User talk:James Cantor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

I think an apology is in order.[edit]

A few months ago, you complained that I was libelling one of your colleagues. Given that said colleague has been letting his clinicians ask vulnerable nine year old children from foster care about their sexual interests, and has generally been found to have engaged in "inappropriate" and "unethical" medical treatments on children, I think an apology is in short order. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak on this issue as freely as I would like. Nonetheless, an accurate assessment of the situation is better summarized here. — James Cantor (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So you think, like Dreger does, that Zucker did nothing wrong by asking vulnerable nine year old children about their sexual interests? Sceptre (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
What I think is that being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak freely on this issue. Get me permission to speak externally about internal affairs, and I will be happy to do so. — James Cantor (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What do yo think?[edit]

I had an idea for academic journals that is described here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Impact factor. What do you think? Is there any reason why a journal would not want to advertise that it spends a few dollars and maybe five minutes per submission to check for blatant plagiarism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, WAID. I'm sorry I didn't see your message while it was relevant. (I don't sign in often these days.) I hope the issue resolved well!
— James Cantor (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion (which is short) has been archived here. It's a question about journal editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I agree: I don't think IF should be used for that purpose. Small (and highly specialized) fields have lower scores than larger (and more general) fields. — James Cantor (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm also curious about this: Should academic journals be using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) and advertising that fact? I realize that there's a certain amount of expense there, but I'm thinking that the reputational damage when the journal has to retract something for having copied from Wikipedia (for example) is also expensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, WAID. I hesitate to say anything general to all journals: Different fields and subfields would plausibly react differently. I would certainly have no opposition to any journal I'm involved with doing such a thing, but mine is a very small field where most reviewers would likely recognize such a thing. I can imagine that very large fields might benefit more from it. Advertising doing so might also vary with the field/audience. If I were still an editor and my journal were going to institute such software, I would consider putting the information in the "instructions for authors," so a potential plagiarist would go someplace else, but making a more public statement could feasibly become a PR problem. Is that a help?
— James Cantor (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm insufficiently cynical, but I suspect that most authors aren't planning to plagiarize anything. They just copied something from their notes, and forgot that it happened to be a quotation. But I can see why a journal might want to check for plagiarism "secretly", rather than with public fanfare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think it's journal- and field- specific. Although we are accustomed to Western academic (and lifestyle) standards, there is no shortage of very desperate grad students and new profs under unbelievable pressure, especially in India and China. For many of them, the perish in publish-or-perish is very real, and their risk-to-benefit ratio isn't what we enjoy. — James Cantor (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion[edit]

There is a discussion happening at talk: Tom O'Carroll on a subject in which you have taken an interest in the past. I was wondering if you would like to offer an opinion. Researcher1000 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Group[edit]

You might be interested in this: User:Ongmianli/Helping Give Psychology Away. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)