Talk:DRASTIC

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I'm the owner of laboratoryleak.com! You can find my face and name under every article.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Francesco espo (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the copyrighted content, but I'm the owner of that website!

You should see WP:DONATETEXT if you really want to use the same text. Alternately, just re-add it in your own (different) words. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Hemiauchenia: Hi. I see that you've taken a large chunk of the article's content out. I will explain why I disagree with this:

Firstly, the "UnHerd" reference is, well, I've never heard of this site. Maybe they are bozos. But I took a look at them when I was expanding this section of the article, and they seem to have a staff which engages in oversight and exercises editorial discretion. The article did not say anything crazy, and I was very limited in what I incorporated from it anyway. The main thing I was citing to them was, specifically, their opinion (which is why it was presented as a quote with inline attribution). The opinion in question wasn't even particularly positive (they said that they "hurtle down blind alleys"). The other thing I was citing to them was the number of people in the group (which is already mentioned in another source, but I don't see the harm in including both as citations for that).

Secondly, there were a few other sources you removed, like the Washington Post, Telegraph and CNET citations. I don't really understand what was wrong with those, since they're pretty reliable and commonly used sources on Wikipedia. Could you explain your thinking here? jp×g 19:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Cnet is only usable for computer tech news. UnHeard appears to only be a blog. Why do you keep reinstating these? —PaleoNeonate – 07:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not terribly attached to UnHerd (although it's only cited for two things: as the second source for the number of members, and later as an inline-attributed citation for its own opinion per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). As for CNET, however, RSP lists sixteen separate discussions of CNET (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16); is there one I'm unaware of that concluded it was unreliable for some purpose? jp×g 21:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: in the last few days, there have been new articles primarily focusing on the exploits of this group in The Hindu (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), Vanity Fair (RSP entry) ("generally reliable"), The Print (no RSP entry, I don't know), and Newsweek (RSP entry) ("case-by-case basis"). jp×g 04:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Propaganda

In case this survives it would be interesting to look for sources describing the propaganda efforts made on Wikipedia by members, including with the misrepresentation of sources, —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I hope you understand the fine difference between propaganda and investigative clarification or science ?

General: What we should certainly clarify in this context is the possible propaganda of China or the CPC in the COVID 19 area of the Wikipedia, e.g. by the famous 50 Cent Army, paid editors or state officials. The whole framing here - especially to the origin in Wikipedia - is interestingly and paradoxically strongly Chinese, synchronous with Chinese state propaganda, here one example of the Chinese Embassy in Germany. That is one to one the line, which is represented here unreflectively. Good idea with wrong propaganda - we should turn that off.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Empiricus-sextus: This comment is inappropriate and incivil; PaleoNeonate has been an editor for over five years, and has made more than 26,000 edits. You link to the 50 Cent Party: do you really think the Chinese Communist Party spent $13,000 for this person to disagree with you on a talk page? You are perfectly free to disagree about politics, but WP:ASPERSIONS are neither a helpful nor welcome contribution to the discussion. jp×g 07:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for advice. This was no personal note for Neonate. Sorry for missunderstanding. I had a "little confrontation" with chinese officials in the German Wikipedia concerning COVID 19 already, first friendly, later with super strong PA (with IPs from Berlin and Hamburg). I´m not sure if they are active here -possible yes ! To say DRASTIC makes "Propaganda" and "misrepresantation of source" is a little bit too much bashing. I don't know DRASTIC more deeply, but I already realize that it is very dangerous to get into a confrontation with China on this issue - even outside of China ! That one has to protect oneself, especially Chinese who are active as whistleblowers here and pass on many insider information to DRASTIC. I think there are good reasons to respect these people / group and not to connext them negatively - e.g. with propaganda, conspiration theory, etc.. he whole discussion has become considerably objectified and something like this (first three sentences), for example, is a kind of bashing (implicit PA). Whether she was right or wrong, we should be more sensitive about this persons..--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Members of Drastic have openly harassed Wikipedia members example. Portraying Drastic as "scientists and analysts" is I suppose technically correct if the meaning of that sentence is "scientists with no relevant expertise in virology" and the term "analyst" being a vague term that could be used to describe literally anyone, as many members of "drastic" don't have any relevant experience or qualifications. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The post you've linked to is quite unpleasant. Is this the Twitter user referred to in the article's sources (and, if so, are they related to the Wikipedia editor of the same name?) jp×g 05:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the "BillyBostickson" in the linked tweet is the same "BillyBostickson" that is mentioned in the articles about drastic. I cannot directly comment on the Wikipedia account per WP:OUTING, but only one person appears to use the "BillyBostickon" monkier outside of Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article says Their pseudonymity and style of engagement with other scientists although there seems to be no evidence that they actually are scientists too. Removing the "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, there are purportedly some scientists in this group per this VF article: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins/amp although since there are also some non-scientists in this group, also per this VF article, perhaps removing "other" is still desirable.2600:1012:B01C:48CE:B84C:7768:3198:FB9C (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Purportedly" is not enough to justify the word "other". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree that using the word "scientists" is loaded in this context. I almost removed it as well but didn't want the drama. so I support removing it. Neither of the Data Scientist or Project Manager that are referenced in the Vanity Fair article are fairly considered "virologists." personally I wouldn't consider either of them "biomedical scientists." and that would be the fair characterization of the use of "scientists" in this context. In context, we are clearly referring to "laboratory scientists." This group is basically hacktivists and hobbyists. Do any of them engage in laboratory research professionally?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

Guy Macon please can you revert your edits not supported by sources? --Francesco espo (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because D.R.A.S.T.I.C. Research is indeed a Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

For example,[1] says:

"How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion."

Also, as the author of the web page https://www.laboratoryleak.com/drastic/ you have a clear conflict of interest. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

They came to my page asking for evidence of them having a COI... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: is this dispute really necessary? jp×g 21:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Conflict of Interest regarding Covid-19 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you [JPxG] suggesting that we should just remove all that very well-sourced WP:SUMMARY language? Or that we should be kinder to POV-pushers? I guess I agree on the latter but absolutely do not agree on the former. EDIT: I cannot actually find a good source that DRASTIC is "promoting conspiracy theories" explicitly. I will keep looking. I think that's a fair WP:SUMMARY of our current sources, but it would clearly be better to have direct quotations for such a contentious statement.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting for the sources to catch up rather than getting into a dispute with other veteran editors over this, but I will be very surprised if reliable sources don't eventually come to the same conclusion I came to. Writing things like "conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet" is pretty damning. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence"[2] -- Francisco de Asís de Ribera, member of DRASTIC --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

oooh that El Pais article is really good for this. I would say with those two refs I support the conspiracy language. but I understand that other editors may not agree. we either need to wait until it's absurdpy uncontroversial or RfC and see what most people think. I can write one up if you want, Guy Macon. I would make it extremely simple. just quotes from those two articles and a question: "Is it accurate to refer to this team as "conspiracy theorists and hobbyists" or something just on the side of neutral like that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Before posting the RfC, I would go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask (with a link to the source) "is El Pais reliable for direct quotes from DRASTIC? Are their conclusions about DRASTIC reliable with attribution?. I would do it, but I am a bit swamped. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That seems relatively uncontroversial to me, and seems as though it would devolve into the same questions as the RfC... "Can characterizations of some of the group apply to the group" etc. So I think I'm just gonna do the RfC. I'm sorry if you think that's gonna screw up the order, I can withdraw the RfC and go that route... Apologies--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You are right; the same issues would come up either way. Go for it! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: How should we refer to DRASTIC team?

How should the first sentence of this article refer to its subject? This inevitably affects the rest of the article, but this is the crux of the issue. Four basic options:

• Option A: "DRASTIC is Twitter group promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories, in particular the lab leak idea."

• Option B: "DRASTIC...is an organization of amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."

• Option C: "DRASTIC...is an organization of conspiracy theorists and amateur researchers investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea."

• Option D: (Option B), but then we mention elsewhere in the lead that the group "have been labeled conspiracy theorists." by scientists and journalists.

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Survey

• I personally support Options A & C, here's why:

1. It's how several of the team's own members refer to themselves.

Quotes from members of the group describing a tendency for "conspiracy" beliefs.

(Industrial engineer Francisco de Asís de Ribera): "I’ve learned to be on the conspiracy side of the fence; when I explained, we were called crazy..." (On the "official" website): "How biased some virologists can be. You write about the lab leak hypothesis that is “pushed by a vocal minority”. We are a minority because of mislabelling it as conspiracy by @nature and @TheLancet at the beginning of the pandemic. Pushing? We express just another opinion. Sources

2. It's how several WP:RSes refer to the subject, and how others have referred to the group.

Quotes from WP:RSes describing D.R.A.S.T.I.C. as "conspiracy theorists."

(El Pais referring to DRASTIC's research endeavours): "All of the research was conducted under the shadow of being labeled a conspiracy theorist – an inevitable consequence of doubting the origin of the virus a year ago." (The author of the Vanity Fair article on Fresh Air discussing the DRASTIC team's findings and motivations): "people felt they were absolutely determined to fight against what they saw as a conspiracy of this magnitude....let me just say that faced with this fact pattern, there have been conspiracy theories that go, you know, so far beyond what is merited here. Nonetheless, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about the controls over that money, what the money was being used for." (CNET, in an article profiling the group): "This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists." Sources

3. Theories about various actors conspiring together are quite literally what the group repeatedly proposes:

Disclaimer: What follows is original research/interpretation of preprints DRASTIC has posted.

Examples of conspiracies proposed by D.R.A.S.T.I.C.

DRASTIC repeatedly argues that the Chinese government, media, and scientists are engaged in a massive coverup. DRASTIC often takes unproven or or tentative data that is public, and uses it to try and argue that a conspiracy has occurred to cover-up that same publicly available information. DRASTIC has argued that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting bioweapons research in tandem with the Chinese military, a claim for which no evidence has been provided. DRASTIC argues for unproven conspiracy theories asserting that gain-of-function research was occurring at the WIV which created SARS-COV-2, claims which has been debunked numerous times. Seriously, this is the single most disproven conspiracy theory about the virus, just read WP:NOLABLEAK. DRASTIC argues that the Chinese government misled international investigators and either falsified employee testing records or selectively omitted records, all in order to cast doubt on the lab leak theory. This claim is so WP:FRINGE that no secondary sources have covered it. But as a virologist who did his PhD on the antibody responses against emerging virus infections (seriously), I can tell you they make several basic mistakes about which tests should've been conducted and when. For example, they claim IgM should be used to test active infection 2 - 6 weeks post symptom-onset. This is false. They also commit basic errors of binomial probability, assuming that lab workers are as likely as the general public to be exposed to the virus, when their likelihood (in the absence of a lab leak) is actually probably lower given the % of time they spend wearing PPE inside a heavily controlled environment. Sources

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Fringe theories noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been advertised at the Biography of Living Persons noticeboard. 18:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• D for now, maybe C if we flip it around to "amateur researchers and conspiracy theorists". I think we're somewhat stuck with enough non-critical press and not enough critical press to label them otherwise. Made all the more difficult by the pseudonymity and relatively loose organization.

For instance, the "live bats in the WIV" video that we have only a Newsweek citation for would be a critical example, if they could be shown to be a misinformation producer. Nobody else even remotely reliable seems to have picked up the story, either to confirm or debunk it, at least nobody linking it to DRASTIC. IMO, this is a sign they're too small to be notable, but that vote has already been lost, so this is where we're at for now.

If we use the first two quotes (from members), I think the first one is the kind of thing we'd have to base such a claim on. "Some members consider themselves 'on the conspiracy side of the fence'", which feels a bit weak to be worth adding. The second claim they're explicitly rejecting the term 'conspiracy', calling it a misnomer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair criticisms. They often do recognize that they've been called that way, but some definitely reject the label, while others seem to embrace it. I could definitely get behind C with the flip in order. Tomato tomato.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment because you're seeking to call them conspiracy theorists (a pejorative term) in Wikivoice, can you please provide examples of sources that call them that? Geogene (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I did several times above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you didn't. What you engaged is BLP violation by original research. You also have grossly misinterpreted this El Pais piece, which does not call them conspiracy theorists in any way [3]. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you'd like to report me to ANI or ArbE, be my guest. I don't believe I've done what you've just accused me of at all. I was very clear about which pieces of evidence I cited were quotes and which were supposition/interpretation. I never hid that or misled anyone about that in any way. I'll even add a disclaimer if it makes you feel better.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)