| Revision as of 19:04, 20 February 2011 editScray (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,806 edits →Categorization of editors: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:13, 10 October 2015 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,757 edits →Paragraph removed: c | ||
| (220 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days}} | |||
| == Table of Good and Bad Edits == | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| The current tabular form for the examples of good and bad edits is misleading. It suggests, for example, that pharma employees don't need to site sources (note that some pharma employees are accountants, etc.). It also suggests people with medical conditions should refrain from contributing, other than correcting obvious vandalism or libel against people. (Perhaps the more daring of them might even be permitted to take the initiative to correct spelling errors.) Three separate lists (the format just reverted without discussion) is both clearer and more consistent with Misplaced Pages policy: Everyone can contribute, and everyone should give reliable sources. | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 2 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine)/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == Paragraph removed == | |||
| The change to three separate lists was reverted, along with all other changes, by the creator back to the creator's exact original, suggesting a sense of ]. ] (]) 23:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I've removed this, because it seemed to encourage COI editing, including financial COI/paid editing. Also, it equated healthcare professionals and people with medical conditions, neither of whom have a COI, with pharmaceutical employees, who do have a COI. Bringing it here for other views: | |||
| :I'm not even going to attempt to wade in between the two of you, it appears that this has become personal rather than an attempt to improve the encyclopedia (which is, in the end, why we're here). I'd strongly suggest that the two of you either choose to ignore each other for a while, take a break from editing, or have a nice cup of ]. If anything is truly ''that'' bad, another editor will notice it and fix it. Just as a random ], I prefer the tabular format, though it should be obvious that these are just examples and not specific prescriptions for specific audiences. I'm not going to write it myself, but I'm curious as to what specific recommendations should go in for me as an employee of a government health and regulatory agency. ] (]) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Adding non-controversial information'''. Employees in the medical manufacturing industries might be in a unique position to provide commercial, regulatory, and historical information for products. Healthcare professionals are often skilled at explaining complex disease processes. Patients with chronic medical conditions often understand the prognosis and social impact of a medical challenge. Within your expertise, focus on the 90% that everyone agrees on, rather than the 10% that is disputed.</blockquote> | |||
| ::Hi SDY, | |||
| ::I hadn't thought about that case. The issues around promoting your employer would be the same: an editor could spam (say) links to the NIH website just like s/he could spam links to a corporate website. Such a person might also have a bit of a national focus, e.g., the US's recommendations for mammograms are the only ones worth mentioning. | |||
| ::I think it's important to associate specific situations with specific traps that those people are most likely to fall into. I'd thought at one point about having two examples for each type, but that would entail 20 different examples, and my imagination failed before I got very far. I didn't want to duplicate any items, because I thought that would be interpreted as indicating that only what was listed in 'your' row applied (whereas I think it reasonably clear that single examples apply to everyone), and I didn't want to have noticeably uneven numbers of examples, because it might imply that some groups were worse than others. ] (]) 04:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::SDY, please reconsider. If you and other editors without prejudice don't get involved, Misplaced Pages content will be determined by the one most willing to edit war, the one most willing to be uncivil, the one who re-reverts instead of discussing. Changing to a tabular form would make it clear that the examples apply to everyone. ] (]) 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks ] ] (] · ] · ]) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Back when I started this, the idea wasn't "everyone listed here is bad", much less that everyone was equally likely to have a COI. It was more like "depending upon your individual situation, you might have a COI or you might not. Here's what's typically a problem for different types of editors, and here's what each type can usually do without getting into trouble". | |||
| :::WhatamIdoing, your first change description, "Rv changes by Bittergrey: I think the original is better because it associates specific situations with specific problems" suggests that you intended the examples to ''apply only to the specific row.'' Above, you comment "I think it reasonably clear that single ''examples apply to everyone''". First they don't, and then they do. Do you at least accept that there is a risk of misinterpretation or confusion? ] (]) 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| For example, ''most'' healthcare providers and patients aren't destroying articles for the sake of filthy lucre or fame, but ''some'' of them are (see: any patient who has written an autobiography and spammed it around on Misplaced Pages). Similarly, you should take a long spoon to sup with ''most'' public relations staff, but ''some'' public relations staff are relatively helpful (e.g., providing copies of newspaper articles and pointing out subtle vandalism or blatant factual errors). With the exception of official public relations staff, I don't want to anoint any group as being either entirely pure or entirely foul. My experience is that individuals in these groups are heterogeneous. ] (]) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Categorization of editors == | |||
| :Hi {{u|WhatamIdoing|WAID}}, it's not a question of pure or foul, but of COI. COI isn't about a person's state of mind. It is entirely about whether they have a clash of roles or relationships. We're not necessarily criticizing a judge's state of mind when we expect her to stand down from a case involving her husband. She might be perfectly able to judge the case well, but to any outsider it would have the appearance of corruption. Similarly, it would have the appearance of corruption if a PR person for a pharmaceutical company were to write the Misplaced Pages articles on that company's products. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I am not sure that the categorization of editors will consistently have the intended effect. We generally do not encourage editors to use their credentials to justify their edits, yet some may see the categorization in this essay as restrictive. For example, some well-informed advocates make excellent, substantive contributions to disease specific content in articles - it's about the edit, not the editor. That said, editors need to be cognizant of COI, hence I do support the intent (I infer) for this article. I'm just not sure how best to summarize it - I'm not sure the table currently conveys the right message. -- ] (]) 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, but the question with patients is more like "If the judge re-writes a Misplaced Pages article to prevent her husband from making a choice she disagrees with, then does that create 'the appearance of corruption'?" I think it can, in which case even patients and their family members can indeed have a COI, and therefore should be mentioned. ] (]) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyone can have a COI. The question is whether people with an illness have a COI in relation to that illness simply because they suffer from it. The answer is no. We could imagine all kinds of scenarios that might lead to a COI (but what if they did this or the that?). There was a case of a patient who felt he had been harmed by a hospital who arrived to add criticism of the hospital. He had a COI because he felt he had been harmed by that institution, so it had become a personal dispute. But it was not because of his status ''qua'' patient. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], I believe that COI is—partly—"about a person's state of mind". If the action you want to talk to help yourself in the real world is different from the action that would help Misplaced Pages, then there is a "conflict" in your "interests". | |||
| ::::I agree that only a fraction of patients are trying to manipulate Misplaced Pages for their personal benefit, but I think it is appropriate and reasonable to mention that this phenomenon exists. ] (]) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:13, 10 October 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Paragraph removed
I've removed this, because it seemed to encourage COI editing, including financial COI/paid editing. Also, it equated healthcare professionals and people with medical conditions, neither of whom have a COI, with pharmaceutical employees, who do have a COI. Bringing it here for other views:
Adding non-controversial information. Employees in the medical manufacturing industries might be in a unique position to provide commercial, regulatory, and historical information for products. Healthcare professionals are often skilled at explaining complex disease processes. Patients with chronic medical conditions often understand the prognosis and social impact of a medical challenge. Within your expertise, focus on the 90% that everyone agrees on, rather than the 10% that is disputed.
Sarah 18:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks User:SlimVirgin Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Back when I started this, the idea wasn't "everyone listed here is bad", much less that everyone was equally likely to have a COI. It was more like "depending upon your individual situation, you might have a COI or you might not. Here's what's typically a problem for different types of editors, and here's what each type can usually do without getting into trouble".
For example, most healthcare providers and patients aren't destroying articles for the sake of filthy lucre or fame, but some of them are (see: any patient who has written an autobiography and spammed it around on Misplaced Pages). Similarly, you should take a long spoon to sup with most public relations staff, but some public relations staff are relatively helpful (e.g., providing copies of newspaper articles and pointing out subtle vandalism or blatant factual errors). With the exception of official public relations staff, I don't want to anoint any group as being either entirely pure or entirely foul. My experience is that individuals in these groups are heterogeneous. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi WAID, it's not a question of pure or foul, but of COI. COI isn't about a person's state of mind. It is entirely about whether they have a clash of roles or relationships. We're not necessarily criticizing a judge's state of mind when we expect her to stand down from a case involving her husband. She might be perfectly able to judge the case well, but to any outsider it would have the appearance of corruption. Similarly, it would have the appearance of corruption if a PR person for a pharmaceutical company were to write the Misplaced Pages articles on that company's products. Sarah 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but the question with patients is more like "If the judge re-writes a Misplaced Pages article to prevent her husband from making a choice she disagrees with, then does that create 'the appearance of corruption'?" I think it can, in which case even patients and their family members can indeed have a COI, and therefore should be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone can have a COI. The question is whether people with an illness have a COI in relation to that illness simply because they suffer from it. The answer is no. We could imagine all kinds of scenarios that might lead to a COI (but what if they did this or the that?). There was a case of a patient who felt he had been harmed by a hospital who arrived to add criticism of the hospital. He had a COI because he felt he had been harmed by that institution, so it had become a personal dispute. But it was not because of his status qua patient. Sarah 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sarah, I believe that COI is—partly—"about a person's state of mind". If the action you want to talk to help yourself in the real world is different from the action that would help Misplaced Pages, then there is a "conflict" in your "interests".
- I agree that only a fraction of patients are trying to manipulate Misplaced Pages for their personal benefit, but I think it is appropriate and reasonable to mention that this phenomenon exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone can have a COI. The question is whether people with an illness have a COI in relation to that illness simply because they suffer from it. The answer is no. We could imagine all kinds of scenarios that might lead to a COI (but what if they did this or the that?). There was a case of a patient who felt he had been harmed by a hospital who arrived to add criticism of the hospital. He had a COI because he felt he had been harmed by that institution, so it had become a personal dispute. But it was not because of his status qua patient. Sarah 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but the question with patients is more like "If the judge re-writes a Misplaced Pages article to prevent her husband from making a choice she disagrees with, then does that create 'the appearance of corruption'?" I think it can, in which case even patients and their family members can indeed have a COI, and therefore should be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)