Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bittergrey (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 22 February 2011 (→Well, I'm offended unoffended: reoffended?). 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)

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. BitterGrey (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I changed 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. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Great to see a step toward real compromise that wasn't instantly reverted. What would you think to considering a few other wording changes?

1) Replacing "Possible problems" with "Problems to watch for" since there are lots of other possible problems.

2) Replacing "Promoting biased or tiny minority viewpoints" with "Giving undue weight to minority viewpoints" since giving them due weight isn't against policy.

3) Replacing "Reverting obvious vandalism or libel against people" with something specific to people with a condition? ("legwork towards gathering reliable sources and diligence to help maintain articles" was one idea, but there are probably better ones.)

4) Replacing "Possible conflict" with "Editors" or something less negative. BitterGrey (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Problems to watch for" suggests someone is watching, when this essay is more likely to be presented to an editor as a way of saying "You have a possible conflict of interest". "Possible problems" strikes me as more directive and suggestive to the reader that they should be concerned with these issues. "Undue weight" is a wiki-specific word, "biased" captures the intent in a more meaningful way, and there's a difference between undue weight and fringe theories. Undue weight is bais towards a viewpoint held by a small but identifiable group of stakeholders or experts, fringe theories are essentially nutjob ideas that no actual experts who work in a field support. I see the "patient" category as somewhat redundant to "advocates" and would be more in favour of rolling the two together. Also, I think it might be worth breaking the alternative health professionals out and associating "FRINGE" with them more specifically. "Possible conflict" is important because it identifies that the group in question as having a possible conflict, "editors" is so neutral that it loses the purpose of the table altogether - identifying those with a specific possible conflict of interest. We're not here to ensure no-one's feelings get hurt, we're attempting to identify problems. These groups may think what they're doing is just fine because they have the truth, this page is to suggest that their belief about the truth is what may prevent them from being good editors. Most editors will develop a belief or point of view after some reading. These editors probably already have one and that is what is causing the problem. I'd rather wait to see what other editors think before making any more changes. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand our differences regarding Undue vs. Fringe: Perhaps you were thinking about alternative health advocates while I was thinking about patient's rights advocates. Fringe is clearly more appropriate in the case of alternative health. Moving the patient's rights advocates into the same group as the patients would be a good idea. (Should we call this #5?) BitterGrey (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to wait a little while to see what other contributors say. Sometimes my suggestions are good, sometimes they've a massive flaw that I didn't notice. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

At now nearly 5,000 words, other editors might be hesitant to go through the discussions, especially now that the driving discussion might have moved to a fourth location. (Third if we don't count the forking.) This fourth location actually is in user space. Perhaps the article should be as well. BitterGrey (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't move the page into userspace. Convention is that pages move from userspace into WP space. Moving it back, particularly when you've a history with the editor, consensus hasn't been established and there's no real need, is dickish. It won't get you blocked, but you will a) create a more acrimonious atmosphere and b) create a totally unnecessary new page. So just let some time pass to see if the other contributors return or if they've been turned away by a totally unnecessary atmosphere of hostility. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Relax. If I were going to move it into WhatamIdoing's user space myself I would have simply done so (or at least looked into whether I could) instead of discussing it. I agree that my doing so would have been most unwelcome and completely unproductive. However, I do think we should consider whether that would be the better place for it - if WhatamIdoing wants ownership. Since this article is currently not in user space, no one else can create a Conflicts of interest (medicine) essay for Misplaced Pages. If it is going to be her essay, perhaps it should be in her space. If this is going to be Misplaced Pages's essay, then others should be permitted at least some say in it. BitterGrey (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On the substantive points:

1. There are exactly as many "possible problems" as there are "problems to watch for".
2. I am far more concerned with editors pushing bias and fringe-iness than I am with them achieving perfect neutrality, since it is unreasonable to expect any new editor to achieve perfect neutrality, but it is wholly reasonable to expect them to know whether their personal beliefs are mainstream.
3. "Finding sources" suggests that the person isn't welcome to add content, and this type of editor is (on average) less able to do this than the other types listed here. (Quick example: If you needed a solid source about high cholesterol levels, would you ask the PhD who researches the subject, or would you ask your neighbor who happens to have high cholesterol?) I have explained elsewhere why I think that libel and invasion of privacy, in particular, is something that a person with a medical condition is likely to be sensitive to. A false claim that someone has a "loathsome disease" is one of the categories of libel per se in US law.
4. "Possible conflict" is directly on point. I think it appropriate for this page to be direct.

Additionally, on the issue of advocates and activists: It's like calling yourself a nutritionist. These are not regulated terms. I think that the current combination of names will help the people to whom that row applies find it. I do not think that they will find themselves under "people with the condition", because a significant proportion of advocates and activists do not have the medical conditions that they have dedicated their lives to. As an example, Nancy Goodman Brinker is perhaps the single most important breast cancer advocate in the world, and she has never had breast cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To implement the slightly different categories that WLU suggested (and I think are good ideas) the category descriptions would, of course, need to the adjusted. By the way, since I don't know any PhD cholesterol researchers, I actually would ask my neighbor, and then weigh the input based supporting sources. BitterGrey (talk) 06:24, 22 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)

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?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. BitterGrey (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, why don't you be bold 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. BitterGrey (talk) 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. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself, but please be aware that "essays that the author does not want others to edit ... belong in the user namespace." 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. BitterGrey (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that wikipedia is not a battleground and wikihounding 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. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 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. BitterGrey (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. BitterGrey (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Right now this page, which is a user essay, 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 stakeholders by showing more acutely where expertise-versus-COI may occur. WAID is not clearly being disruptive. Both of you have been bold, and reverted. 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. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. 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 consensus. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 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. BitterGrey (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Essays in userspace can be edited as well, and the rules would still apply - as does basic civility and politeness. This is an essay, it's not binding, it's not official, it's basically someone's idea. Mainspace or userspace, basic civilities of wikipedia still apply. That WAID started it in WP space instead of user space is not an invitation to edit war. Can we let this go? Accept that others may not agree with you, and a three day old essay isn't worth edit warring over and really, really makes it look like you're trying to annoy someone rather than improve the essay. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The big difference would be ownership. If it were in WhatamIdoing's user space it would be her essay. As for edit warring, I have yet to revert once because I decided that this article wasn't worth warring over. BitterGrey (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, let's agree that everyone has made mistakes and move on. What do you think of the edit I just made Do you think it is an improvement or would you suggest another change? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is two steps in the right direction. First, because it involved offering a compromise instead of reverting repeatedly and claiming a consensus where none existed. (Glad you decided to be bold.) Second, because it doesn't imply special castes of editors (or at least not as strongly). One option that we should keep on the table is moving the article into WhatamIdoing's user space. Discussions there seem to have already started . BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I made a change to a page I consider to be primarily another editor's work and alerted them to this fact. That isn't the start of a new section on a new page. I don't think it's worth moving it to WAID's userspace, I just don't think you should replace a table with a bulleted list and insist upon it when there is obvious disagreement. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 03:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm offended unoffended

I'm a chronic pain patient. I've been editing neuroscience-, emotion-, philosophy- pain- and mental health-related articles for a while. That characterization of patients being good for patrolling vandalism and BLP violations, and problematic when dealing with serious medical content is deeply, deeply offensive. I see this essay adding nothing whatever to this encyclopedia that isn't obvious to a 14-year-old in the basic COI policy. I liked the outline at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pharma_policy but, that's not what this is. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're also an experienced editor with nearly 7,000 edits to your account and good ones at that. This I see as more aimed at people who might not understand the difference between a secondary source and a primary source; it's a first step for new editors who think wikipedia is a place to "get the message out" or something else WP:NOT says is a bad idea. I think it's worth working with it a little more before hitting MFD, but also agree that the "people with a medical condition" line isn't great; it's the least clear, and the most offensive of the lot on both expertise and possible problems. I've adjusted, what do you think? I've seen contributors with a condition who make excellent changes and do great work, including on pages about their conditions (CrohnieGal springs to mind, quite high) and others who just managed to annoy people and push a POV (did you ever interact with Guido den Broder?) and I think there's merit to trying to encourage the good and discourage the bad. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't alone in offense. I've been dismissed as an "activist" often. Per the version WhatamIdoing edit warred over, "good" edits for me were limited to social movements: Science was to be left to those who could profit from it. Furthermore, I alone was at risk of "tiny minority viewpoints," and needed to site sources while those with money to gain did not.

The table actually is rooted in the wt:med post; the "tiny minority" being the "handful of (minority-view-holding) editors." This was a reference to the time WhatamIdoing persisted as sole defender (eg ) of a self-promoting "expert" who had come up on COI/N multiple times under different names. ( While not a professional scientist, I think 5 of 6 is not a tiny minority. ) Of course, none of this accountability would have happened if there something that could be mistaken for policy relegating activists, patients, etc. to scientifically inconsequential pages.

If Wikipedians in general are permitted to influence this article (not just those with WhatamIdoing's blessing), the problems might eventually get fixed. If not, WhatamIdoing's essay should be removed to WhatamIdoing's user space. BitterGrey (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony,

In terms of adding content, average patients (i.e., not you) often have trouble differentiating between, e.g, "the side effects I personally experienced" and "the typical side effects". Misplaced Pages has a history of people either downplaying real risks, or overplaying small risks, and when the whole story comes out, you discover that they were trying to make the article match their (or their loved ones') personal experience.

Also, average patients typically don't actually understand the science. One story may illustrate this: Early in his career, the surgeon went to great lengths to educate his patients. He spent an hour or more personally explaining every surgery, with diagrams and discussions and outlines of the options. And then one day, the morning after a routine gall bladder removal, he went to see the patient, who said, "Doctor, I have a question." Instantly willing to answer anything, he waited for the question: "Uh, can you tell me what a gall bladder is?"

(The surgeon takes a different approach now, and recommends it to his residents. That approach is: pat them on the shoulder and say, "It's going to be fine. It's all going to be JUST FINE.")

As a result, I'm a little reticent to recommend any area of science as a particular strength for this group. The average patient is far more likely to know which celebrity has the same medical condition than to know how the disease works. If, however, you'd like to suggest a different strong point that the average patient is likely to have, please let us know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I object to WhatamIdoing's comment that patients are somehow less intelligent, less experienced, and/or more biased than the average Misplaced Pages editor. (I've been a patient myself, most recently for arthritis.) By the way, in the U.S., informed consent is not just a courtesy, but the law. BitterGrey (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

An experiment

The current table format seems a little, well, accusatory. I've split it into two tables with some introductory language, but am still keeping the specific associations for the various groups of editors. Feel free to revert, just experimenting. SDY (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)