User talk:Chirazb

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Hello, Chirazb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Quick introduction to Wikipedia
How to write a great article
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your own talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Chirazb I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. Your edits to date are all about BEKER Laboratoires and are promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Chirazb. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with BEKER Laboratoires? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. Afteyou respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not work for the laboratory however i'm working on Hepatitis C and have a focus on Algeria therefore as they are the only laboratory in Algeria working on this, this is why the main information is about them. I'd be happy to have you helping me out edit the pages. Most of the information written is only about Gilead or got corrected as per Gilead, I thought that given that Algeria is nto part of the access programm and have a local player it was worth mentioning. Any help to write to provide the information that i tried to write would be great. thanks Chirazb (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm - you are saying you have no relationship with Becker directly or through any intermediary? It is hard to understand that when all your edits here are about Becker and you are also apparently doing stuff like this and this. This is what "social media" marketers do. Wikipedia is not social media. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own company again i do not work for them. i do happen to interact with them. again as stated beforei'd be happy to work with you on the edits, provide you with the info and let you write it the way you deem right on wikipedia as you have experience on this. it is more information that i'd like to post no promotion. I do have some information on another generic in Morrocco called Pharma 5 which also generic sofosbuvir. As there is not only the branded but generic version available and not provided by Gilead or through their access program it is i think a good information to spread. Let me know your thoughts and how you'd like to proceed.Chirazb (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. Editing behavior like yours refects what we call WP:ADVOCACY and such editing is usually driven by an actual conflict of interest (like working for or on behalf of X) or some passion - in your case it appears to be upsetness over the pricing of the drug and a desire for cheap medicine to be available. Please do read WP:ADVOCACY as well as WP:SPA and keep these things in mind. I will post below a brief guide to editing Wikipedia. The problem with the content you have added so far is that you have not cited what we call "reliable sources". That is described in WP:RS. If you do want to edit more in the future and are interested in health and medicine (which is my main focus here in WP) you may want to consider joining WikiProject Medicine - please be aware that there is a more stringent sourcing requirement for content about health (e.g. how safe and effective Sofosbuvir ‎is) that is described in WP:MEDRS - basically we use literature reviews in the biomedical literature, or statements by major health authorities. (What we call "society and culture" things, like what company sells a drug where, is governed by plain old WP:RS) You will also want to be aware of the manual of style for writing about health - WP:MEDMOS.

Also, if you have facility in non-English languages, we have an ongoing translation project that may interest you. It is being driven by James Heilman Doc James who is the informal leader of WikiProject Medicine; you should drop him a note on his talk page if you are interested, and maybe also see WP:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force.

I will post the guide to editing below, which should help you. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for all info. Here are some updates, i started officially working as a consultant for the lab and therefore i'm een more involved in the project. There has been some media covrage following the world hepatitis day where the availability of the product has been mentioned with lot of different references (press articles in algeria, on doctissimo, tv covers). Are those references enough to be able to edit the wikipedia article? thanks foryour helpChirazb (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

First, you may want to read WP:EXPERT which is really useful for helping scientists understand how Wikipedia writing is different from other genres, like writing a review article - it is a strange thing, working here. There is a great link at the bottom of the EXPERT page to an article that was published in PLoS too. Please also see WP:MEDHOW which is a quick guide for people interested in editing about health/medicine/biology.

More generally, the following will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral) We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:COI and WP:PAID which I discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Sofosbuvir. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography) (For example, for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines, and for matters of health, the outlines are in WP:MEDMOS
Create the article following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles.
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go.
Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round and add them back only as needed.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. If you have a COI for the article, note it there.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]