Talk:DRASTIC: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 24 June 2021

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

COVID-19 Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, —Paleo Neonate – 07:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Conspiracy theories?

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC: How should we refer to DRASTIC team?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should the first sentence of this article should 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)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ::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--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 16:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 :::No problem. You are right; the same issues would come up either way. Go for it! --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
+== RfC: How should we refer to [[DRASTIC|DRASTIC team]]? ==
+{{rfc|sci|pol|bio}}
+'''How should the first sentence of this article should 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''': "{{tq|DRASTIC is Twitter group '''promoting COVID-19 conspiracy theories''', in particular the lab leak idea.}}"
+* '''Option B''': "{{tq|DRASTIC...is an organization of '''amateur researchers''' investigating the origins of COVID-19, in particular the lab leak idea.}}"
+* '''Option C''': "{{tq|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 "{{tq|have been labeled conspiracy theorists.}}" by scientists and journalists.
+--[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 18:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
+<hr>