Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 21 February 2011 (→Please stop editing against consensus: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Table of Good and Bad Edits

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.

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 ownership. BitterGrey (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

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 WP:TEA. If anything is truly that bad, another editor will notice it and fix it. Just as a random opinion, 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. SDY (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2011 (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. BitterGrey (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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? BitterGrey (talk) 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. -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of editors

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 reliable sources), 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. -- Scray (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2011 (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: "Lists are easier to maintain than tables, and are often easier to read." 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. BitterGrey (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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 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., Breast cancer awareness or the Women's health movement) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. -- Scray (talk) 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. BitterGrey (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 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. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that everyone can have COIs. This essay is specific because it was rooted in a pharma-specific question 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. BitterGrey (talk) 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. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:48, 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)