better in EL, based on what I've seen. If they are seriously outdated, then they should be removed until they have been updated. On most topics there is a ton of serious medical vids that could be used. Having just watched an Osmosis one for the full 10 minutes, on PanNETs (not yet linked from the article, it had a clear if slow-moving explanation of what the pancreas does, and where tumours can start, but only super-brief bits on diagnosis and treatment. In my usual area of art history, we have large numbers of 4-5 minute videos from Khan Academy embedded in articles, which I'm fine with. The video is obviously helpful, they use decent academic art historians, and being out of date is not a serious issue. Actually many medical articles would benefit from a curated group of say 3-4 video links in EL. I don't at all like the DMOZ/now Curlie links that is all many articles have in EL - I think most have not been properly updated for years, and they are wildly US-centric. There is a lot of excellent stuff on You Tube, but also a lot of mediocre stuff by doctors, and of course much pure crap/fringe. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 76#Videos in December 2015. SarahSV (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to translate "cow-having ". Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    have a cow, verb. cow-having = nominalization. Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, not known in UK. We have kittens. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin good on you for finally going and finding the original discussion. It has been discussed other times as well as this search shows. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis. SarahSV (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    reset

    • (edit conflict) As I understand it the "unmet need" being addressed here is video content that is appropriately licensed and good quality. Along with more and more users accessing WP via mobile (which has led us to put more work into ensuring that first sentences are tight and not cluttered) another thing that is happening is that more and more readers want video content (this was discussed a bunch in the movement strategy discussion).
    I look at the video thing with some askance and have not engaged with it - I work on text, exclusively. A-V content is never going to be editable by dinosaurs like me (and apparently, like Colin) - we will need good collaborators to work with, on creating and updating such content, where we have it.
    But as I understand it, the desire here was/is to meet that stated "unmet need" of our users -- people who want knowledge. That is kind of the baseline that in my view this discussion should start from.
    With that in mind, it is my understanding that per open.osmosis.org the for-profit company has made a ton of videos available under the CC 4/0 license, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
    That's a good thing.
    That is also advertising for the for-profit company.
    The question as always with these things, is where in the line between what helps us meet our mission and what is too much helping the company with advertising?
    The same kind of issue arises with many collaborations - the Cochrane people sometimes overcite Cochrane, WiRs sometimes end up promoting their host institution. These are not simple issues.
    If we keep the osmosis videos (and I am not opposed to keeping them) I think there are some things that could be done to make them less advertising-y, like getting rid of the social media links. I think it is OK that they would be named as creators at the end. A link to their website there would be OK too, I ~think~. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not just add links to videos as ELs? Well one is that this does not promote OA licenses. Note Khan videos are not under an OA license. Second is that these ELs do not end up in offline versions of Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not okay, because they are using the free videos to get people to buy Osmosis Prime. The free videos are on YouTube (under the standard YouTube licence), and the pitch is "if you do like those videos, you should definitely try out OsmosisPrime". If we want videos so badly that we're willing to hand over free advertising space inside articles, I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry (or really anyone) would happily produce high-quality "free" videos in exchange for being allowed to advertise. SarahSV (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No they are not using the free videos to get people to buy Osmosis Prime. The videos are useful to many independent of other ways they raise money (such as providing quizes) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear the cc 4.0 videos are on the commons, not on youtube. we are not linking to the youtube videos. Bringing in the youtube postings is not helpful and distracting. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The YouTube links are relevant because you can see there that the free videos are offered as a taster to encourage people to buy Osmosis Prime. It's therefore important to them to get eyes on those free videos, and Wikipedia is ideal for that purpose. As part of the arrangement with Wikipedia, they asked to be placed in the first section of articles (above the fold): "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate." [9]
    Re: Knowledge Diffusion Inc., they were given a $250,000 grant in January 2017: "In collaboration with WikiProject Medicine and the UCSF-UCB Joint Masters Program, Osmosis will undertake a 12-month pilot project ..." [10] $100,000 from TEDCO in December 2017. [11][12] In January 2018 Coverys, the insurance provider, announced that it was investing in them: "To date, Osmosis has focused on medical students but is working to gain traction with a number of additional healthcare provider segments including nursing, physician assistants, pharmacy, dentistry and others." [13]
    Pinging some editors interested in WP:PAID: @Smallbones, Coretheapple, Kudpung, and TonyBallioni: SarahSV (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged above that they get advertising from it; that is basic business - we don't need any "proof" of that; the youtube videos are indeed completely irrelevant and a distraction. We are not linking to them.
    Any partner with whom we collaborate, from the British Museum to Cochrane, gets exposure through those collaborations.
    There are obvious problems with execution of this specific collaboration. That does not mean the whole thing is Evil.
    Doc James is generally very, very leery of collaborations with businesses and as he is one who has been most involved in this, I am withholding judgement until he has a chance to weigh in with more background. Maybe we will keep them and fix them; maybe we will get rid of them. The drama is premature and unhelpful. Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly premature; this was set up in December 2015. What happened here is that someone decided it was okay to let a for-profit company effectively add a few unsourced paragraphs to medical articles—paragraphs not written by specialists and not capable of being edited—topped and tailed with their company logo. And hard to work with because you have to sit through a whole video. And when people tried to remove them because they contained mistakes (or disputed material), they were reverted and told to seek consensus, even though there was no consensus to add them in the first place. See this revision for apparent WMF involvement. That's the sort of thing you were railing against when it came to Wikidata. SarahSV (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What is premature is the judgement embedded in the section header and the part above the break, and the framing you, Colin, and SandyGeorgia have put on this, that the collaboration is fundamentally evil. I set up this sub-section as a "reset" to try to have a calm discussion.
    We may decide that the existing videos are too promotional for the collaboration partner and should come down. That is one issue. (I lean that way btw)
    Whether the whole collaboration is unworkable is a separate issue. That is a larger discussion and we don't have the background from Doc James to understand that yet; that part is premature to actually figure out now. It may well be that the Osmosis folks represented that they were going to set up a separate nonprofit to carry this stuff and never did. It may be that the execution turned out different than what was planned. It may be that we should walk away from this -- it may be that we can reset it. There is a lot to discuss and it isn't cut and dry.
    A collaboration partner willing and able to make high quality, cc 4.0 licensed video is not a potato to be thrown out the window in some mad rush to judgement spurred by someone acting like our house is burning down. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @SlimVirgin: interesting (and troubling) info you are producing. Thanks for taking the time. I am also wondering about the Wiki Project Med Foundation role relative to WMF.[14] I do not know how the relationships are set up, but I would think that WMF would not want anyone serving in any WMF capacity to participate in creating content on medical articles, or determining what goes in them. It has immunity as an internet service provider that hosts user-generated content; as such, it is typically concerned that neither it nor its employees run the risk of creating medical content which could be wrong, misleading, or incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another perennial ax-grinding issue. This discussion is hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jyt, you are generating the appearance that anything you disagree with is ax-grinding. No matter how many people chime in to say they see the problem. And yet, you do not seem to see how this approach stalls WP:MED, how that has affected content, and how the stalling leads to fallout at places like Jimbo talk. What I am seeing lately in here is that we just can't talk about, and work on, content anymore. I no longer even consider bringing my requests for help on articles to this talk page. I just don't see a content focus anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, I was wondering about that too. Jake, would you mind telling us whatever you know about this? You created Wikipedia:Osmosis in December 2015 with your WMF account, and listed on the page the five people who were involved: James Heilman, representing WikiProject Med Foundation; Rishi and Kyle from Osmosis; Sylvia Ventura, WMF Strategic Partnerships, and Jake Orlowitz, WMF Community Engagement. That does make it look like a Wikimedia Foundation–Osmosis–WikiProject Med Foundation project. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin, you also noted above the 4th point, "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox) as appropriate." How did the idea of placing videos below inboxes come about, in terms of standard layout? Do none of our MOS guidelines matter anymore, and why did we allow an external organization, making money off of this, a preferential place in Wikipedia articles? Who makes decisions of this nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Yes, that was all in 2015. The vids put up for editor review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis have mostly not received any, and where they did there is no indication that comments were acted on to change anything. No sign of "Osmosis will track video views and traffic and report back on changes" there - has that happened? On a project I did with the Metropolitan Museum of Art their stats often showed the bulk of their views for a particular item coming via WP links. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point about the lack of review of the content and lack of response when there were reviews. We have not been keeping up with that. (good on User:soupvector for having done some of that) Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That editing did not feel particularly collaborative. I urged that the script editing be done in WP space so that it would be "our" content to retain/reuse as desired, to no avail. — soupvector (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a useful datapoint, yes. A collaboration partner that is not responsive, is not optimal. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    When I researched subjects finding out about pancreatic cancer online, some did look at videos, but these were mostly shortish "my story" ones by patients. The prominence the medical research charities and NHS etc. give these shows that they appeal to many. Some did look at "a doctor explains" ones though. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will dare a response here. You have come at this like a bull in a china shop. I linked above to the WMF strategy effort, which includes surveys showing that our userbase wants video content. That is a thing.
    My sense is that videos are intended to serve as an AV version of the WP:LEAD. One can, in good faith, view that as useful or not. It is kind of an interesting idea in my view.
    There are other issues about collaborations generally that arise here.
    There are also issues about the specific execution - the links and logos on the videos, whether we have carried our weight in reviewing them, and whether Osmosis has been responsive when changes were requested.
    And the issue of who has the skills to edit something is quite distinct from whether people can edit them. The videos are cc licensed so anybody can make a derivative work of them, who has the skills and software. I cannot edit lua templates, but that doesn't mean that templates in lua are unWikipedian. I just don't have the skills. Other people do.
    Those are all things that rational people can discuss. Running from forum to forum (I think you are up to 4 now) screaming bloody murder is not rational nor much "grown up" (à propos your remark here) Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did anyone say we should stop providing text content? Nope not once, not ever.
    Do we have data on viewership? Yes we do, at least on Wikipedia / Commons. Some data is here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit conflict
    There are two issues here: One, that an aspect of WP editing is being supported monetarily by a wealthy foundation. Second, and the one I want to comment further on is that medical/ health related articles have real world consequences. All content in health related articles must be verifiably and reliably sourced. As well, and because of that editors must be able to edit the content. I have long felt that health related articles should be edited by experts and then locked. But then who are the experts one wonders. Second to that, if not locked readers should be welcomed with an article tag telling them the article can be edited by anyone. Now adding video content that is not sourced and that cannot be edited is a further step in the direction of content that is "dangerous". While this problem could extend to all articles there is an aspect of danger present when dealing with MEDRS.
    There is an issue underpinning much of this problem and that is a desire to have articles so accurate that can be safely used by physicians and medical students. It scares me to think medical students and physicians could be using articles which can be edited by anyone, anyone at all, even 11 year olds. No one can watch all of these article all of the time...and all that means.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    @Littleolive oil: Yes (as you supported back then). This is another discussion, so I hope you don't mind the new break (please change it to a title of your choice). No one should be trying to watch every medical article on Wikipedia; a prominent disclaimer would still help. And I am pretty sure the number of active medical content editors has declined since the problem was first raised at RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem at all in separating this out. And thank you. I think there is a bottom line, which is my point on this, to which all other arguments must take second place and that is the articles must be as accurate as is humanly possible. That means videos which are not editable, verifiable or reliable cannot be used. Everything else is layered on top of that. I'm writing the obvious but sometimes the obvious gets lost in the complex, and sometimes, once the obvious is taken care of everything else falls into place.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    utterly dead, beat to death, smitheereened issue. for crying out loud. I am logging out for today, i have had it. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jyt, this is looking much too personal for you. Could you allow any discussion to proceed on its merits? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Abscesses 1.webm - Cut version

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

    Medical editor trends for 2013 to 2016. Includes editors from across all languages. (data)
    User:RexxS please see Commons:Watermarks. In particular the legal issues wrt removal of "copyright management information" (such as the title, author's name, copyright notice, etc.) Moving them to the file description page may not be viewed as sufficient by some, as the file still becomes more able to be copied elsewhere and then without the title, organisation name, copyright notice, etc, etc. The WMF advice is that "due to this lack of clarity, individual editors who are considering removing watermarks "should seriously consider the legal issues involved and consider consulting an attorney before doing so"". In other words, don't do this without explicit written permission from the copyright holder. Users should also be aware of the legal requirements in the CC licence wrt documenting changes made. For Wiki text this is done for you in the file history. For media, you have to do it explicitly on the file-description page. "shortened by 24 sec and resized to 720p for use in Wikipedias" is probably not sufficient unless you explain what you cropped out. -- Colin°Talk 08:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin I think you need to read c:Commons:Watermarks and understand that it has no more standing than an essay. Nevertheless, it is clear there that promotional watermarks are unacceptable and should be removed. I'm afraid that the rest of what you wrote is simply scare-mongering (especially as the DCMA has no standing where I live). To be specific, you misquote the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, This what it actually says:

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

    It defines "appropriate credit" as "the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material" and "indicate if changes were made" as "indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications". In addition it's obvious that your concern about future illegal adaptations cannot restrain an editor from creating legal derivatives that comply with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence: no-one can be held responsible for future misuse by others, otherwise no adaptation would ever be possible. My adaptation meets every condition of the licence – in fact it goes beyond what is required: I am only required to indicate if I made changes; there is no requirement to document what the changes were. Since I have not replaced the original, but have linked to it on the file description page, anyone can compare the files freely. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you a lawyer, Rexxs? Really, you can do what you like because fundamentally the only person at legal risk when you upload content is you. But please don't offer legal advice or suggest other editors are safe to remove "copyright management information" from videos. Commons editors have largely stopped doing this. We're volunteers and nobody has your back. It isn't worth the risk. -- Colin°Talk 11:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We always get the scare of "are you a lawyer?" don't we? Well, let's say I am (or was, or my daughter is), does that alter your position? No, I thought not. Please stop trying to frighten people away from legitimately editing content that is freely licensed, simply because you want no solution other than complete removal. Of course everybody is free to remove promotional watermarking; this isn't "copyright management information", it's merely an advert. If you're so sure that my adaptation is a breach of copyright, feel free to go ahead and nominate it for deletion on Commons - they take copyright very seriously there - and see where that gets you. Until then, you need to stop trying to patronise other adults who are perfectly capable of reading a licence. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RexxS we can simply request that they do this going forwards. And ask them to update all the ones going back.
    Per a wealthy foundation, I do not get it, what is wrong with the creation of content being supported monetarily? The NIH allows some of their staff to edit Wikipedia on staff time. Do we now have members of this project who are going to decry that? Are we out to end the existence of WiRs?
    The videos ARE being produced based on reliable sources and by experts. Yes I realize that you prefer academic to more easily accessible language. Academics do not need us though. And we do a greater good by using accessible language. I have been in disputes with a few people over this including SV and Sandy.
    Here are the sources for this video.[15] Sources ARE provided if you look / ask.
    The main page of Wikipedia announces "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". We also have a disclaimer at the bottom. Sure some people want more.
    How is the health of the medical community? I have been tracking that from 2013 to 2016. It appears to be fairly stable. Still trying to get numbers for 2017. Am likely going to hire someone to calculate the numbers as I do not have the technical skills to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, we need to move in a direction where there is recognition: a) they are commercial links, not even acceptable in External links; b) editors can remove them just like any other ELNO, without c) being responsible for making sure they fix their inaccurate content. You have an example as real as can be at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies. The consensus criteria is dated 2017 (and contains knowledge that pre-dates 2017). The video is 2018. Either they don't know how to do the research, or they don't understand the topic; they don't understand REM sleep behavior disorder, they don't understand the onset of symptoms in DLB, and they don't understand the different kinds of memory. It is not my job to help them make money-- I am a volunteer Wikipedia editor. My role is to delete content that doesn't meet our guideline and policy, and that is a disservice to our reader. How can we be expected to find the time to write articles, deal with trolls, and also educate these people so they can make money, and why should we? The DLB example is much too clear to be ignored, and we've now got about a half dozen others that we know of. It is pretty unlikely that most of their 299 videos do not have similar problems. Without a workable solution that recognizes how serious this is, an RFC to the broader community should be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy,
    1) The claims that they contain grave error is false. Even after I showed that they did not mis a core symptoms you persist. Yes they do not use the exact language you wish or the font you like. Yes they are written for a general audience. But that is who we are supposed to be writing for.
    2) No they are not "commercial links". They are videos about medical topics released under a fully open license. This is exceedingly rare and in fact amazing.
    3) With respect to REM sleep behavior disorder they state "symptoms: sleep disorder like sleep walking and talking in sleep" I also do not think we should use the exact technical language you want in the lead. Does that mean that they and I do not understand REM sleep behavior disorders? No, what it means is that we care more that Wikipedia's leads are accessible to people than that every complicated detail in it complete fullness ends up in the leads of our articles. Our leads and these videos are overviews. The body and sub articles are there for the full details.
    4) My goal is to try to make our content accessible to a very large number of people. I do this in multiple ways a) by writing the leads in easy to understand language b) by working to provide video content for those who might have limited reading ability (through partnerships with Osmosis) Or simple prefer to learn by video c) by translation into other languages in collaboration with many folks both inside and outside Wikipedia d) by building offline apps in partnership with Kiwix e) by working with folks at Internet-in-a-Box to get Wikipedia's medical content out to those with no access to the Internet f) by improving our content here in collaboration with medical schools, schools of pharmacy, Cochrane, the NIH, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and other.
    From what you write here and elsewhere maybe our goals are not compatible. I have discussed these goals at length here on this talk page for years. I have developed consensus for this goals both through discussion and by being bold. This has required countless hours of personal effort, with great personal and financial sacrifice. The efforts have been gradual over years. You have not joined these prior discussions. Now here you are criticizing all this work after being absent for so many years, without reviewing all the discussions that have come before. Apologies but this makes me deeply disappointed... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    James
    1) I hope that, as a physician, you value precision in medical terminology. They are wrong. Not just in language. In timing of onset, and in distinction of types of memory and in the onset of that memory loss. They were wrong at Breastfeeding. Quick vs. sudden are significant terms in neurology-- they are wrong at Tic disorders. The answer to those, of you accusing me at WT:V of falsehoods are on my talk, but please, hear what others are trying to tell you.
    2) They are making money off of the advertising that is driven to them thanks to us ... well, not all of us. If commercial is the wrong word for that, my apologies, but same thing.
    3) REM sleep behavior disorder is not "sleep walking and sleep talking". You are aware as a physician that those are separate entities. RBD is dream enactment behavior during REM sleep. It can be as simple as flinching, flailing legs or arms-- no walking, no talking need be involved (although they may be). The description is inaccurate in ways that leads to misdiagnosis, so who are we educating, and why educate them incorrectly? That matters to us, right? We wouldn't do it in an article, so why a video? They Are Wrong. You are trained to value precision in medical description and terminology. They don't seem to be. I am surprised at you defending them.
    4) Some of the direction here is driving inaccuracies into the leads of every article I see. This is not Simple Wikipedia. (A thought: why not have the translation project work off of simple Wikipedia, since that is the level they want?) Seeking the most dumbed-down sources and driving them into the lead of every article quite often has resulted in errors-- both blatant, and of significant nuance. Leads are summaries per Wikipedia guideline for a good reason.

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

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

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

    1) "Quick" versus "rapid" are not exceedingly different. Yes the DSM5 refers to tics as rapid.
    2) They are not making money off of us any different than say the Lancet or the BMJ.
    3) They say "Sleep disorder" first. And than mention a couple possibilities. Many sources mention sleep walking during REM as one aspect of DLM.[16] And it is a classic one.
    4) Are these videos perfect? No. Could they be improved sure. Is Osmosis will to collaborate definitely. Should the Osmosis 2 sec intro be trimmed? If we want we can, meh. Should we be deleting every video made by this group because one or two people do not like the font they use? No definitely not. Not without a clear consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc your Lancet/BMJ analogy does not work on any level. We are putting videos with prominent advertising of a link to a source that hosts a commercial store with products for sale in the leads of articles, which our readers can't miss. Lancet/BMJ are in sources, at the bottom. Which readers may not even click on. And our readers aren't driven first to advertising when they click on a source-- they are driven first to the content of a journal article.

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

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

    There is nothing that when clicked on brings you to the site in question. This of course is unlike DOIs. When you click on these you are often brought to a page were you can pay for the article in question.
    Yes I get it, you do not want to edit or work on videos. Others of us feel differently. And finally sleep walking is not incorrect. It is indeed a symptom of DLB.
    Osmosis actually makes more money off of Youtube (they get more views there plus they get ad revenue). What they do allow by using an open license is for use to also have there videos which people can watch for free without ads on Wikipedia and in our offline compilations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Subject matter expertise

    W.r.t Doc James's statement that "the videos ARE being produced based on reliable sources and by experts", I strongly disagree. There are many red herrings in this sprawling discussion but this issue of expertise is core to our mandate. The main writer of Osmosis's video on breastfeeding, Philip Boone, is a medical resident whose most relevant qualification is having graduated from medical school, a whopping two years before working for Osmosis.

    My impression when I first saw this video was, "Wow, this guy is totally incompetent when it comes to breastfeeding. Your average La Leche League leader down the street knows more than he does." Reading his LinkedIn profile gave me no reassurance. (If anyone's wondering what kinds of qualifications make someone an expert in the medical specialty of breastfeeding, Ruth Lawrence's bio lists some.) I would be interested in seeing more profiles of Oasis's script writers - I suspect that hiring actual experts is not their business model. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No not a medical student User:Clayoquot but a A resident in Pediatrics/Medical Genetics at Harvard. Also has a PhD.
    Additionally the script was edited by an attending pediatrician at Stanford.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I said he was a medical resident. I did not say he was a medical student. Doc James, please read more carefully. His PhD is in genetics which has no relevance to breastfeeding. It's interesting that the script was edited by an attending pediatrician, and such glaring errors still got through the review process. Hmmm. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes apologies misread. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How are these not spam?

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

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

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

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

    They can be edited, of course. See above. --RexxS (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and RexxS example ameliorates the main problem ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned the videos couldn't be edited based on this comment posted by Colin. I could be wrong. Apologies if so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Well....they can be edited as long as by "edited" one only means "cut down". Practically speaking, it's extraordinarily difficult to make even minor changes or additions to the content of these videos. (Though removing the Osmosis logos and credit sequences would resolve one of the issues with this content: the violation of the spirit of WP:WATERMARK and MOS:CREDITS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would be extraordinarily difficult, and probably require expensive technology, to make changes or additions in the style of the original video. It would probably be quite hard even for Osmosis to do this because some of the original creators of the videos no longer work for the company. But hey, it wouldn't be too hard to splice in new content if we weren't trying to make it look consistent. A Wikipedian could, for instance, create a 60-second clip, in whatever tool and style they want, that summarizes the errors in the video and points out that the author of the video is a nonspecialist medical resident. And then that clip could be quite easily spliced into the start of the Osmosis video and re-uploaded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, I like the way you think, Clayoquot! Jbh, "I sure would like to hear how anyone thought these were acceptable." 'Tis a mystery. And I have pondered it. Fundamental violation of ... just about everything ... and no one even noticed for years (I have an excuse, I wasn't editing :)

    Perhaps people have found creating content to be too hard, so are happy to outsource content they just manage? Perhaps with the overall decline in Wikipedia editing, no one is home anymore? Perhaps ... no one cares anymore? I really cannot understand how we got so far off track with this. I just wanted to work on a really badly outdated article, and hit this. We can't edit away the errors, and I can't understand why we would want to. Dementia with Lewy bodies had 100,000 hits on one day only this week (I can't figure out why), on March 21,[18] and the article was a wreck at that point. How many of those people said to heck with Wikipedia, and went first to this video? Our medical content has become a vehicle for someone else to make money, while we slave away like ninnies.

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

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

    Sandy, I'm pretty sure the 21 March spike was tangential to a bit of celebrity sensationalism here, rather than any organized effort. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @LeadSongDog, thanks! I did not think it was any organized effort, but I have been looking for what drove the spike. I'm not sure that particular article is it, although the event may be. Usually a spike that high is because some event happens where there is a direct link on the news source or webpage to the Wikipedia article, and I haven't been able to find anything like that. Another thing that happened on March 21 was an exciting new research discovery related to Parkinson's. Or perhaps a #MeToo site linked to us, per the Mindy thing. Anyway, I brought it up because I had barely begun work on that article on 21 March, and it was in pretty bad shape. Anyone coming to Wikipedia probably said WTH, and went for the video instead. I am now about halfway through improving the article, and picked up six new journal articles today when I was at the hospital. I wish it had had a 100,000 spike next week! Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @LeadSongDog, oops, you're right-- now I see it-- it does link to us. Darn, what a missed opportunity to spread accurate updated info about DLB. Had I started a week earlier ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Malheureusement, there will always be another opportunity. Your effort isn't wasted. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Colin's position. There is no "case by case"--the issue here is an over-arching one and he is absolutely correct in his interpretation of consequences. I won't write at length here. Outriggr (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people (in fact many people) want video explanation. All the videos this group makes are going to be released under an open license so that we can potentially use them. All the ones we currently use are under an open license currently.
    Yes they also have a subscription model for test questions from what I understand. If people are unhappy with the opening and closing credits they can be removed. Just because they produce other stuff that they offer under a subscription model does not mean that they stuff they offer under an open license is an "ad" for that subscription stuff. Their viewership via Youtube is greater than that via Wikipedia and they earn ad revenue there. Other medical video produces have declined to release there videos under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people (in fact many people) want to marry someone beautiful, become rich, have a family, die old in bed. None of this is justification for this material on Wikipedia. Go find another WMF project for this, a project that doens't care about collaborative editing by volunteers, who is happy to see paid editors, who only wants expert editors, and is happy to present jokey videos about serious diseases, written for American medical students, as in any way appropriate for a general international audience, which might actually consist, you know, of someone with the medical condition. -- Colin°Talk 19:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Claims of COI

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

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

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

    Open-Osmosis are funded by a foundation created by the billionaire behind Jonhson & Johnson. As a private foundation, albeit one that on superficial examination appears to be a good cause, they can emphasise and censor whatever aspects they wish. Do they support abortion, promote abstinence from drink, encourage condoms for safe sex, support vaccination, deny global warming, accept the medical use of marijuana, promote equal education and opportunities for women, think AIDS is God's punishment to gay people, condone prostitution, think vitamin C is the answer to all heath problems, etc, etc, etc. No idea, but as a private foundation, they are totally entitled to believe and promote whatever nonsense they want, should they wish to. The same is not true of the NIH or Cancer Research UK. What we do know is that Osmosis is "A better way to learn", "A fully customized learning platform driven by data, science, and the technology of the future." and you can start your free trial here. :-) -- Colin°Talk 07:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This comparison is only smoke and deception.
    • Suppose that, in some future, Wikipedia advertises for the Lancet. How many physicians would change their mind about subscribing to the Lancet (apart, may be, from cancelling their subscription) ?
    • Suppose that, here and now, Wikipedia advertises for Osmosis. How many students will subscribe to Osmosis (despite the warning: never ever trust Wikipedia about human health, or any other critical topic) ?
    Pldx1 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your two suggestions. Wikipedia does not "advertise" for anyone, and has no plans to. The degree to which the Osmosis videos are adverts or fremium content teasers for their paid subscription videos, is up for debate. If the Lancet were to recruit doctors to create content for Wikipedia I would also be concerned, as such content would be subject to the editorial focus of the Lancet and its publisher. This is why Wikipedia is fundamentally a volunteer created collaboratively edited project. I have no problem with commercially created images or short video clips such as an electron microscope image of cells or a chemical reaction. These single-topic media files are self-asserting -- editors can judge if they are what they say they are, and add or remove them if there is conflict. Entire article-topic videos are a different matter, where a narrator presents their own version of the article text spoken out loud, and offers their own personal opinion on what aspects of the topic to cover and avoid. It is quite notable that these clips were originally created for medical students -- the focus is all wrong for the general reader. So we have the editorial focus of Osmosis, not of Wikipedia. That is the very definition of "Conflict of Interest". And any complaints by editors on Wikipedia are met with edit warring by Doc James, and a possible promise of a future revised video, which it seems, does not often come. These are well documented facts. -- Colin°Talk 09:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear User:Colin. Sure, you don't understand what I have written: an hypothesis is not a suggestion ! Reading again, may be ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pldx1:, you say that Wikipedia does not "advertise" for anyone, and has no plans to, but that is a substantial part of what this is about. A (prominently placed) link to an external site that advertises. It has long been accepted that links to copyright infringing sites were themselves contributory copyright infringement. If WP accepted links to {political|medical|media|fashion|younameit} advertising, how much worse would the fake facts problem get? If the video has intrinsic value, clean out the advertising (it isn't CC-BY-SA-ND), host it on Commons, and give the same simple attribution as any other media there to satisfy CC-BY-SA. If it doesn't, then there's no hiding behind the offsite hosting: linking to it is contributory to advertising. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear User:LeadSongDog. The one who said Wikipedia does not "advertise" for anyone, and has no plans to was not me, but User:Colin. Moreover, it seems clear, at least for me, that Colin intent was to say Wikipedia should must not "advertise" for anyone, and has plans to continue to enforce it's "no advertisement" policy. Pldx1 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC). Pldx1, you bad guy ! Yet another mess with must/should despite of RFC 2119 ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, sorry for the confusion. However, "should not" doesn't capture my intent. "Must not" is closer: it is practically an existential threat to WP. Does anyone seriously believe the WMF would survive as a commercial advertiser in direct competition to Google? It has to be avoided at all cost. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colin, re: the "charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license" mentioned on Jimmy's page, what is the charitable foundation?
    Knowledge Diffusion, Inc. owns osmosis.org and open.osmosis.org. The osmosis.org terms of use say: "'Osmosis' means any website, mobile application, or Internet service under Knowledge Diffusion’s control, whether partial or otherwise, in connection with providing the services provided by Knowledge Diffusion, including osmose-it.com and freetext.org ... In an effort to promote the dissemination of open educational resources (OER), Osmosis.org has chosen to share much content under Creative Commons licenses using the banner 'Open Osmosis'."
    The company has used Wikipedia to build brand recognition, which helps it to sell Osmosis Prime. Doc James, you're usually pretty savvy when it comes to this kind of thing. Other contributors to Wikipedia don't have this kind of courtesy extended to us—e.g. that our work will always appear above the fold, and that we get to add a link to a company of our choice next to our edits. SarahSV (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SlimVirgin there was no agreement or requirement that the videos occur above the fold. As an overview of the topic in question I simple felt that often it fits well in the leads of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, that choice of wording was seen and edited by you, so it is understandable that the appearance of an agreement is there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, also, considering point 7, would you mind if I take the video out of the infobox at tic disorder? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup I would mind as it is appropriate IMO. We have discussed the DSM5 wording in a bunch of places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SarahSV, according to https://open.osmosis.org/, "With support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation". -- Colin°Talk 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin: I think that means they got a grant from that foundation. But Jimmy said: "A charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license is a good thing." That gives the impression that Osmosis is a charity, but it's a for-profit company. SarahSV (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They were creating a non-profit arm when we discussed collaboration. Will follow up to verify that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an example of how the association with Wikipedia helps their marketing (bold added):

    Coverys, a leading medical professional liability insurance provider, announced today the investment in two separate organizations, Knowledge Diffusion, Inc. (Osmosis) and Pack Health, LLC (Pack Health). Both organizations provide innovative resources that help improve patient outcomes and support provider performance. Osmosis is a medical and health education technology company with headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland. It has an audience of more than 500,000 current and future clinicians between its advanced learning platform (http://www.osmosis.org) and popular YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/osmosis). Osmosis leverages its video learning platform to create and disseminate co-branded video content that is visually appealing, clear, and concise. It also has a strong partnership with Wikipedia, which features Osmosis content on health and medicine articles. To date, Osmosis has focused on medical students but is quickly gaining traction with a number of other critical healthcare provider segments including nursing, physician assistants, pharmacy, dentistry, and others.

    SarahSV (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the Cochrane website you will also notice that we are one of their three key partners.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, yes, and that makes Wikipedia look good. But the Osmosis partnership makes Osmosis look good. Also, Cochrane didn't ask for a certain amount of space in hundreds of articles, or try to specify where in the articles that space had to be. Would you consider releasing more information about how this came about, particularly re: "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles (but below the infobox)"? [19] I accept that you acted with good intentions, but that requirement is a bit of a red flag. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SlimVirgin it was User:Ocaasi (WMF) that added that text. It was however never a requirement of this collaboration but only one possible suggested spot. Have removed that wording from the page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, thanks, I saw that it was Jake who added it, but I'm wondering how it came about, i.e. who first suggested it and when. That one issue shows that this was about marketing. Another thing that puzzles me is that the videos are aimed at medical students, whereas you normally insist that articles be aimed (as far as possible) at the general reader. Several of the ones I looked at would be too technical for most readers.
    SlimVirgin I honestly don't recall how the issue of video placement was raised and discussed, but it was coming from a place of at least mutual benefit for Wikipedia. There has been a lack of quality multi-media on Wikipedia amidst a media-consumption environment where people increasingly seek video content and explanations to help understand concepts. For that reason, having a video 'above the fold' was important for discoverability, so that people would find and watch them. Osmosis was offering open-licensed, high-quality medical content in a format we very often lack; it was seen as a potential boon to our articles. They offered the content and said, more or less, "wouldn't it be cool if when people read about a medical topic there was a high-quality, free video they would find to help understand it?" There weren't any strings attached that I can remember about the videos having to be in one part of the article versus another. It was basically, "take our content and put it where it will be useful to readers." --Jake Ocaasi t | c 19:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jake, thanks for the explanation. That helps. My concern was that they had insisted on that placement. SarahSV (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SarahSV Osmosis needed a bit of education about where video placement was appropriate. Their initial idea was that it could be in an article infobox(!), which we explained would never happen. We explained that any video would have to be below the first section header, as a minimum. From there they didn't insist on anything, it was merely a matter of taking content that seemed a good fit and finding a good place for it in the article. --Jake Ocaasi t | c 16:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ocaasi Infobox placement has happened, at tic disorder, and Doc James has said I may not move it out of the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More Osmosis marketing that mentions WP (interview): "Today [2017], Osmosis is an educational platform with over 65,000 users, seeing an incredible growth of 670,000 views on YouTube and millions of views on Wikipedia (being the largest provider of videos to Wikipedia.)" SarahSV (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SarahSV, thanks for digging into this. I agree with your concerns and points. I think the most charitable we can be here, is to assume an astounding degree of naivety and lack of thinking through the issues. Wrt what Jimbo wrote, well I don't think he sees this conversation, so you'll have to take it up with him on his talk page. I agree he didn't pick his words carefully or accurately. I also don't really see any difference between charitable foundation and commercial organisation if both are privately funded. Unlike a public charity which is answerable to the public (as Oxfam found to its cost) or a state-owned institution. -- Colin°Talk 19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • James, I think you should regard yourself as having a conflict of interest when it comes to these videos. They were added to articles following an agreement, in December 2015, between two Knowledge Diffusion employees, yourself and two WMF employees, Sylvia Ventura, WMF Strategic Partnerships and Jake Orlowitz, WMF Community Engagement. The agreement said that you were representing Wiki Project Med Foundation, not the board of trustees, but it's impossible not to notice that everyone involved was either WMF-related or from Knowledge Diffusion, Inc. And Wiki Project Med Foundation isn't the community.
    Since then, you've effectively functioned as a Knowledge Diffusion rep, restoring videos when editors object, and fielding requests for corrections. It's unfair of the company to leave you in that situation while the company account, OsmoseIt, has barely been active. I appreciate that you're acting in good faith and that you genuinely don't see it this way, but people involved in a COI often think there isn't a problem, and it isn't a question of good or bad faith. See WP:COI: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity." The fact is that you're trying to wear two hats, and it isn't fair to put you in that position. SarahSV (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SlimVirgin no I do not have a COI with respect to these videos. I do not wear a "hat" at osmosis if that is what you are claiming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: everyone involved in the agreement about the videos has a COI: the Knowledge Diffusion employees have a financial COI in relation to the company and its videos (not in relation to the video topics), and are paid editors if they edit here on behalf of the company, and you, Jake and Sylvia have a general COI in relation to the videos (and arguably in relation to the company). WP:COI: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. ... COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict." SarahSV (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum so User:SlimVirgin I have COI with respect to the National Institutes of Health, Cancer Research UK, University of California San Francisco, Slacker School of Medicine, the World Health Organization, Cochrane, National Organization for Rare Disorders, National Libraries of Medicine, National Health Services, etc because I have spoken with all these groups about Wikipedia?
    Am I required to declare this in every edit summary? Thankfully the WMF increased the length of edit summaries to allow this, though I think the community was looking at shortening the edit summaries as they felt they were made too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You reached an agreement with a private company to do something on their behalf that has turned out to be contentious. Now that people are removing the material, you're edit warring. Yes, if the same thing had happened followed an agreement between you and the World Health Organization, it would also be a COI; it's just much worse when it involves a private commercial interest. James, it's very much in your own interests here to be gracious and step back, and let the community reach a decision independently of you. SarahSV (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an extreme missunderstanding of what COI is. You are invalidating any efforts to do anything that uses external material. Yes there is an interest here to not paint Wikipedia as a cesspit of debate over nothing, where there is no possibility of aquiring future content donations. This is not COI, this is interest. An entirely non-conflicting interest. What you are suggesting is that supporting Wikipedias fundamental mission statement is COI. Carl Fredrik talk 20:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    agree w/ CF appraisal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCF and Ozzie10aaaa: see Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (Institute of Medicine, 2009): "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest" (bold added). [20]
    James has acted on behalf of commercial interests (a secondary interest) and believed he was also acting in WP's interests (the primary interest). WP wants material that complies with its core content policies, including V. The company wants space in articles to increase its brand recognition, but unfortunately it has chosen not to comply with V, although it could do so by releasing the scripts with inline citations.
    Now that the issue has become contentious, James refuses to step back to allow uninvolved people to handle it, and is edit warring to restore the videos. That places him in a conflict in the sense that "a set of circumstances has created a risk that his judgment or actions regarding his primary interest have been unduly influenced by his relationship with the company". Note: we can't know whether his judgement has actually been unduly influenced, and nor can he; the point is that the risk has been created by the relationship with Osmosis. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree with your assessment that Doc James has acted on behalf of a commercial interest. I believe this focus is extremely misguided and is akin to suggest that preferencing high-impact factor journals is acting in the commercial interest of said journals in a way that is problematic. Your interpretation of COI can implicate any actions as COI.
    The word to note here is unduly, which this case clearly is not under any interpretation. You seem to advocate disinterest. Carl Fredrik talk 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you say what you mean by "you seem to advocate disinterest"? SarahSV (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ongoing?

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

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

    Yes ongoing. They updated the celiac disease video based on feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in March 2016. [21] SarahSV (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but It was not enough. I can not accept that the video is not improved because it requires a lot of time of work: "To give some perspective, making edits to these videos does not take 2 seconds. The edit we made on your suggestion took a couple of hours of work --OsmoseIt" or because "We feel your other suggestions are an expansion of the scope of the video, beyond what we want to cover for our target audience. --OsmoseIt". This is Wikipedia and we have to comply with Wikipedia policies and objectives, not Osmosis team objetives. See more detailed explanations here.
    I believe that the videos are educational and a good initiative. I agree that they could be included in Wikipedia, as long as they meet these criteria: that Osmosis update them continuously and that they are correctly referenced / supported by current verifiable sources, as we do with the text of the pages, and always taking into account the feedback with other editors, dedicating the necessary time (as Wikipedia editors do...) and complying with the Wikpedia policies.
    In my modest opinion, I think that one mistake has been to centralize the discussions in the Osmosis project. I think it should have been talked directly on the specific talk pages of each disease, so that it was visible to everyone. Many editors certainly did not know about the Osmosis project. In the discussion of this project, linking to specific discussions and talking about other general issues related to the project itself. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 13:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BallenaBlanca, thanks for the examples. I've added them to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. Great illustration of how the community cannot edit these videos and why that is a problem. We are the mercy of a private third-party who does not share our agenda -- they have their own paying audience to worry about. -- Colin°Talk 14:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin thanks for your kindness.
    I want to say that I do not feel comfortable with this situation, I do not like to enter into these disputes. I just want to give my opinion from the medical point of view because I think that at least in the case of the video mentioned is of extreme importance. Other Wikipedia nuances are beyond my knowledge.
    I want to add that I have no doubt about the honesty and good intentions of Doc James. I think he is a neutral and collaborative editor, one of the most valuable that Wikipedia has and the pillar of articles on Medicine. I admire his work and I am saddened by what is happening. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    I have had a discussion with folks at Osmosis about many of the issues raised above:

    1) They have agreed to remove both the front bumper and back bumper from all videos. Attribution will remain on Commons in the usual spot, as will the notice of what license they are under.

    2) They will update the collaboration page here which has obviously fallen out of date.

    3) They will produce a new video for breastfeeding to address the concerns that were raised here by User:Clayoquot and User:Gandydancer. As well as fix the other issues mentioned. They will put in place better mechanisms for up dating videos / addressing feedback.

    4) I have followed up with respect to their NGO status. They are looking at two possibilities, creating an NGO group for Wikipedia work and becoming a Benefit corporation. They have not accomplished either yet.

    They will put together a timeline for when these efforts will be completed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Doc James, I would say you need community consensus before continuing with this. They're not going to keep updating videos for free, so these are always going to lag behind, and volunteers shouldn't have to spend their time helping Osmosis staff correct them. SarahSV (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they not continue to update videos for free User:SlimVirgin? All these videos are already under a free license, why would they not have an incentive to keep them updated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They have agreed to fix only one of the problematic videos. Doc, I have not wanted to extend the debate to every detail that is wrong with every video, but this will not suffice as a solution. (You are overlooking the "suffer from" POV at tic disorder among others, and the coeliac problems expressed at Jimbo talk, and the still poor text at dementia with Lewy bodies, and we haven't even systematically evaluated others.)

    We are seeing the same walled garden problem here that led to this issue happening in the first place, as is mentioned at Jimbo talk; this is a Wikipedia-wide issue, and yet we are seeing proposals on one Project page, with no acknowledgement of the extent of the issues these videos create ... in spite of almost no support for these videos in the wider discussion at Talk:Jimbo. We are also seeing no movement here on the matter that whether these videos are in individual articles is a matter for consensus, and without resolution, we could be headed for the dreaded infobox territory.

    It seems that most of the issues have surfaced now, and Colin has had an opportunity to put forward the essay at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube. I agree with Colin that moving to RFC too fast is not conducive to good resolution of problems, but it appears that, if we are not quite there yet, we are approaching the time when we should begin to consider who will draft a Wikipedia-wide RFC. It is usually best to have two people, who represent the opposing viewpoints. This situation is not sustainable, and the sooner we get broad consensus, the better in terms of minimizing the issues we will face on many articles.

    I echo SV's concern that you not continue to proceed, Doc, as if this were a one-person or one-project matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No this is not entirely correct. They have agreed to fix a number of videos, I just mentioning this as one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they did not fix the CD video, only a small part. Look at my comment above. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 14:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy Georgia, SlimVirgin — I would like to point out that this is absolutely not a one man project by Doc James, but in fact a collaboration among a large group of editors. Doc James simple does most of the work, and I find it would be a massive shame if this were to stop just because of a small minority loud voices criticized everything. If the videos are bad we can remove them from specific articles, if they aren't then there is no issue — there is no reason to put the project on hold because they can't be edited. Most editors are horrible at editing images, that hasn't stopped us from including them on articles. Carl Fredrik talk 12:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey everyone! Thanks for sharing your concerns with me and my team. I really appreciate how passionate you are about the content itself and the mission of Wikipedia. I just want to add some clarity to some of the issues mentioned here.
    1) Both myself and my team would like to be good citizens of Wikipedia. I feel that having us in the community will help foster conversations around how video can enhance wikipedia.
    2) I regularly add videos. There are 300 or so which you can see here
    3) I do read and respond to feedback, including your suggestions about saying “person” not “patient”. My team made that transition a while ago, and since then they have continued to improve our language to be more inclusive. I’d be open to dialog on how to receive more constructive feedback from the community for existing and future videos.
    4) When I upload videos, I’ve been putting the sources in the video description, but for some reason that information isn’t displaying. Not sure why, I thought it was working fine until I looked back at it today. Definitely something I can fix now that we know it’s a problem.
    5)I’m willing to remove the branding and social media links from the end of the videos. We’ll be keeping the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and the credits so that we adhere to CC attribution guidelines from the CC content we use within our videos.
    I’m looking forward to working with you all to address your concerns, and to find solutions that work for us all. Thank you!OsmoseIt (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of order

    In what capacity is Doc James acting, here? Is Doc James a representative of Knowledge Diffusion (the company) and/or Osmosis, or is he holding himself out to them as a representative of Wikipedia?

    I don't doubt that James is acting in good faith or that he has what he believes are the project's best interests at heart. However I am not sure why we are relying on James to be our sole conduit to Osmosis. Why is he in the position to choose which requests, suggestions, or concerns get passed on to Osmosis staff, and why is he posting responses on their behalf? Osmosis and Knowledge Diffusion should have their own representative able to engage directly with the Wikipedia community. It's not fair to Doc James or to the Wikipedia community to ask Doc to serve two masters here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TenOfAllTrades I have no formal relationship with Osmosis or Knowledge Diffusion and do not represent them in any manner. I do however generally consider their videos to be useful for our readers. And thus I generally supported adding them and still support keeping them (with modifications).
    I was involved with convincing them to use an open license and to upload their videos to Wikipedia starting back in 2015. I began this when one of there members (a pediatrician at Stanford) was still working part time at the Khan academy. That organization released three of their videos under an open license as you can see here
    Khan was not interested in releasing further videos under an open license however. When Osmosis formed they were much more interested in using open licenses and working with us.
    In these discussion I speak on my own behalf. Happy to ask them to respond here directly if people wish. Looks like some are simply push to remove the videos entirely though. This does not really require them to join in a discussion. Having them join a discussion is only required if people are interested in collaborating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have agreed with almost every word you have written in the discussion about the videos here and at Talk:Jimbo, User:TenOfAllTrades. (I mean that, precisely - almost every word). But really. "serve two masters"? That is your first slide over into the lala land that Colin et al are painting.
    There is no big dark thing going here.
    Doc James has advocated for accessible content for a long time. That is what the translation task force is all about, for example. As already discussed in the 1st post about this here at WTMED, Doc James started working with the folks at Khan Academy (a nonprofit) on medical videos for WP, and the person Doc James was collaborating with there left Khan and continued the work at Osmosis.
    It seems to me that Doc James likes the videos since they are meant-for-the-public educational material that are freely licensed, and reasonably good quality. (they are not "created for med students" as Colin keeps saying). They arguably help us meet our mission.
    All that said i totally agree that it would be great to have osmosis reps in the discussion; it would have been great if there had been more dialogue all through this time period. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OsmoseIt, 23:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC): "The target audience of our videos is for medical students ..." SarahSV (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Serve two masters" is reasonable idiomatic English in context, where it was ambiguous what role(s) Doc James held officially or unofficially with respect to Wikipedia and Osmosis. And even though (I don't imagine) it was his intent, has has functionally been Wikipedia's envoy to Osmosis, and also Osmosis' spokesperson here. While your vigorous defence of James' honor is admirable, it's neither necessary nor helpful for you to ratchet up the drama by accusing everyone else of being too dramatic. Picking on Colin doesn't help your argument, either; I hope you'll dial that back.
    There doesn't have to be a "big dark thing" conspiracy for there to be a "substantial suboptimal thing" needing relatively prompt attention. Knowledge Diffusion and Osmosis, with the support of Doc James and what seems to be a very small group of other Wikipedia editors, embarked on a substantial project to insert content from a particular source into prominent places in prominent articles, without a great deal of oversight or review (until now). We seem to be agreed that there should have been more dialogue through the process up to now, and that the community is very uncomfortable with delaying that dialogue much further now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree, and will point out that any activity on medical articles on Wikipedia is always the result of what a small group of Wikipedia editors do. Carl Fredrik talk 20:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Subpage agreement please

    Should we set up a central page for listing issues with individual videos? I would rather not have to engage talk-page-by-talk-page, and think a subpage would provide more eyes on the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes a good idea. Started one here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned that that may be a bit of a cart-before-the-horse approach to this situation. Before we get to dissecting and closely critiquing individual videos, we should probably consider whether or not we intend to retain these videos at all, in substantially similar form as inline article content.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah they were my thoughts too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I don't intend to continue evaluating any of them, but putting it in one place was a containment effort. I don't want to deal with this at each article. Given the absence of support for these videos in the broader community, it would be nice if they could be removed from the articles mentioned now, but on the other hand, I have no interest in heading towards Infobox Wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 At the moment I don't see any community-wide consensus for these articles-as-videos. I think they should all go. -- Colin°Talk 07:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need for such community-wide consensus. There is however need for local consensus on each article, which can be implicit (i.e. they were not removed or immidiately criticized). However, if you wish to remove all the videos there is need for commnity-wide consensus, and I would dare say that if you wish to remove any specific video there is need for local consensus on that article. I oppose any removal that is not based on specific issues with the individual video. Carl Fredrik talk 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget about "implicit" when they were inserted without notification and without edit summaries. I would like to mention, again, that WT:MED has shot itself-- and all our past efforts-- in the foot, by acting like a walled garden. Specific issues with the videos are outlined in numerous places. And local consensus at WT:MED to breach all manner of Wikipedia policy and guideline is overruled by ... well ... everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The onus is on editors arguing for inclusion of content to achieve consensus in favor of it. Content that was added under vague edit summaries doesn't receive special privileged protection—hanging around hoping not to get noticed doesn't get you tenure here.
    In the discussion here and at Jimbo's talk, I've seen mention of something like 300 videos. It's not reasonable to insist on having three hundred separate, sparsely-attended discussions which touch on the same general concerns. (Even if far fewer videos were in articles right now, it still wouldn't make sense to do fifty, or twenty, or even a dozen duplicate discussions.) Article-by-article discussion(s) in the way you propose would be the correct and usual approach if there were a broad preexisting consensus that these sorts embedded video summaries were acceptable to the Wikipedia community, and the only concerns raised here were about specific video details.
    Absent an existing general consensus, an insistence on three hundred article-by-article discussions is just a way to avoid engaging the issues and grind down opposition with bureaucracy. That's not cool. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole thing is not cool. Specifically, that protracted attacks on Colin are implicitly accepted by active editors in this project, several of whom are admins. And, unlike the Infobox Wars, in this case, there is obviously an explicit breach of core policy, so I am done with concerns that we are headed down that path. Either someone drafts an RFC, or the videos start going. And anyone who watches the personal attacks continue in here,[22] coming from one editor who has been admonished many times, and does not speak up, is a weanie to be lashed with a wet noodle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, WP:NPOV is also core policy. In the year 2000, the requirement for "significant distress or impairment" in Tourette syndrome was removed from the DSM, in recognition that the majority of people with TS are not impaired or distressed. Since 2006, I have kept the POV words, "suffer from" out of the TS suite of articles. Now we have a video with that POV installed at tic disorder. What were people thinking when they did this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CFCF Every single one fails core policy WP:V, one of the three Core content policies. WP:MED has no authority whatsoever to break this with local consensus (which there is none -- none of these were ever discussed on article-talk prior to insertion and most were inserted by stealth with either no edit summary or just the word "added").
    IMO every single one of them can and will be removed with the following rationale:
    Per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This video does not contain any inline sources, nor any means to tie sources to specific facts and claims made. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" This material must not be restored as-is.
    And unlike Doc James, I shall use an edit summary when doing so. I did not create WP:MEDRS so that a private company can insert articles-as-videos with a free pass to ignore the medical sourcing requirements everyone else has to follow, and inline-citation requirements that everyone on Wikipedia has to follow. No exceptions. WP:NOTYOUTUBE. -- Colin°Talk 13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The videos have so far been near-exact copies of the ledes, which are either sourced or don't need in-depth sourcing. Providing the videos with sourced transcripts for the commons description may be a good idea, but is not obligatory. I also strongly object to your user-essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE. I also see you wrote it yesterday, and it does not strengthen your argument here to link it as a policy similar to the other WP:NOT rules. Carl Fredrik talk 15:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carl, the videos I've looked at are not near-exact copies of the leads. This is material that doesn't comply with WP:V and WP:MEDRS. The insertion of it into Wikipedia helps Knowledge Diffusion, Inc. commercially by increasing brand recognition, and that helps them to sell Osmosis Prime. They're quite clear about the connection between the free and paid on YouTube. SarahSV (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The videos I looked at are nothing like the leads. CFCF, could you please provide an example of a video that is a near-exact copy of an article lead? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFCF, this is completely untrue in every case I have looked at. And even if they were, the last thing we need is another external project driving the content and sourcing in our leads-- we already have that with the translation project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The videos I've seen are primarily copies of ledes, and the organization has been responsive to changing any videos with specific issues. The transcripts should be available, and if we simply centralize these somewhere comparing them with the ledes is very simple. This conduct risks alienating any future collaboration, so I would suggest we instead look at constructive solutions and level criticism at specific issues, preferably one at a time. These videos have been around for a long time, and it is not possible to handle all this discussion at once without entirely ruining the prospect of any future videos. Carl Fredrik talk 20:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    General issue of long article-topic videos

    I have created the essay Wikipedia is not YouTube. As with all essays, it offers one viewpoint and set of opinions that isn't necessarily shared by the whole community and has no pretensions to represent consensus (yet!) Constructive edits to the essay by those who share some of the views/opinions expressed are welcome. Editors who have opposing views can rant on the talk page, if they can remain civil, or create their own essay. In particular, Doc James and Jytdog are expressly discouraged from editing the essay or its talk page due to their current civility issues on this topic and me personally. Editors with experience writing guidelines or crafting our very finest articles, such as User:SandyGeorgia, User:SlimVirgin, User:WhatamIdoing and User:Graham Beards are very much encouraged to comment/edit. Feel free to ping others. I should note that I may not always be as active as some here, so if you have the urge to make significant changes, please discuss first and remember there is no rush.

    My aim with this essay is to discuss the problems with long article-topic videos, and at present conclude they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have no problem with them being hosted on Commons and being used in some other WMF project. The issues above, of paid editing, COI editing, proxy editing, promotional material, the privatisation of Wikipedia content, edit warring, bullying, and chucking WP:MEDRS out of the window, are not covered. That's being discussed above and elsewhere. -- Colin°Talk 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    w/ regard to[23]Medical articles should be everything they need to be(not just text), to therefore inform our readers via ...text, audio and video...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prior discussions at WPMED about the collaboration

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks James. One thing I noticed in the March 23 link is that Doc James added videos to three articles with an edit summary of "Added". As Doc James is widely trusted to make competent edits and "Added" is nonspecific, many article watchers would not have checked his additions. If this is his usual edit summary for the 300 videos, I would guess that there are videos on some of our articles that the regular watchers of the article haven't noticed. I am not suggesting that Doc James was deliberately hiding anything. Just pointing out that the videos might be have received even less review than we think. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no obligation to provide an edit summary, and as this has been discussed extensively before this seems like conspiratorial thinking on your part in order to justify this inane discussion. Carl Fredrik talk 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    agree w/ CF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CFCF 1) Where has the possibility that regular article-watchers might not not have noticed the additions of the videos been "discussed extensively" before? 2) How does one manage to read "I am not suggesting that Doc James was deliberately hiding anything" and conclude that the writer thinks there is a conspiracy? 3) Some aspects of this discussion are inane (and hysterical and counter-productive) but there are also serious issues about content quality that are being raised and taken seriously by all sides. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The project has been discussed extensively, not the prospect, which is not what I suggested. 2) The conspiracy is the notion that editors would not have noticed the additions. 3) But these are not possible to discern due to the sheer volume of discussion. I find myself responding to the same thing at 5 different places, and unable to follow the 10+ simultaneous discussions (I do not have time to respond to discussions 24/7), in part because the same questions and arguments are presented over and over again. It would be preferable to let this cool down and then discuss potential solutions calmly. The solution to remove all videos is not on the table. Carl Fredrik talk 20:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When I were a lad, we used to judge potential admins on whether they gave useful and honest edit summaries. Don't know if this still goes on, but Help:Edit summary says "When editors stand for Adminship, their RfA pages include statistics about how often they have provided edit summaries in the past." James is an admin. Just saying. -- Colin°Talk 20:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What kinds of videos do our readers want?

    The reason that I see repeatedly given for keeping the videos is that Wikipedia readers want "more videos". In the July 2015 discussion linked to above, there's an interesting comment from WhatamIdoing, linking to an update on the WMF strategy discussion that giving us this "more videos" request. I watched 20 minutes of video that she linked to, and read the slides.

    In that presentation, I am seeing the requests for more videos. I'm not seeing any indications that in this research, we have asked questions like, "What do you want to learn from videos that you aren't currently learning from article text?" Or: "Can you give me an example of an article that ought to have a video, and tell me what should be in that video?" Or that we showed samples of videos to readers with accompanying article content and asked, "Is this video helpful? Is this what you were hoping for? How is it better than just having article text?" Not grasping and communicating the needs behind a so-called requirement, so you understand it only at the most superficial level ("more videos") is one of the main reasons technology projects fail. It's why all software developers love this cartoon.

    I'm bringing this up because I fully accept that most readers want more videos, but... what I find hard to believe is that most readers want videos that consist almost entirely of bulleted lists on Powerpoint slides, with a narrator reading the text that is on the slides. Everyone I know detests that kind of video. Especially when the content of text is as exciting as a start-class version of an encyclopedia article and when a more complete encyclopedia article is right in front of them. Some editors here (or maybe only one?) like that kind of video and know people who like that kind of video, but I hypothesize that they are a small minority of the population.

    If we are going to sink volunteer resources into reviewing video content, we should start with thorough user-centered research into what kinds of videos are actually useful to readers. Then we can make strategic decisions as a community to acquire or develop videos that will meet those needs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well their video on pneumonia on YouTube got 133,500 views in the last few months.[24]
    Their video on tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS each have about half a million views. The tuberculosis one has 5,500 likes to 98 dislikes.[25] The HIV/AIDS one has 3,200 likes to 106 dislikes.[26]
    IMO that is fairly impressive. And I can assure you all these views were not just me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clayoquot, very interesting. It seems James has misinterpreted "we want videos" to mean "we don't have the attention span to read Wikipedia articles. Please can you do it all like on YouTube." Their popularity on YouTube is irrelevant. Cat videos are popular on YouTube and we don't have one of them in every article. James has forgotten that this is a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia. -- Colin°Talk 07:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't a misinterpretation — we can simply cater to both those who read articles and those who view videos. We know that nearly no one reads entire Wikipedia articles, so I think you're the one who's missinterpreting and being disingenuous to boot. Carl Fredrik talk 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And this discussion: "I don't think these videos add anything of value to our articles. The blood flow through the heart video is simply a repeat of what is stated or implied in the article. There's nothing of educational value that is not already described in detail in the main article. I would be more impressed if you could find a video of a cardiomyocyte beating in a petri dish or in vivo, or something similar that expands upon, rather than repeat, the information in the main text." was replied by James "Different people learn in different ways.". Yes, they can go learn this way on YouTube. -- Colin°Talk 07:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you don't need to watch the video. We don't direct people to Youtube because Wikipedia represents uniquely non-commercial information. There is nothing wrong with us presenting information in several different modes. Carl Fredrik talk 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But the information is unsourced. If you want to introduce a special rule that says videos in medical articles (or perhaps all articles?) are a type of material that need not comply with WP:V, the onus is on you to gain consensus for that change. SarahSV (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The videos are supported by references, just not inline ones. Plus we do not require inline references in the WP:LEAD as long as the content is supported by the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Where can I find the information that shows the references that they used for the videos? Clearly in the case of the Breastfeeding video there are glaring mistakes that are obviously not based on acceptable refs. Furthermore, it is not only what is included in the video, it is what is not included. For example at Breastfeeding they list five health effects for babies while our article lists many, many more than that. If one only looks at the video they come away with an entirely different understanding of health benefits than if they had read the article. This should clearly show that its hard to cram a whole article into a ten-minute video and should not be attempted, at least in some cases. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gandydancer It is also hard to fit an overview of an article into the text of our leads. Yes trade offs do occur.
    Referencing is not as consistent as it should be. You can see the references at the end of the script here
    Working on getting the scripts for all articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The videos aren't leads. Outside leads, per WP:V, "[a]ll quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The vidoes are part of the ledes, and are often based on exact readings of the ledes. They are sourced, and a blanket challenge on all video content is not acceptable practice. Video files have no specific policy, but images are not covered by the same criteria as text, and it would be improper to begin by throwing away all these videos, which is very very counterproductive to Wikipedias goals. Carl Fredrik talk 19:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposed for Doc James

    Separated from section above, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Osmosis_concerns per TOCLIMIT problem SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim, that these videos are exempt from sources/citations per WP:LEAD is false. As User:SlimVirgin notes above, these videos are not leads, and WP:V applies. See the discussion at Talk:Epilepsy#Osmosis video. In particular both CFCF and User:Doc James have made claims that these videos are "near-exact copies of the ledes" or qualify as leads as they summarise the article. This is a level of falsehood, easily demonstrated to be bogus. See Talk:Epilepsy#Does the video summarise the article for just one example. Other editors have noted above that videos they examined are not equivalent to the article either, and make separate claims and present separate facts.

    Doc James is now edit warring (again) on this subject.

    The edit warring, justified by false claims, and reasoning that the rules apply to other people, I'm asking interested parties to examine this dispute. Others such as Clayoquot agree they are not leads. User:SlimVirgin, our resident expert in WP:V says they need sources and citations to sources, and the epilepsy video has none. The video is not a summary of the article in the slightest -- it is a training video for medical students drawing on different material.

    The video should be removed again from Epilepsy and all other articles per WP:V.

    Doc James should be formally warned over his edit warring, false claims, and topic banned from restoring the videos since he has a clear COI. -- Colin°Talk 19:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the original RFC; I have removed subsequent commentary not under Support or Oppose to Discussion, which is how RFCs typically work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the proposed topic ban for Doc James--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose however support possible boomerang--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will someone just open an RfC already? Use Epilepsy as a test case and decide where to go from there depending on the outcome. But this right here has gotten into the realm of theatrics. GMGtalk 19:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I oppose as well. Colin has made a grand total of two edits to medical content in the last two years on EN WP. They have missed the prior nine discussions about this effort. Well there are issues with some of the videos that need to be addressed and things that can be improved. This seriously... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban for anyone (at least at this time). I've just read this entire discussion from the top, and it seems to me that editors ought to separate two topics: (1) what is good content, and (2) whether anyone has engaged in disruptive conduct, should really be treated entirely separately. I think that there needs to be a community-wide RfC about such videos, because all that is happening here is two entrenched camps. And instead of having the RfC ask "do we want Osmosis videos or not?", there should be some legwork done first. Editors should devise a list of requirements that any such video must meet in order to be used on Wikipedia. I bet most of you can actually agree in principle about that. After that, the community should be asked to approve, or disapprove and revise, such requirements. Once there is a community consensus about the minimum requirements for a video to be included on a page, then those requirements should be enforced: no non-compliant video will be allowed at en-Wiki. Editors can ask Osmosis to change videos to satisfy the requirements, and if Osmosis does so (which they seem to be willing to discuss), then that's good – and if they do not cooperate fully, then no video on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposed topic ban. In the past, James has driven away an expert on the subject who clearly had much to offer. He has a cavalier attitude to the core principles of Wikipedia and collaborative contributing. He seems to think "consensus" means agreeing with him and never considers for a second that he might be wrong. His arrogance knows no bounds. He is difficult to work with, often doesn't bother with edit summaries - an example of his arrogance - and he has an appalling grasp of prose. He once ripped an FA to shreds without any prior discussion. I admire his enthusiasm and the time he has given to the project, but we cannot allow him to become a law unto himself. With regard to Colin's seeming lack of activity, this is irrelevant to this discussion, but for what it is worth, James's attitude is almost certainly entirely responsible for our losing Colin's reviews of medical articles at WP:FAC; he is one is of our best FA reviewers. It seems to me that James strives to dumb down Wikipedia when others strive to improve it as a solidly reliable source. Our policies on verification and so forth have done us proud. James's hard work and apparent popularity must not be used undermine and negate our core principles. Colin and I have had our disagreements, but the outcome of our listening to one another has always been productive. James needs to learn some humility. He needs us more than we need him. Graham Beards (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support.Comment. I think it is pretty clear that Doc James should be seriously encouraged to step back from the video topic, but there is no chance (given what this Project has become) of that realization happening on this particular page. For all of us, who worked together for years to create MEDMOS and MEDRS and quality content, it is very sad to see years of work and content creation undermined and endangered in the interest of external efforts.

      Would there be a chance that some could see that's how others see it? On this page (unlike in the broader community discussion at Jimbo's) we are only seeing more entrenchment. I would certainly hope we could find a way to work towards seeing this video infringement and entrenchment from different sides, and understand how much these actions undermine MEDMOS, MEDRS, and everything this project built and stood for for so many years.

      Of course I want Doc James to stop edit warring problematic content back in. I will support this if I must, but I will still plead for understanding. I also don't want to see the med project, with pages I helped build and promote, be the next Infobox clowns. That is where we are. Please, Doc, do not force me to Support this; please listen to what is being said. Please hear us, that for those of us who spent years building content and guidelines, we feel this undermines everything that WP:MED did and should be doing, only for the profit and benefit of external groups. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hear, hear, Graham Beards (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to Support, quite reluctantly, based on the RFC below. I believe Doc James is unable to see this from any perspective but his own, and hope he will read the words I wrote at User talk:WhatamIdoing just before I came here to find this. This is a very sad day, but I believe Doc James must be topic banned from adding or removing Osmosis videos, or speaking about them in any context and on any page other than at the RFC below, where he most certainly will opine, since he launched it prematurely, in what I consider to be against the good faith others were willing to show by holding off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a request above to "just open an RfC already" by User:GreenMeansGo. And all the accusations that I did not have proper "consensus" to gradually add any of these videos over the last 5 years. Take the RfC as you will. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Gee fizz folks. Dispute resolution process. This is like Wikipedia 101. GMGtalk 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, throwing half a dozen options together and starting a poll is not how one gains consensus. If you think it does, you have an awful lot to learn. -- Colin°Talk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What, instead it is to bring a discussion to half a dozen venues and throw mud? Comments have been made basically to the affect that no one supports these videos but me. A RfC is useful to at least show that this over the topic rhetoric in incorrect. Are the videos perfect? No definitely not. But Wikipedia is a work in progress and is far from perfect itself. Going in for a kill by pushing to removal all overview videos from Wikipedia is so uncollaborative. Osmosis is interested and willing to work with us. You appear set in preventing any collaboration or fixing of the issues raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Uncollaborative"? Let me get this straight? You commission a video from a private firm and insert it in an article. An editor complains about something in the video but is unable to edit it to fix it. They complain about it and remove the video. You then reinsert the video without discussion or consensus. You then make promises that you will ask Osmosis to fix the problem. Months pass. Osmosis fix some of it but not all, because to do that would require too much work and doesn't fit their target audience (medical students). Editor give up. What in any way shape or form does that represent collaborative editing on a wiki. James, would you please, please, take this Citizendium nonsense to another project. The issues are fundamental to what Wikipedia is, and you don't seem to be listening. -- Colin°Talk 22:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it the videos have been reinserted because there is a disagreement that anything needs to be fixed. To present all reinsertions as problematic on those grounds is false. Carl Fredrik talk 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup there was no consensus on what needs to be fixed and what it should be fixed to. User:Colin asking someone to leave Wikipedia repeatedly is uncivil. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: "There was a request above ..." blah blah blah. If someone asked you to jump off a cliff, would you just do it? This is the final straw in what Graham describes on this page as your cavalier arrogance. Everyone opposed to what is going on here held off on tossing up an RFC, so that a responsible, neutral, unbiased RFC could be drafted, that would not waste community time, would truly resolve the matter, and would allow us to move forward as collaborative colleagues. You decided, unilaterally (just as you did with this video venture) to launch a biased RFC. Yes, you should be topic banned from the video situation. I have been asking you for years to please slow down and understand what this kind of action has done to years of work. I now reluctantly acknowledge that you are not capable. And while you're here, it is utterly despicable that, as an admin, you edit war. If this ever ends up before ArbCom, please remember that admins are held to a higher standard, and you deserve to lose your bits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    where is the COI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What is this nonsense? I think it prompts an answer in kind, or a boomerang ban. This is rediculous. Carl Fredrik talk 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Impressive that you consider supporting including video as a conflict of interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now removed the File:Autism spectrum disorder video.webm from Autism, Asperger syndrome and Autism spectrum. It is quite ridiculous to claim that the same video is a lead for all three articles. And watching just a minute or two from the video shows that it draws from entirely different material to any of them. Particular to note that Autism, Asperger syndrome are FA-quality articles. If any of our articles do not require supplementing by wiggly-font videos, it is these. -- Colin°Talk 19:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reinstated these videos, this is WP:DISRUPTIVE Colin. Carl Fredrik talk 20:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat my warning that I made to Doc James. CFCF, you are both now restoring material to Wikipedia that knowingly violates WP:V. In addition, both of you have made bogus claims about these videos being "leads" for the articles. -- Colin°Talk 20:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the following articles have also had their videos removed:
    Are Doc James and CFCF going to edit war on those too? If not, why not? I would be interested to know what policy grounds they have for why I should not remove some more. None of them meet WP:V. -- Colin°Talk 20:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They do meet WP:V and are based on articles. The specific cases you've linked have all been challenged individually, which is vastly different from simply removing videos without so much the prospect of discussion. I have not looked into the specifics of those cases, but would imagine some solution could be found. Simply removing things without discussing the issues is WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:NOTCONSENSUS and indicates WP:NOTHERE because it is not in the search of a solution. Also note that for the time being, especially with the current ongoing discussion any individual challenges you make are likely to be interpreted as WP:DISRUPTIVE, as they are based on your opposition to videos and not specific issues. Blanket removal can only be possible with community-wide consensus. Carl Fredrik talk 20:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CFCF They are not "based on articles". You have made this claim twice now ("been near-exact copies of the ledes"). These statements are quite easily demonstrated to be false. Not even a tiny bit false, but great big Trumpy pants-on-fire false. You've been challenged on this, have had opportunity to check again and correct yourself, and instead repeat the false claim. CFCF, you forget that the onus is on the person adding material to show it meets WP:V and other policies. Any editor, in good faith, can challenge and remove material they believe to fail that. That you are now knowingly restoring the material puts you in an extremely dodgy position and if you keep doing it, a block is likely. -- Colin°Talk 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat my warning that I made to Doc James. CFCF, you are both now restoring material to Wikipedia that knowingly violates WP:V. In addition, both of you have made bogus claims about these videos being "leads" for the articles. -- Colin°Talk 20:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Restoring edits that clearly violates WP:V is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Graham Beards (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't, and we're not even having that discussion. If we were, there is no way this would be so infected. They are based off articles, even if they aren't exactly verbatim. Carl Fredrik talk 21:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Quality of Ketogenic diet

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

    jameslucas, thanks for your comments. I think initially the best approach with article concerns is to raise issues on the article talk page. This is considered more polite that tagging the article (which I see you did), unless one's concerns are so serious and obvious that one needs to shout them to every reader (for example, copyright issues). I don't see how you need experience in editing medicine-related articles in order to discuss concerns on a talk page. The article authors are often in a best place to address those concerns, being familiar with the topic and source material. Sadly, the last time I checked, there were no epilepsy specialists at WP:MED, nor many writers capable of writing at Featured Article level. FAR really is reserved for articles where serious issues have been raised and they have not been resolved after a period of time. In terms of the tone and content, this is not significantly different to when it was awarded Featured Article, and the consensus of medical and experts in prose was that it was high quality. It has been reviewed by a world authority on the subject, and copyedited by one of our finest writers. As the main author of Ketogenic diet, I'm open to suggestions for improvement. -- Colin°Talk 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say this directly: I'm concerned that this is fringe medicine being promoted with a Wikipedia page and not an example of neutral encyclopædic content. Citations include Redox Biology, a medical journal which I'm not convinced would be accepted by mainstream practitioners, and the Epilepsy Foundation, whose Wikipedia page is mostly about its controversies. My kneejerk reaction is that a large amount of content on this page should rightfully be removed, but in the absence of careful review, I'm limiting my suggestion to the downgrade of this article's class, probably to B. I don't think it's overreaching to say that this is very far from feature-article worthy, and to your point that it's been largely unchanged since it was promoted in 2010, I say that that it should never have been made a feature article. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 14:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Redox Biology is MEDLINE-indexed and the review article being cited is hardly even supporting a strange claim. However it is a concern that our article seems rather positive about this diet's usefulness in a way which seems a bit out-of-kilter in the light of recent secondary literature, which appears a bit more equivocal.[27] This is not, though, fringe science but well established as a mainstream seizure control treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all the ruckus above I am rather surprised to see a big picture of a branded MCT product (of which there are zillions of brands) in the article. actual image (and actual size) is here.
    A glass bottle of 250 ml of Liquigen, a white opaque liquid
    Medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) oil emulsion
    Hard to reckon why we are featuring this product so prominently, and in an FA. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JamesLucas: the best place to discuss this is at Talk:Ketogenic diet. I'm going to ping Graham Beards because he spoke very highly of the article. SarahSV (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have epilepsy experts collaborating with us. Happy to connect people to them if there is interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion should continue on the article's Talk Page, not here. Graham Beards (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    I agree with Graham that the discussion should continue elsewhere. However I will answer the specific points raised here.

    jameslucas, this isn't fringe medicine but an established treatment for refractory paediatric epilepsy and used by doctors from the finest children's hospitals in the world. I think it is funny that you wonder if the Epilepsy Foundation would accept it. Their Ketogenic Diet page and regular Keto-News page is written and edited by Dr. Eric Kossoff, Medical Director of the Johns Hopkins Hospital Ketogenic Diet Program, one of the world experts on dietary treatment for epilepsy. Have a guess which world expert I got to review the article prior to it receiving an FA. He went through it as thoroughly as if it were a review paper in a journal. I can find only one citation to Redox Biology and it is one of two sources for a very tame fact that "the ketogenic diet has also been suggested as a treatment for cancer". If there is consensus that this is a bad journal, I'm sure an alternative source can be found.

    Jytdog, wrt the MCT oil. I took the photo and do not own a pharmacy or have access to the zillion's of brands you claim. At the time, MCT and coconut oil was not a fad, so was not available at the health store or supermarket. In the UK, MCT oil is prescribed for, among other things, "ketogenic diet in management of epilepsy". The only oil listed in the NICE BNF that is available to be prescribed by doctors for this purpose is made by Nutrica Ltd. You can find the product details here. Note it is the same bottle. It is also the only picture of any MCT oil we have on Commons.

    Alexbrn, I have been highly critical of an earlier Cochrane review on the KD (you'll find a discussion in the talk page archive). I have only skimmed the update though I see two of the authors are the same and don't inspire me with their lack of qualifications. The fact that the newer version repeats the same nonsense about "Diets have been used in an attempt to control epileptic seizures throughout the centuries, indeed there is a biblical reference to prayer and fasting in epilepsy" demonstrates to me much you need to know about the care that went into this publication. A problem with Cochrane is that is designed round a very rigid protocol, language and the result is more "data" than directly clinically meaningful. It is very easy for those totally unfamiliar with the treatment of refractory childhood epilepsy to come to a wrong conclusion. However, they are not "equivocal". They clearly state that for the target group: children with refractory epilepsy who are not suitable for surgery, "a KD remains a valid option". This is borne out by recommendations/approvals by both UK's drug approval bodies (NICE and SIGN) and for insurance companies in the US. As I noted in my previous complaint, Neal et all 2008 remains the only RCT that directly looked at efficacy. The treatment group of 145 is small but proportional to the patient group: extremely ill children who have drug resistant epilepsy. This trial, published in Lancet Neurology, absolutely concludes "The results from this trial of the ketogenic diet support its use in children with treatment-intractable epilepsy."

    I would be interested to know if there are any studies looking at anticonvulsant drugs where the manufacturer says "You know what, getting drug approval is too easy. I like a challenge, and the bean counters worrying about how much we've spent developing this drug can go take a hike. Let's restrict our clinical trial to the most extreme forms of epilepsy. Those are found in children who often don't survive to adulthood and may not all survive to the end of the trial period. Lets make sure they have tried an average of six previous drugs without success. Let's not include any who might be candidates for surgery. Ensure many of the children are so neurologically and behaviourally troubled that compliance issues arise regardless. However, just to be sure, make our pill unpleasant to swallow and give the patients a tummy upset initially..." Context. That's what is entirely missing from the Cochrane report. Fortunately those who write clinical guidelines that actually matter are able to see the bigger picture when making their recommendations. There is absolutely no doubt that if you have a child with epilepsy, who is refractory to several drugs, and who is not a candidate for surgery, that your epilepsy specialist would recommend trying the ketogenic diet. It is more likely to work than anything else.

    If there are further questions about the diet or article, please write on the article talk page, and copy any of the above over if necessary. -- Colin°Talk 19:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Redox Biology looks like an acceptable journal. For those who believe in magic numbers, the five-year impact factor is about 6.9.[28] That's approximately double the average IF for general medicine and MCB journals – and it's a niche journal, so you'd normally expect the IF to be lower compared to a general journal, not higher. We normally don't worry too much about science journals that can boast an IF of one. I therefore think that we can stop worrying about this one.
    Also, I've updated the dab page for "Keto", since most people searching for that term are going to be interested in the fad diet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fight elsewhere
    Your excusing your own promotion of a product even while going after Doc James with fiery pitchforks, with zero effort to understand anything or hear whatever reasoning might be there, is just hypocrisy. Whatever. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am struggling to find a single thing you have said to me that isn't an ad hominem attack. Did you read what I wrote above about the MCT. You don't come out looking good. Rather than "zillions" there is precisely one MCT oil product available in the UK licensed for the ketogenic diet. The one I took a photograph of. There's only one, Jytdog. One.
    Would someone sensible at WP:MED please have a quiet word with Jytdog before he finds himself blocked for incivility. -- Colin°Talk 20:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not surprising that you find your own editing completely reasonable. But it looks exactly like a paid editor's would - big photo prominently showing the brand name. That is how hypocrisy works - what you do is fine - somebody else's good faith work could not possibly be fine but is evil, misguided, unWikipedian, blah blah blah. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How much longer is this behavior going to be tolerated by this project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Post-traumatic arthritis

    A review will be appreciated. Should this draft be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    agree(has only one good ref[29])..could also use a diagnosis section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copy-edited the draft for idiom – the drafter gives the impression that English is not their first language – and tidied up the refs as examples for them. But the sources are almost all dire. There seem to be a lot of good possible sources available, so do we have an expert here who can point GentianB to the best ones, please? Thank you for the point about diagnosis, Ozzie10aaaa, I've left a comment on the draft including that. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advises. Yes, English is obviously not my first language, so I am really sorry about the mistakes I made. If it is okay to you, I would redo the whole article the following days with the sources you gave me. Thanks for your patience. Since I'm new to Wikipedia, sometimes it is still confusing to me.--GentianB (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)-[reply]
    You're most welcome, GentianB. Please don't apologise: everybody makes mistakes and one of the advantages of working on a collaborative project like Wikipedia is that other editors can help and fix problems. Posting here will usually produce help with difficulties you encounter. Let us all know when your draft is ready and we can do another review for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to thank you again. I hope to improve the draft and will let you know. Cheers. --GentianB (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, if the directions for reviewing AFC submissions are being followed, then this should be accepted already. Yes, it could be improved. But it's in no danger of getting deleted, and therefore the AFC submission should have been accepted and the page moved to the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point but I expect Robert was just checking to make sure the article doesn’t already exist under another name or significantly overlap with another article like Osteoarthritis (risk factors) for example.CV9933 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CV9933 - No. I wasn't just checking whether it already exists. I was asking whether the article was up to the standards of this project. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: On the other hand, there is little point in moving an article into mainspace when the drafter knows it requires a complete re-write to include good quality sources. Frankly, if the only sources available were the ones used in the article, it should be deleted because it would have no content supported by reliable secondary sources, which - as you know - is a prerequisite for a Wikipedia article. No, it's far better to give drafters the encouragement to find the good sources and use them at this early stage (the draft is only a day old!). Nobody is more critical than I am of overly strict AfC reviewers who decline perfectly notable topics for spurious reasons, but this draft has not been declined, and I believe it would benefit both the drafter and the encyclopedia to give them the chance to do more research on the topic. Others can add to it later once it's been published, but there's value in spending a little more time now in learning how to use MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:WhatamIdoing, User:RexxS - I am aware that this project has higher standards than most of the rest of the English Wikipedia. I would have accepted an article of this quality on a nineteenth-century person. I routinely accept articles on nineteenth-century people. To get to an area a little closer to medicine but not medicine, I routinely accept stubs on animal and plant species. I neither accepted nor declined this article because I know that this project has (and should have) high standards. Thank you for commenting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Even if it is definetly not finished, I have done some rework of the draft and I would be pleased if an experienced user could give me some feedback and improvements. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentianB (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in it's current state it is ready to be published. There are improvements needed, but ongoing work can be done in main space. Natureium (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    moved[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Borderline seemingly promotional articles on doctors

    CanadianBiographies11111 (talk · contribs) has created several borderline biography articles [31]. Even though the user has been instructed to submit their articles via WP:AFC, they don't. I've AfDed one of the articles (the dentist, which the user recreated after it was CSDed), and I'd like this project to check the articles on the doctor and the physicist to see if they meet notability. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    blocked[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Frontier journals

    https://www.frontiersin.org/

    What are peoples thoughts on these? They have been described as predatory here.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested in some background that led to this question, I recommend seeing my talk page, wherein Doc James and I discussed this matter. It also includes my rationale for at least selectively using Frontiers journals as citations to articles so long as the article or study being cited is otherwise acceptable, as well as my stated concerns about considering Frontiers Media to be a predatory publisher. As I said in the aforementioned talk page discussion, I agree that there appear to be some problems with Frontiers journals, but I would nonetheless consider it a problematic publisher (like with Hindawi Publishing Corporation) rather a predatory one. This conclusion was primarily based on a review of sources mentioning or otherwise discussing the status of Frontiers journals as predatory, which I deemed mixed and overall inconclusive. Links to those sources can be found on my talk page, as well.
    I would also like to note Archive 78 § On the use of Frontiers journals as sources, whose consensus seemed likewise inconclusive but which appears to accept selective usage so long as that which is being cited is otherwise acceptable. If necessary, I would also support including a {{better source}} template along with any such citation, though I personally do not think that should be necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    at the very least questionable[33] and [34]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it depends on the claim. Any exceptional claim (e.g. of treatment efficacy) which appears only in a Frontiers journal is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and as for the AIDS denialism &c. stuff they've run .... In general anything worth including that appears in a Frontiers journal will almost certainly be source-able to something more conspicuously reputable. Same goes for Hindawi journals, PLOS ONE, etc. Most of the times we see these sources being raised from WP:PROFRINGE editors banging an altmed drum. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't consider Frontiers journals to be predatory -- I have read dozens if not hundreds of useful articles in them. However, the fact that something is published in a Frontiers journal should not imply that it should be treated as a reliable source. They are better than things like Medical Hypotheses, but reliability is not their primary goal. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Filipino vaccine investigation

    I'm keen to get opinions from contributors to this group about the controversy described by the article 2017–18 Philippine dengue vaccination controversy and the one-line mention it receives in the article section Sanofi Pasteur#Philippine Dengue Vaccination Controversy. I am no a medical expert, but I have been asked by Sanofi Pasteur (on a paid basis via their PR firm, Purple Strategies, so I am mindful of my COI) to look into what should happen here. Naturally, I figured WP:MED should be my first stop.

    The full article is not a bad summary of the situation as I've come to understand it: the Philippine government suspended a dengue vaccination program after Sanofi Pasteur said their vaccine poses higher risks for those who have not previously had the virus, and could worsen the disease in some cases; an investigation is pending. It also contains some potential WP:NOTNEWS reports of politicians weighing in; I wonder if others find this tick-tock excessive, or appropriate in the circumstances. It's complicated by the fact the principal writer (here pinged, in case they choose to weigh in) has a less-than-professional command of English.

    Also, both articles contain similarly-worded statements that strike me as prejudicial, and WP:SYNTHESIS: Since the announcement by Sanofi, at least 20 children were killed, allegedly after being received a vaccination. The victims' parents blamed the dengue vaccine for the deaths of their children. As the cited source indicates, it is true that a few parents have made the claim; as other sources indicate, no public official has said anything like it. My question, then: should this sentence be included as-is, stricken, or rewritten? I'm prepared to help with article cleanup in both cases, if it will be of help to volunteers—however, I won't directly edit these pages. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    please indicate on article/talk how (w/ references) and what improvement you think the article might need, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Should Wikipedia contain video summaries of diseases? And how should they be presented?

    Should Wikipedia contain video summaries of diseases? And how should they be presented? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Background

    Example video on measles

    We at WP:MED have been collaborating with the Khan Academy, that split off into a group called Osmosis, since 2013. These efforts have been discussed at least 9 times at WPMED over the last 5 years.(Dec 4, 2013, Aug 28, 2014, Nov 26, 2014, Feb 8, 2015, July 5, 2015 , Dec 24, 2015,Feb 8 2016,Mar 23, 2016, Aug 30, 2017)

    The videos they produce provides a basic summary of a medical condition using easy to understand language. They are released under a CC BY SA 4.0 license and uploaded to Commons by members of this group. The initial videos lack references while the most recent videos contain references at the ends of the videos. They are working to up date the older videos with references.

    In 2016, scripts for the videos were posted to Wikipedia for feedback from the Wikipedia community before the videos were created. As there was not much feedback from Wikipedians via this platform and due to internal staffing changes at Osmosis this has not occurred recently but there is willingness to reactivate this process and continue accepting feedback from this process.

    One can see references at the end of this script as an example. The reference formating is bar urls which can definitely be improved. Unfortunately, the references are not formatted as "inline references" and it is unclear if Osmosis is willing / able to create inline referencing. If the community felt this was critical they would be happy to look at collaborating to see if it can be done. Much of the content, however, is fairly basic in nature. Additionally, these videos are created / reviews by physicians before being made.

    The videos also exist on Youtube were they receive positive reviews and millions of views.[35] On Wikipedia the videos have been watched more than 8 million times.[36] Concerns recently raised have included that the intro includes a link to "open.osmosis.org" (the Khan Academy videos do something similar) and end with credits and non functional social media links. If the community feels this attribution of Osmosis is too great they are willing to remove and upload versions without it.

    Option 1

    Generally keep the videos within medical articles leads unless significant problems are identified with the content in question or they fit better elsewhere. Remove the ones with problems on a case by case basis. Collaborate with Osmosis to fix significant issues when present. Remove the social media links from the videos.

    Support
    • Support as proposer. A number of surveys of our readers has found a strong interest in us providing rich text including video. Video is, however, slower and more difficult to edit collaboratively and doing will involve a learning curve on both our sides. I am not sure if expecting video to follow all policies and guidelines applied to text is reasonable. Additionally having the videos within our articles allows use to get video content out in offline formats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • support seems like the best option...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and i suggest to collaborate with Osmosis to add references to the video descriptions of the old videos if possible.--مصعب (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's ridiculous that our community is so dysfunctional that we need an RFC to determine that the sensible and obvious step is the sensible and obvious step. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I have carefully followed both sides of the debate with an open mind. The videos are produced and reviewed by an expert in the field, so that in its own make them high quality sources and negates the argument that they are unsourced. They are sourced, to an expert! Lots of people dislike reading text and prefer the visual and audio experience, some even have cognitive difficulties e.g., dyslexia that make reading difficult or even impossible. We can't stay in the past, with a 2004 Wikipedia vision based on text and still images, we need to move with the times, otherwise some other encyclopaedia will become more popular. We have to supply the demand and give Wikipedia readers what they want, a visual/audio option and a text based option of healthcare content. Finally, the arguments that the videos have problems, well they can be edited and improved over time. Lots of text articles are 'start class' and 'C class' articles, shall we just delete them because they aren't 'perfect'? Even 'B class' articles have problems, do we delete them all because of imperfections? We should do if we are going to delete high quality expert reviewed audio/video overviews.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where, @Literaturegeek: did you develop the incorrect impression that "the videos are produced and reviewed by an expert in the field"? They are not. Have you followed the examples? Perhaps some of them have, and that is why a biased RFC should not have been launched: the RFC should have presented the examples of very basic errors, like the one at breastfeeding (a fairly basic topic)? High quality sources? Ask yourself this: would they be an acceptable MEDRS source? No they would not. And everyone I have seen has fundamental errors of a medical resident type. And the sources they use do not even meet MEDRS. Please see samples at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — With the surveys showing only a small number of readers view entire articles, and many not reading entire ledes either, any effort to aid understanding is helpful. If a single reader is helped by these videos it is sufficient for their inclusion. Readers who do not wish to view the videos may simply skip them. I also support مصعب's suggestion that we should to the degree it is possible include transcripts and references somewhere easily accessible to readers, such as Commons discriptions as well as at a centralized page. This project may also be seen as an extension of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia (which has many of the same features as the videos, and with time does not either correspond to current versions of articles,thus ostensibly failing WP:V). While improvements are possible to the videos — this makes option 1 the only viable option. Carl Fredrik talk 20:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As per Carl above, if so much as one reader is helped, the videos will have served their purpose. Given that nowadays video is the way forward - and resources for video production at this scale are not available to the Wikipedia community - it is sensible to include the videos in the mainspace of the articles. Agree that the social media links should go. A sound overall proposal--Saintfevrier (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I see the cry of 'if only one person were to be helped...' and that is a fine sentiment. How about instead — 'if only one person is harmed...'. It has been convincingly asserted (no way to verify video is based on MEDRS) that these videos fall below the standard of care we put into our medical articles. I would say that it is axiomatic that they are therefore more likely to result in harm than the more carefully curated and written MEDRS compliant articles. Jbh Talk 22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the videos are written and reviewed by an expert in the field, so the odds are that vastly many more people will benefit than will be harmed by the videos, I doubt anyone will be harmed realisitically. The videos don't actually tell people what to do medically anyway, so they will naturally seek out their healthcare provider. By your logic Jbh, someone should not consult with specialist doctor in real life because there is a real chance they could be harmed (medical negligence, mistake, adverse drug reaction, hospital aquired infection etc.). Don't forget the risk/benefit ratios. These are expert doctors making these videos, so their opinions will by far be a net positive. We can keep a hawk eye look out for any pseudoscience or mistakes that even experts can rarely unintentionally make by accident and remove the video should a problem arise. Oh, and the videos can be edited. :) It can all be improved upon over time. Lets not be all doom and gloom about the bright future of Wikipedia moving with the times and utilising video format.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It is also an issue to be adressed on a case by case basis. There may be some problematic videos out there, but that is reason to remove them, not all videos. Carl Fredrik talk 22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per all above --Alaa :)..! 22:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    Would you mind providing a link? There is far too much discussion to find it properly. Carl Fredrik talk 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right: diff, also Option 4, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose "unless significant problems are identified with the content" is not the requirement for keeping content on Wikipedia. I should be able to quickly edit this content, revise it, trim it, expand on it, etc. I cannot do this with this videos. -- Colin°Talk 20:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The same is true for most editors and images. This is not an argument against videos, but may present an argument against any specific video based on specific problems. A centralized page for discussion of issues may be a solution to help with updating videos, in the same way that such pages exist for image edit requests. Carl Fredrik talk 20:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose More of my reasoning is here and a small sample of the problems with these videos are at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues

      I also oppose Doc James framing this as We at WP:MED when it was mostly his project, with very little evidence of consensus, either at WP:MED or outside.

      As an additional example of less than good faith, Doc James has put forward the best possible examples in his framing of the RFC, which does not show the number of videos that do NOT have sources or are NOT so well done. This RFC was not neutrally framed.

      We unfortunately have a situation with Osmosis that may not be salvageable, because one person appeared to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, to allow them an interestingly and unprecedented free reign of Wikipedia articles for their own advertising in our articles. The Osmosis videos amount to free advertising for an external group, they were developed and added to articles on the consensus of a very small, walled group of a medical editors; they are dated and unsourced and often inaccurate; they breach WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ELNO among others; there ws no consensus outside of a handful of medical editors for adding videos of this type to articles, where an external company was granted provisions outside of the normal provisions of ELNO in external links. They must all be deleted.

      I also mention that this RFC is premature. You cannot change WP:V or WP:NPOV by an RFC about one set of videos. And Doc, while you knew that many here were willing to give you time to come around, back of of edit warring, and collaborate to put up a well-designed RFC, you did it anyway, unilaterally. And it is that kind of behavior that led WP:MED to where it is now. It was your one-man insistence that caused this problem, and you launched this RFC the same way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not interpret this RfC to have the issues you suggest it does. Someone had to launch this RfC, and it was suggested at least 10 times that an RfC be launched. Are you suggesting we should have had an RfC about how to launch the RfC SandyGeorgia? Carl Fredrik talk 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCF: First, I have read throughout these discussions that you have had a hard time keeping up with them. While about a dozen of us (at least) have followed every post for days. And although you have said you can't keep up, I see you taking it upon yourself to respond on almost every post and disagree with what others are saying :(

    Yes, typical to everything we are seeing these days from WP:MED, there is little understanding of what goes on in Wikipedia outside of this walled garden, and that includes how to frame an important RFC. A good faith editor, who truly seeks resolution, would typically put it in draft space, and get at least someone representing each "side" to participate in the drafting. After all we have been through in these discussions, no one who is opposed to the videos pulled this trigger prematurely, like Doc James did when he framed a decidedly incomplete and non-neutral RFC on a topic that has significance beyond WP:MED. While you may not have read everything, Doc James should have, and that included ample discussion about waiting to form an RFC neutrally, correctly, with all points represented. This impetuous posting of a biased RFC speaks very poorly for Doc James, and wastes the time of the entire community. But that is the pattern and that, more than anything, shows exactly the kind of arrogant indifference that brought us to this problem.

    If you are not familiar with how RFCs should work, and if you have not read everything that brought us to this point (for example, you continue to insist that the videos are summaries of the leads), then at least have the courtesy on what is already a poorly formed RFC, to stop responding to everyone who opines here and filling up space with blather. Because, quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That would suggest all videos violate WP:V. If that were the case I think we ought promptly change WP:V. Carl Fredrik talk 21:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose until such a time as we determine through community discussion how Wikipedia's general content policies should be applied. They are medical articles however there is no indication they are derived solely from MEDRS compliant sources. There is no way to verify any given claim, etc.
      Wikipedia requires enhanced care in out medical articles precisely because of the harm which they cause when non-medical readers turn to them to get information relating to their real-world, potentially life and death issues. (True, people should not do this but they do and WP:MED seems to recognize this with their enhanced content guidelines.) Because these videos are targeted at a lay audience and are simpler to understand for many than the text of the articles there is a greater duty of care required for their content and there is no indication that these videos exercise even the level of care we expect of our non-medical articles. Jbh Talk 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This option appears to give the videos favor beyond ordinary article content that is kept or kept in the lede only so long as the local editors desire it. Additionally, people with a COI should not get a vote on how prominent their content is in an article. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wnt — Who do you suggest has a COI? Carl Fredrik talk 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See the discussion at Jimbo Wales' page. For example User:OsmoseIt representing OpenOsmosis added this video with a pre-roll link pointing to the company site ([37]). I have not examined this issue closely enough to determine whether some other people here have a COI because of arrangements with the company or not, but one violation of COI by a company is certainly cause to be suspicious of others. There's likely to be some interesting admin work coming up for those with the patience for it. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose all as premature Clarification and work through by the community is necessary. The issue is not "videos" as worded in the RFC, but what videos, where added, created by whom, and whether that are easily edited.Until these issues are worked through and clarified this RFC in its totality is very premature. As far as I can see adding more options in the RFC when the questions I noted above are not answered can't add clarity but just muddles the situation more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    • Oppose. I will not re-write the arguments I agree with, but I will say that this effort looks to me like one of the endless stream of attempts to expand the scope of Wikipedia through the back door, then ask for forgiveness later, as the saying goes. The first consensus that needs to be sought is whether Wikipedia articles on the whole are suitable places for overview videos. I do not think so. Videos are a different medium (no kidding; but that's important here) and cannot stand beside text without changing how the audience views and engages with the site, and what the audience comes to expect of the site. Videos compete for attention in a way that fundamentally shifts "what a wikipedia article is". There are other projects, and new projects can be made, if Wikimedia wants to get into the video business. Outriggr (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Jbh and Outriggr. BethNaught (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 2

    Keep the videos but move them out of the lead to an external links sections.

    Support
    1. As my second preference, with caveat that they are evaluated exactly like any other External link, and only added with consensus. If we are stuck with them, they go in EL only if there is consensus to add them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Second preference support.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
    1. Wikipedia needs more video, not less. Gamaliel (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Just to clarify, you are proposing keeping them embedded in the article, not turning them into external links. No, they don't belong on Wikipedia at all per WP:NOTYOUTUBE. -- Colin°Talk 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    3. This providing a blanket approval for including the videos without further discussion at the various articles. Further, this would only be acceptable if the Osmosis advertising/branding is removed. We are not here to provide promotion for an external company by providing them an unconditional 'home' on Wikipedia and the PR boost they get by that association. Jbh Talk 21:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    4.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral
    1. Would support as a last option. With User:Gamaliel that we need more video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 3

    Delete all the videos.

    Support
    • Support, first option. The Osmosis videos amount to free advertising for an external group, they were developed and added to articles on the consensus of a very small, walled group; they are dated and unsourced and often inaccurate; they breach WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ELNO among others; and there is no consensus outside of a handful of medical editors for adding videos of this type to articles, outside of the normal provisions of ELNO in external links. And they have now become the focus of some very unbecoming behaviors, including admins willing to edit war to keep them, and cabalistic behaviors. This has WP:MED headed towards an Infobox-style dispute, except that unlike in the Infobox wars, there are at least two core policies that these videos breach-- WP:V and WP:NPOV. Deleting them all for a fresh start is the only way to solve this impasse.

      I am also extremely disappointed in Doc James for not working with someone to craft a neutral RFC; he instead put forward a biased account, not showing those videos that don't have sources, or less than good videos, and he claims the imperial WE supported this venture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support delete from Wikipedia per WP:NOTYOUTUBE. Also this is paid editing of article content by a private firm. I support keeping them on Commons. -- Colin°Talk 21:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although I don't think that we literally have to delete them all. I'm putting myself here because I don't think we should get stuck on defending the videos in their present form, and because it is perfectly possible and very desirable to replace them with better versions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Tryptofish supporting this is supporting "deleting all links to the videos on Wikipedia" and more or less is opposed to collaborating with Osmosis going forwards. How this will result in "better versions" you will need to explain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since you ask, I'm doing it as much as anything to make a stand against the editors who are opposing any change to the use of the videos. I'm less interested in deleting them all, than in getting us out of this standoff. My approach to better versions is in Option 4 below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I cannot edit video. If the video makes any assertions whatsoever, it violates WP:V Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      No User:Lingzhi, it doesn't violate WP:V because the video is written by an expert in the field so the video is in its own right a reliable source. If a serious/dangerous factual mistake were discovered in the video it can be deleted until it is fixed. Surveys of our readers show they desire video and audio content so that is what we must do. Many of our visitors have reading difficulties, e.g., dyslexia, everyone deserves access to healthcare information.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support generally for the reasons I opposed their blanket keep or blanket move to external links in the above sections. Jbh Talk 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no blanket keep proposal. Carl Fredrik talk 23:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Outriggr under option 1. We should have decided, on a broader scale, whether this kind of video is acceptable in Wikipedia, before these were added to so many prominent articles. We still have not yet had that discussion. BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose

    Option 4

    Develop a list of requirements that such videos must meet, in order to be used anywhere on en-Wiki pages. Have a community-wide RfC about that. Use the outcome of that RfC to determine whether or not a video may be used.

    Support
    Oppose
    • Oppose While better requirements about videos would be a good idea, this collaboration has two fundamental problems. It is designed to produce articles-as-videos, the videos are largely text & narration so don't actually add anything we couldn't do in a normal article + diagrams, and the videos are created by a private firm who it seems are now inactive in developing more for over a year (despite promises from James). See WP:NOTYOUTUBE for why lengthy articles-as-videos are fundamentally wrong on Wikipedia. They may be valid on other projects for WMF and can be hosted on Commons. -- Colin°Talk 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the typically useful and well thought reasoning from Tryptofish, because most unfortunately, that would mean, in this case, basically trusting Doc James to comply, when he has shown he is either unable or unwilling to understand anything outside of his own POV on this issue. He could have worked with someone to draft a neutral RFC, which he did not. He framed the RFC with bias, that has been typical of his behavior that brought this debacle upon us, so no, Trypto, so sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral
    • Neutral: Yes I was pushing to create a list of what we require to keep the videos. But my support depends what the bar is. For example are we saying:
    1. Remove front and back bumper? Sure can be done in a few weeks.
    2. Is it to allow collaboration on scripts? Sure was done. Not many people engaged. Can be reactivated definately.
    3. Is it to have references present? Yes that is being done already. And older videos are yet to be updated.4) Is it updating videos that have significant errors? Yes they have agreed to do that.
    4. Is it to have every video follow WP:MEDMOS to the letter? They are working on some improvements in that direction, such as regarding the person / patient issue. But are they going to be required to use our font? Follow or layouts etc?
    5. Must these videos have inline references for every single sentence? We do not even mandate this for Wikipedia. That would be requesting a bar within the videos that we do not even come close to meeting ourselves.
    6. Must these videos use Wikipedia text verbatum and follow Wikipedia's outline and be updated within two weeks of any new change to Wikipedia? Not going to happen. They are releasing videos under an open license and allowing us to use them. They are not making videos for use. Would it be cool having someone making videos for us? Yes definitely. But we would need to find funding to make that happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 5

    Remove videos and only allow them to be placed in articles, in whatever manner decided by this RfC, only after the Osmosis video branding (beginning and ending screens and any other endorsement or promotion of Osmosis they may include) has been removed.

    • To clarify this option is only applicable should other options lead to the videos being kept or used as external links. It simply serves as a caveat that no video with promotional material/branding/credits/etc be allowed to remain on the site. If they are to be allowed the branded ones must be immediately removed and then replaced with non-branded versions as they become available. Last edited: 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

    Support

    • Support as proposer. Regardless of any other issue relating to these videos using them to promote Osmosis by attaching them to Wikipedia content and giving prominent placement to promotional corporate branding within Wikipedia articles is simply not appropriate in any way. Jbh Talk 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Sure, I though I had included this within option 1. No need to adjust anything if all videos are deleted of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      The way I read Option 1 was that it did not require the promo be removed before they could be placed in articles. My intention here is that if we decide to the videos in any way they be rapidly scrubbed of Osmosis branding and to make sure a video with branding is not allowed to stay up until they get around to cleaning it up. This removes any incentive Osmosis may have for slow walking the clean up or pushing it off to the community ie no promotional benefit to be derived from 'eventualism'. Jbh Talk 21:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yah I am good with that User:Jbhunley. We hide all the videos until the bumpers are removed and than we restore their visibility once the front and back bumpers are removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Actually, I semi-support this. Agreeing to remove them pending improvements is a very positive offer, and I appreciate it. But I also anticipate that more than just removing the endorsements is going to be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial support. The branding is a main issue and booting them from the articles pre-emptively is a reasonable response, but there will likely be lingering COI fallout beyond this. The "bright line rule" probably needs to be applied. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolute bare minimum. BethNaught (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    1. Do I have keep opposing fifteen options? Which part of "delete all of them from Wikipedia" is not clear? -- Colin°Talk 21:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of don't delete them from Wikipedia is not clear? I am surprised that an editor like you who edits on articles related to disability e.g., epilepsy is so against this, because it discriminates against people with reading difficulties who prefer audio and visual formats of healthcare information. We need to move with the times, otherwise other encyclopedias and healthcare platforms will become preferred over Wikipedia. We need to supply the demands of our visitors. The videos are written by experts in the field so meet WP:V, the videos and audios are brilliant, a work of art, lets keep them and drop the hysteria.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Literaturegeek I think the videos are educational and useful and belong on Commons and some other site that doesn't care about sourcing and collaborative editing. "The videos are written by experts in the field so meet WP:V" is just so, so, so wrong I don't know where to begin, other than I now have a clue why some people want them on WP. WP:MED does not understand WP. -- Colin°Talk 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose, the fishiness of this venture-- propelled as it was by one person acting on behalf of Wikipedia-- is bad, and their inability to get basic medicine right is worse. This is not a salvageable relationship. Cut all ties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    3. I cannot edit it. It violates WP:V and "encyclopedia anyone can edit" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they can, the fact that it might not turn out well is a different point entirely. You're quite unlikely to be able to edit a featured article without in-depth knowledge of the subject, but that isn't an argument against featured articles. Carl Fredrik talk 21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you edit images? --Alaa :)..! 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 6

    Remove COI links and activities and be absolutely clear that the content is fully editable by all users. In the discussion at Jimbo Wales' page, an opponent of the videos cited a page making the claim that Commons opposes free editing of videos to remove pre-roll ads from videos. That page seems wrong-headed, dangerous, and worthy of deletion to me - though I'm still not clear it really applies to this case - but this issue needs to be settled independently of what happens to it. We need to establish:

    1. A private company adding spam back to itself in multiple Wikipedia references, even with the best intentions, is violating WP:COI badly.
    2. There can and should be an exception for them to get credit via file attribution consistent with CC-licensing, which is to say, a statement we keep according to our own preferences in the text talk page associated with the video upload about where it came from, but this does not create any "right" of the video not to be trimmed, cut in five-second snippets, made into a diorama, or painted on a naked lady pole-dancing around the Liberty torch.
    3. The company should trim the links from the videos itself quickly, per our request, to show it is attempting to mitigate its COI behavior.
    4. It must nonetheless also concede that we have the right to do that or edit them in any way whenever and however we wish, whether it does so or not. Any representation to the contrary would seem to imply that they are not presenting the CC license as valid, or are making a legal threat, and could serve as valid reason to delete videos and block users until all trace of the company is expunged from the project.
    5. Notwithstanding this, other users who find the videos on YouTube or archive them from Wikipedia and re-upload them because they think they are useful to the topic at hand are doing no wrong. So long as a user without a COI finds what he in good faith thinks is a CC-licensed video useful to the project, he's free to upload it and use it in an article. It is also not Wikipedia's job to figure out if he violated DMCA by trimming a CC-licensed video in a way that is against the DMCA but nonetheless leads to CC-licensed content, nor whether that user was subject to DMCA at all, even if we believed that Commons claim above.
    6. Future uploads of these articles by those associated with the company depend on administrative decisions regarding particular users, which may or may not turn out to impose topic bans or other moratoria for a limited or indefinite duration. The "bright line rule" suggests the best practice is for them to place talk page threads at relevant articles saying the videos are available, leaving it to other users to upload them or not. However, they have a right to make an argument for an exception based on utility. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    1. Support as proposer. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Comment We are free to edit the videos as we wish. In fact User:RexxS has already removed the front and back bumpers from one of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I've edited the next five in c:Category:Videos from Osmosis this evening. See File:Abscesses 1.webm, File:Achondroplasia 1.webm, File:Acute cholecystitis 1.webm, File:Acute leukemia 1.webm, File:Acute pancreatitis 1.webm, File:Acute pyelonephritis 1.webm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs)
      RexxS, the company name is still mentioned at the end. SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Sarah - I left it on for the first one to test out what folks wanted. The next five have everything extra removed. It's easy enough to remove the last couple of seconds of the first one if that's what is preferred, but nobody's actually told me yet exactly what they want. Although it's such a simple job that anybody could make their own version. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      RexxS, would you mind removing it from the end too, i.e. remove all mention of the company? That would at least deal with the freemium aspect of this, i.e. that, as they make clear on their YouTube channel, they hope the free videos will encourage people to buy one of their plans. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    Comment

    Comment — 5/6 of these suggestions are requirements inherent in the CC licence. I would suggest withdrawing this option, or rephrasing to suggest adding this at the WP:Osmosis page (however, there is nothing stopping you from just doing this). Carl Fredrik talk 21:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    People are free to add further options. And sub options to the main options. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh for crying out loud, please no more options. This will turn in to a mess. -- Colin°Talk 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The best laugh of this evening has to be Doc James offering a readonly Google Doc as references. Well, that just sums up how far we have fallen. WP:V guys. -- Colin°Talk 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Turn into a mess? Seriously it has been a mess for a couple of days now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin, as someone coming into this discussion new, I find myself agreeing with you that there are serious problems with the videos, but I also see your opposes in this RfC as being WP:POINTy, as if you want everything to fail unless you get exactly what you want. Believe it or not, not all editors agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This really is a terrible RFC James. I suggest you close it and start again. Create it on a new page and ask for some discussion before making your proposal. The formatting is already causing editing problems. Having 5 options already is just way too much, and can be viewed as diluting the views such that no clear opinion arises. I should note that regardless of the views expressed here about "I like it!!!", none of them trump policy. These fail WP:V, and there's no getting around that. -- Colin°Talk 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to believe that this RfC would be criticized for not allowing additional options if it were so, as such this criticism seems WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik talk 21:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You get the chance to oppose as many option as you like. You appear to have forgotten at least one of the pillars. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone independent would not have formatted this RFC like this. You should have asked a single question. If it is not yet clear what the question is, you should have a discussion first. And keep discussing until you see a consensus approaching. Then you have a vote to confirm the consensus you have achieved. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Colin°Talk 21:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No independent person would have formatted the RfC at all, and I would also like to point out that a single person trying to overwhelm all other posters is not substitute for discussion. We get your point, and we get your essay. There is nothing out of the ordinary with this RfC. Carl Fredrik talk 21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Citizendium. "Experts" making videos that other editors cannot edit is... not Wikipedia. Go start your own website. Put them there. Have fun. Stop riding on other editors' years of work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except they can be edited. It is not like they are ND or anything. And they have been edited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the videos can be edited. The question is, can they be edited into anything useful and of decent quality? If you want to remove a whole section (of content, or of credits, say) and you're fine with sudden cuts, that's OK. But, for example, what if there is an incorrect sentence in the narration, where simply cutting those few seconds would not make sense? Removing the original speaker's voice and replacing it with another person's would be jarring for the viewer and would lead to a low quality production. Therefore to make any changes to the substantive content of the videos, we are dependent upon Osmosis. I do not regard that as acceptable. BethNaught (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Beth, in the rare hypothetical circumstance where a significant factual error was discovered and we edited it rendering video with weird sudden breaks or gaps, and Osmosis was unable or unwilling to fix it, then we just delete the video, just like how we delete outdated sourced text. We delete entire text articles here, we can do the same with problematic videos.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to WP:CENT [38]. Jbh Talk 22:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=832970393"