| Revision as of 20:15, 21 February 2011 editBittergrey (talk | contribs)2,596 edits →Medicine only?: -rp← 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 | ||
| (198 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) | |||
| ::::I don't think this is inconsistent; specific tendencies (illustrated in each row) do not preclude more general relevance (to all editors). I just think this may need to be stated explicitly (i.e. that the table is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive; rather, it's an illustration of tendencies). BTW, I apologize for forking the discussion (with the section I started below), but I did so because the discussion in this section seems overly personal. I now see that was not the right approach. -- ] (]) 04:35, 21 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 (including the primacy of ]), 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) | |||
| :Switching from a table to separate lists would eliminate this risk of misinterpretation. A table would only be needed if a strong connection along rows was desired: That is, if the definition of good and bad edits depended only the category of editor. If a table is not needed, it should be replaced with lists, per Misplaced Pages guidelines: ] There might be a middle ground, such as a table with blank columns to weaken the row-connection or some mixture of tables and lists. These would achieve the same effect as lists, but be more complicated. ] (]) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (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". | |||
| ::While everyone is welcome to make good edits, the bad edits are fairly specific: Physicians don't usually edit articles to get sympathy at home, patients don't usually try to spam their most recent academic publications into articles, and pharmaceutical employees don't usually promote tiny-minority viewpoints. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::I do expect people with particular experiences and expertise to have particular strengths: I expect activists to be better position to write about the social movement they're in (e.g., ] or the ]) than lab workers. I expect people with a medical condition to be more aware of which celebrity has the same condition than someone in the ivory tower—and perhaps, where stigmatized diseases are concerned, to have a better notion of patient privacy. I expect a drug company sales rep to know exactly when the drug was approved for sale in his/her country, and exactly when the patents will expire. | |||
| ::In short, these categories of people have both strengths and weaknesses, and we want to exploit the strengths while discouraging the weaknesses. ] (]) 23:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see what you mean. Might it be helpful to footnote one of the column headings, or the table itself, to make a clarifying statement such as: "The 'Good' and 'Unacceptable' edits listed here as examples could be made by any editor; they are used here to illustrate particular strengths and tendencies in the context of conflicts of interest". I haven't paid enough attention to WP style to know the best place/manner to insert this. -- ] (]) 04:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It seems clear that the main objections relate to the association of the "editors" column and the "good edits" column (e.g. implying that people with medical conditions should refrain from contributing to Misplaced Pages, other than correcting obvious vandalism.). Arguments for the tabular form seem limited to the association of the "editors" column and the "bad edits" column (e.g. "Physicians don't usually edit articles to get sympathy at home."). Both sides could be satisfied by splitting off the "good edits" column into a separate list. The remaining table of "editors" and "bad edits" could then be converted to a second list. This table would need to make it clear that, while certain editor categories might be more associated with certain bad edits, all editors need to observe all Misplaced Pages policies. Since these discussions are now over 2,000 words, I'll be bold. ] (]) 14:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, these particular types of people have particular strengths. They should be given direct credit for their strengths, not just bashed for their weaknesses. ] (]) 17:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Editors should be permitted and encouraged to edit anywhere they can support their edits with reliable sources, not based on where their "strengths" lie. As for the abnormally negative examples of weakness, you wrote those, not me. ] (]) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree, which is why I the titles and wording of the table to place emphasis on sources. Anyone can edit, but some editors will do a better job than others because of background and specialist knowledge - that is where there strength is. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Medicine only? == | |||
| I don't see why the essay would/should restrict itself to medical subjects or editors. Drivers of cars, plant workers, company executives, car repair shops, owners of cars affected by a recent recall, all could be baised in similar ways to patients. Ditto for restaurants, schools, people who take the bus, etc. Medical stuff would probably get the worst of it, but still. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that everyone can have COIs. This essay is specific because it was rooted in a from WikiProject Medicine. It should be a primer for specific editors, directing them to specific policies that might be particularly relevant to them, while not implying that any editors are exempt from any policies. ] (]) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may be worth noting that though medicine and medical COIs are an ''exemplar'' of this type of COI, they are not exclusively the domain of this group. But either way, it's just a thought. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::It might be possible to combine this idea with Scray's good idea above about a 'clarifying statement' (placed just before or just after the table?). ] (]) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A comment to point out that COIs aren't exclusively problem in medical topics wouldn't be affected by whether the examples were given in tabular format or as lists. There is no reason to discus combing the changes unless someone without a consensus wanted to confound issues to try to 'porkbelly' together a majority. ] (]) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::WLU, why don't you] and add the clarification, trusting that other editors will adjust or discuss if needed? That is how things work on Misplaced Pages (or at least how they should work). This isn't a policy or even a guideline, so no special restrictions on editing apply. ] (]) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Being bold doesn't mean trampling a page that is in progress. As an essay, it is more the work of a single editor than most pages, and I'm content to note my comment and wait for others to decide if it has merit in the developing version of the page. Normally the authors of essays have a vague-to-concrete idea of the purpose of the essay, and I would consider it rude to insert my idea while it is still being developed. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Suit yourself, but please be aware that and that this essay hasn't changed one iota since it was posted days ago. Just as long as your suggestion doesn't end up getting hijacked and used to force something unrelated. ] (]) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please be aware that ] and ] is not appreciated by anyone. I have worked with WAID many times in the past and often seen my contributions substantially improved upon by her. I have the utmost faith in her ability to calmly and civily integrate, respond to or improve my suggestions. And even if we disagree, it will be civilly and based on substantive points. Your comment about an essay being in essayspace comes across more like someone trying to pick a fight. It's an essay, it's not the end of the world. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Wikihounding? I've forgotten how long I've been watching wp:WikiProject_Medicine... and would have appreciated a response to my first attempt at discussion when all this started there. Now, as odd as this might sound, thanks for being the first to do something to start to address my concerns. ] (]) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop editing against consensus == | |||
| Bittergrey, | |||
| At this point, I think you need to stop being bold, and start assuming that your edits do not enjoy consensus unless and until you are directly and explicitly told that someone (anyone) agrees with your proposal. There's a point at which "bold" stops being bold and starts being disruptive, and I think you're on that line. ] (]) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree with your assertion that I was editing against a consensus. If it were true, why did you feel the need to revert to your version yourself again? I've been attempting to initiate discussion and offering alternatives. Clearly you are the one who is becoming disruptive, if not so already. ] (]) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Right now this page, which is a ], is being edit warred over. This is stupid. WAID is the primary author, rather than trying to shove a preferred version on to the page, discuss. Having seen both, I see the value of the table as it more clearly lays out the potential for good or bad edits by specific ] by showing more acutely where expertise-versus-COI may occur. WAID is not ''clearly'' being disruptive. Both of you have been ]. Let's get to step 3, discuss. WAID has a lot of experience on wikipedia, and she is worth listening to. Bittergray, looking into some other pages you have contributed to others have suggested that you may be picking fights or carrying over disputes you've had with WAID in the past. Please stop. ]. I count four people who have made similar comments, perhaps it is time to bury the hatchet or simply edit elsewhere for a while. Edit warring over a brand new ''essay'' is, as I said above, just plain stupid, particularly when there have only been two editors to the page and it's unrealistic to expect ]. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Were this a user essay in user space, that would be quite different. Articles in user space have user names in the URL. This one doesn't. I'd be OK with it being moved. ] (]) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (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)