Talk:UBiome - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ImperfectlyInformed (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 29 October 2016 (→Good reasons for reverting: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:30, 29 October 2016 by ImperfectlyInformed (talk | contribs) (→Good reasons for reverting: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UBiome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 27 July 2013 by reviewer RadioFan (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology Low‑importance

	Biology portal UBiome is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

February 2015

Hi Andrewman327, I saw you reverted my changes. I've been following this story, and I'm concerned that your edit is presenting a biased view based on an opinion article, which is why I switched it to a WSJ article. I've reverted your changes. No connection here - but if you want to discuss in the library today. Please respond here before reverting, let's come up with a good solution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.188.35 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to talk about edits, but the current version of the article is overly promotional and not acceptable. As time allows I plan a complete rewrite. Andrew 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I looks like there is an edit war going on here and clear POV pushing, added NPOV tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.243.36 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the NPOV tag until the article reaches a stable version. Andrew 15:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'd be happy to discuss the current version of the article with anyone who is concerned about its treatment of Ubiome. I strongly encourage discussion here as opposed to section blanking. Andrew 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss large-scale changes to article here

I want to discuss the state of the article, and the current version needs improvement. However, please discuss edits here. Andrew 11:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, the quote about Jessica Richman because it doesn't address the subject of the article. It does talk about the CEO - but encyclopedic treatment is not possible with a single quote unless we write a whole section about the CEO. This makes me a little concerned. I suggest removing the quote. I also think a stronger approach to this part of the article will be with the WSJ article that is also cited here because it's not a blog post, making those updates. It seems this article was also locked - this seems counter productive at this stage, I suggest reverting it.

Knightrob (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am also concerned about extensive use of non-fact checked blogs in the controversy section. See wikipedia guidelines - https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs. This controversy has been directly covered in regular fact-checked articles in the WSJ and Fast Company.

Knightrob (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Which WSJ piece? Currently the Wall Street Journal already leads the Controversy section with a neutral description of the issues at play. The policy you reference, WP:NEWSBLOG, says we can use the blogs of legitimate publications as long as we "attribute the statement to the writer," which we do in this article. WP:SUBSTANTIATE is also relevant. The Judy Stone piece is legitimate for inclusion because it is criticism from an expert in the field directly commenting on uBiome and published on a major publication's website. Andrew 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, although I disagree. Further, what I said above still holds. The quote doesn't address Ubiome.

Knightrob (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the lede from a piece specifically about the company and is illustrative of the scandal surrounding uBiome. The current version of the controversy section is carefully balanced and shows both sides of the debate. Andrew 13:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Andrewman327 Please see the section I added below with possible new neutral information and sources.

Controversy

Reference #3 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/molecules-to-medicine/2013/07/25/ubiome-ethical-lapse-or-not/ expressed the view of author Judy Stone Use of scientific american name for reference is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.108.202 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that Stone is offering her opinion in the referenced piece, it does not make the claim in Scientific American's voice. Andrew 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess thats why it should not be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.108.202 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree this is not relevant. 169.230.243.143 (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC) First off, please create an editor account, it makes it much easier to keep track of who is actually a unique person versus the same person using a different computer. Second, there are two separate references to Scientific American blogs. They should both be treated the same. Removal of Stone would require also removing UBiome's post to a SciAm blog. Andrew 04:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Reducing bias of entry

I saw Ubiome's recent indiegogo campaign for a dental kit and came across this wiki entry and noticed a few problems with it. As part of the citizen science movement, there are some controversies but the entry has some inaccuracies and doesn't seem to be balanced. I edited the Products and services section - changing "anus" to "gut" since this is not accurate. I also changed the tone of the FDA approval - they aren't required to be approved. In terms of the controversies section, it seems to jump around alot here as well. I have not edited this section yet, but suggest we break this up into Citizen Science and Scientific Claims and explain both sides properly.

Rex Freiberger (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Content to be added to article

Hello, this topic has a lot of information that isn’t currently being used in the article. I’d like to help make this article more neutral, so I’ve found some sources with information that can help round it out. It looks like this article is being pretty actively edited, so I’m posting information here for an active editor to use neutrally.

• uBiome uses the same knowledge from a government project called the Human Microbiome Project to the public, enabling the general public to participate and learn about the science of microbiomes.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/07/poop-sample-ubiome/#.VnBsE4TYXjS

• The company is expanding its focus from consumers to physician-ordered clinical tests.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/ubiome-cdc-collaboration/

• The company awards grants in the form of kits to researches looking to study the science of microbiomes.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/ubiome-cdc-collaboration/

• The Center for Disease Control and uBiome will be partnering together to see how the research can be used to help detect if specific patients are prone to infections found in hospitals.

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/ubiome-cdc-collaboration/

• They also allow researches to purchase test kits in bulk. This opens the door for further research for those that do not have access to in-house microbiome sequencing facilities and also makes the research faster and less expensive.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/10/07/poop-sample-ubiome/#.VnBsE4TYXjS

• uBiome is certified and meets testing requirements under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/ubiome-cdc-collaboration/

• The company also has partnered with Apple to bring users the uBiome app. The App, built with the Apple’s open-source health software platform ResearchKit, allows users to input data, order a microbiome kit, and then make comparisons with others. The data collected will be used to learn more about bacteria in the relation to weight gain.

http://www.popsci.com/what-can-you-learn-from-bacteria-in-your-gut-ubiome-is-giving-you-chance-to-find-out

• The company is using the science of microbiome to study smokers, non-smokers, and former smokers to learn more about how bacteria may play a role in diseases commonly found among smokers.

http://www.popsci.com/smoke-ubiome-wants-study-your-mouthome-0

• Microbiomes are not fully understood yet; however, recent research suggests that microbial population imbalances may affect things such as digestion and bodily functions.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jessica-richman-seeks-samples-to-crack-the-human-microbiome-1445452170 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.103.40 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy break

The one point that I think the article needs is that UBiome has partnerships with outside organizations. The article currently focuses heavily on the direct-to-consumer aspects of its business model. The gee-whiz implications of microbiome research belong in a different article. Andrew 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrewman327 I see that you removed the second paragraph in the History section. Citation codes kept breaking when I edited yesterday and I accidentally removed some existing references there about the company partnerships. The Zhang source added some new information to the paragraph. All information was cited until I removed those sources, and I don’t know how to put them back without breaking the code. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.103.40 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Citation codes kept breaking when I edited last month and I accidentally removed some existing references there about the company partnerships. The Zhang source added some new information to the paragraph. All information was cited until I removed those sources, and I don’t know how to put them back without breaking the code. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100d:b01c:4a5b:88ea:2089:2ad2:4d4c (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 March 2016

This bot edit restored the Zhang reference that was removed by this edit. wbm1058 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrewman327 said that the cited reference did not contain this information. I see no mention of Apple in that article. wbm1058 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

uBiome partners with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute of Mental Health for microbiome research. With the CDC, uBiome is using stool samples to research how treatments such as antibiotics alter gut microbes The company also partners with Apple on the creation of an app to analyze gut bacteria. The app allows users to input information about health history, diet, and sleeping patterns and compare their microbiome with other users.

References

Zhang, Sarah. “Microbiome Startup uBiome Will Sequence Poop for the CDC.” Wired. Nov. 30, 2015
Maldarelli, Claire. uBiome Teams up with Apple to Study Your Gut Popular Science. 10/7/15
Arnold, Carrie.Could the Microbiome Cure Eating Disorders? The Daily Beast. 8/19/15

OK, I found the two lost references. This is very tedious and time-consuming to sort out. wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Done I think I have it close to what you were trying to do. If you're going to edit much more, I hope you can take some time to better learn how our citation syntax works: Help:Footnotes. Sorry the syntax is so complex. wbm1058 (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Good reasons for reverting

Jytdog (talk · contribs), as a long-term editor in particular you should be careful about reverting or removing content for good reasons. I'm particularly concerned given that there's a culture of hostility on Misplaced Pages. Using the company's website in this case is probably the best source - it is the most likely to be accurate. It's not spammy. You can read WP:SELFPUB for the specifics. II | (t - c) 02:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no end to turning a WP article into an extension of a company's website. Per every policy and guideline, WP articles should be built from indpendent, secondary sources. Please don't bulld sections sourced only from the company's website.... there is no end to that and soon our article is gone, and we are just a tool. I'll see if I can find some independent ref for that content. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk · contribs), the policy on self-published sources is linked above. And no source is likely to be as up-to-date on this specific point as the company's website - I don't think a source which is not updated continuously is appropriate in this case. I will revert your revert EOD tomorrow if you don't add another source or an explanation for why anything other than a continuously updated source from the company would be appropriate.

Your edit summaries should never refer to another person's edit "spam". See WP:INDCRIT. You should be citing policies or guidelines. I'm rather concerned by your behavior - if you're treating me like this, who you know from years ago, I worry about how new redlinked editors are treated. I hope I don't find that you have a pattern of abuse towards newbies. If I recall correctly, you have been accused of being a shill for pharmaceutical companies, so it seems like you should be able to understand the need for following Misplaced Pages's guidelines on civility. II | (t - c) 04:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

And in glancing at your ANI history I see this from 2016 after this thread from from 2015... :( - really, I appreciate the intention behind the work you do, but ultimately I'm trying to grow Misplaced Pages's community (and contribute myself) and people like you are opposed to that. We need to figure out a way to fix this beyond this particular situation. II | (t - c) 04:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

finished working, restoring that section with more detail and more independent sourcing and improving the rest of the article, then found your note above. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Good work overall. The controversy section reads a bit axe-grindy and definitely redundant / verbose, but oh well. Do you have any thoughts about my feedback on how you treat fellow editors and aggressive editing patterns? Would you mind if I opened a user talk page discussion with you to discuss it? II | (t - c) 16:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Categories: