Petrarchan47 (talk | contribs) |
→Not ready for mainspace?: link Formerly98's rewrite proposal |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:::Perhaps the title, or focus should shift a little. Instead of COI, perhaps focus in on OWN or Advocacy for the ducks? [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 93%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
:::Perhaps the title, or focus should shift a little. Instead of COI, perhaps focus in on OWN or Advocacy for the ducks? [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 93%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::"Advocacy Ducks" makes good sense to me. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#BABACF">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 17:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
:::"Advocacy Ducks" makes good sense to me. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">[[User:Petrarchan47|<font color="#BABACF">petrarchan47</font>]][[User talk:Petrarchan47|<font color="deeppink">t</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Petrarchan47|<font color="orangered">c</font>]]</span>''' 17:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:*Thanks for pinging me. A few minutes ago {{ping|Formerly98}} posted a rewrite proposal that puts my thoughts about COI ducks much better than I could: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AConflict_of_Interest_ducks&diff=655197968&oldid=655189672] (though we don't need another essay about advocates, especially one that says they should be treated softly softly.) --[[User:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Hroðulf]] (or Hrothulf) ([[User talk:Hro%C3%B0ulf|Talk]]) 18:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:19, 6 April 2015
Thanks
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [1], [2] Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV.
Additionally, things that do not suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. [3]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
potential remedies
Hi Atsme, You mentioned lack of any potential remedy on SV’s talk page. It seems to me that one potential remedy would be to encourage those concerned about COIducdery to add ANI to their watchlist, and when they see editors are calling for a block or topic ban, read the difs provided and the relevant talk pages/article histories to see if they really seem to support such action. Chime in if they do not because tagteams of ducks/advociates will sometimes use that method to maintain ownership of articles.
Other remedies might include things such as if you notice a brand new editor being bitten by a duck, reach out to them to welcome them on their talk page. Direct them to the Teahouse and dispute resolution etc. Advise them that no matter how unreasonable the duck or duckteam seems to get, do not become uncivil with them, as this will be used against you.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I like this very much. petrarchan47tc 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, BoboMeowCat. I actually have welcomed a few new editors and offered my help. How does one go about signing up for the "welcoming committee" if there is such a thing? I also was hoping Doc_James would provide input about the essay. The more eyes we can get on it, the better. Petrarchan47, thank you for all you do. I truly appreciate our communications and hope our efforts will be productive in making WP a much better experience for all. Don't hesitate to modify, shorten, tweak, add, or whatever else you think will improve the article. Happy editing! Atsme☯Consult 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am beyond grateful that you exist, and that you, along with your obvious abundance of brain cells, have tons of free time - cuz we need you here. I'm so glad you have connected with folks who know how WP works, and I am so excited to see where all of this leads. Don't be afraid to speak your truth, but at the same time, this is a chess game. I suck at chess, and am sinking back into my peaceful state of retirement (I hope...). Do feel free to email me whenever you think I can be of any help. petrarchan47tc 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Atsme:I agree with nearly everything BoboMeowCat said. I think more remedies are needed: It's not enough to know or suspect that you or others are the victim of COIDuckery (based on the symptoms listed in the essay), you also have to be empowered to address it with concrete remedies. I do like the WP:3O suggestion that is in the current draft. I would be more cautious with advocating WP:DR if that means AN/I, especially for new users, because of the danger of Boomerang for a new user who brings an action with too little evidence of foul play and totally botches the complaint out of ignorance of Wiki-law and lack of a good Wiki-lawyer for advice. Experienced COIDucks may have top notch Wiki-lawyer experience (and no protection from anti-SLAPP laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) on Wikipedia) and victims could use a good Wiki-lawyer to help them draft a proper complaint and/or defense. Consider WifiOne's Wiki-lawyer experience. Also, I personally think ANI and should be reserved for when things have really gotten out of control, and ideally a neutral 3rd party has had a chance to try to mediate first. I personally think punishments are too easily obtained for GF behavior, which is what allows the COIDucks to rule. I might also recommend users who feel a victim of COIDuckery to read the WikiOne case (from Jimbo's page starting here) as an example of a COIDuck who was caught and to assemble evidence (diffs) similar to what was presented by Vejvančický in that case when direct evidence of paid editing may be impossible to obtain due to user anonymity. David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, BoboMeowCat. I actually have welcomed a few new editors and offered my help. How does one go about signing up for the "welcoming committee" if there is such a thing? I also was hoping Doc_James would provide input about the essay. The more eyes we can get on it, the better. Petrarchan47, thank you for all you do. I truly appreciate our communications and hope our efforts will be productive in making WP a much better experience for all. Don't hesitate to modify, shorten, tweak, add, or whatever else you think will improve the article. Happy editing! Atsme☯Consult 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote box which begins "The most egregious COI editing..." could be problematic. COI is narrowly defined and requires hard proof of current employment, from what I understand. COIDuckery is a new, more expansive and common-sense approach to the problem of spin-doctoring, and includes those pro-industry POV editors whose impetus is some personal passion or well-hidden agenda. The second way I see COIDuckery as distinct from COI is that it is viewed from the article level - as was raised in a recent COI-related ANI - "what about the quality of the edits?" The recent discussions about COI and MEDRS, and the impetus for this essay, stemmed from this ANI and this most important question. Article content is the only thing that matters to readers. Looking at edits, patterns of behaviour, and atmosphere amongst the editors can alone prove COIDuckery. COI requires a frigging miracle to prove. Would you consider swapping these terms? petrarchan47tc 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- And I say in response to you, Petrarchan47, jump in the duck blind, fire up your keyboard, and pull the delete key wherever you think it needs pulling. Loosen up those fingers, and type away. And while you're there, enjoy the pictures!!! Atsme☯Consult 01:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
comments
- gets lost a bit in its own metaphors. it is really unclear what kind of practical advice you are giving when you write: "It may be time to sit quietly in the duck blind and practice your best duck call." First, the hunting metaphor is really infelicitous, and I don't know what you are advising editors to do, with "practice your best call".
- what is the basis for your claim that "Some of the most egregious COI editing appears to arise most often from articles associated with the biotech, pharmaceutical and medical industries, corporate articles, government agencies and universities which may support, be supported by, or have a COI with a particular advocacy, including BLPs ranging anywhere from politicians to medical practitioners to fringe authors.?" As SlimVigin wrote, the high standards WikiProject Medicine maintains for sourcing, keeps a lot of COI editing at bay. In my experience, we get the most COI editing with a) BLP articles; b) articles about companies and products, especially in the software space (which makes sense, with WP being an internet reference) and where sources are less anchored in scientific/academic literature but are more in the popular media. I also keep coming across clear COI editing about universities, which has surprised me. (there is an an essay on it, even)
- the tying-in of MEDRS with the concept of "COI quackery" is unfortunate and a distraction. I would suggest taking that stuff out. Which seemed to be what SV was urging as well, in the comment to which I linked above Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- so you put the content in my 2nd bullet in a quote box. it discredits the essay more loudly. folks who know about COI editing, know that is just wrong. As you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- We are certainly on the same page here... But as I say below, I'm pretty critical of the whole thing... Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Copy edit
@BoboMeowCat:, @Petrarchan47:, @Doc James:, @Gandydancer:, and whoever else wants to chime in. I revamped the essay, will be changing name to COI ducks. Would like to get some input. Atsme☯Consult 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If looked at with a truly neutral eye, from the viewpoint of one who loves an encyclopedia (whilst removing the medi/pharma industry hat for a moment), the topic of this essay - COIDuck editing - is evidenced below. One of the most prolific editors in the pharma articles, who has taken it upon himself to revamp the website as it pertains to his field, visited my talk page. Here is the conversation: petrarchan47tc 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Petra: I thoroughly skimmed your edits to the Antidepressant article, though this is just one example of an article that your work has "spun". I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support.
- You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,
- overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *
- to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.
- You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.
- You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.
- You removed negative info about Abilify, and the link to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements with the edit summary "Aripiprazole - not an antidepressant" *.
- You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.
- You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.
- You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.
- You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.
- You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.
- And no one is checking on any of this. You have asked at least twice for immunity from oversight/questioning, and the fact that you weren't laughed off the stage, so to speak, shows me just how far Wikipedia has sunk. Petrarchan47 21:43, 19 March 2015
- Formerly98 Well, I guess that if you consider the FDA and NICE "non-neutral, non-independent" we're not going to agree on much of anything. Have a nice day anyway! - Formerly98 22:36, 19 March 2015
- Petra No. This is serious. You are using a strawman to distract from your extremely biased editing which I have touched on above. And I did not claim that the FDA couldn't be used at all, but it was used in one case to change "Antidepressants cause suicidal ideation" to "Antidepressants cause suicidal ideation...within the first few months of use", using only the FDA as a source for the added caveat. This addition implies that any use after the first few months carries with it no chance of SI. For this you would need multiple sources, and if you had them, I would say nothing about the FDA addition. However, this is by no means a widely held view (and one I've never heard, though this is my field) and you were unable to find much to support it. So now Wikipedia is telling all of its readers that they are safe from SI (potential for death) if they have taken antidepressants for longer than 2 months based on a non-independent source only. That is a dangerous assertion if there is any chance that it is untrue, and this is exactly what MEDRS is meant to guard against. This editing is not meant to protect the readers, but the pharmaceutical industry.
- And again from Harvard:
- "The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.
- "This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA. Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge. Patients are the innocent victims.
Criticism by Gandydancer
Of course I feel very bad to have to say this, but I just do not care for it at all. I dislike it so much that it's hard for me to even criticize it. I'll copy the opening here and criticize it.
This page in a nutshell: Loud quacking indicates a possible COI, and so does waddling around in circles to maintain the status quo, but when feathers start flying... It looks like a duck to me
I just don't get the metaphor use here at all. Plus, "when the feathers start to fly" is about chickens, not ducks. Chickens fight with talon-like feet and feathers really can fly - I've never actually seen ducks fight at all.
The first para:
Conflict of interest ducks can be rather difficult to identify at first which is why it is always better to assume good faith, and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. However, if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics in the editing behavior of one or more editors, and have also noticed or experienced recurring disputes by those same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks. This essay will attempt to help you identify them. Sorry, but WP does not offer any virus software or duck blinds to protect against them. You're on your own, but don't despair. We are here to help.
"they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks." Again, just don't get this, also no idea what the June bug mention means. Next, "duck blinds to protect against them" - what does that mean and how is it connected to virus software? (For anyone that doesn't know it, the hunter puts his/her decoys out in the water and sits in the blind waiting for a flock of ducks to come within range.)
Perhaps this all sounds pretty nitpicky, but to start out so muddled is a bad way to start if one wants to present some sound information/advice, IMO. I hope that you all understand how hard it is for me to be so critical of another's work. I'll stop here for now. I understand what this is getting at, but IMO it's not getting there... Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the essay really picks up steam at paragraph 3. Then it is very clear. I agree that paragraphs 1-2 could use some work and the metaphor is confusing there. I would like to see more remedies along the lines of what BoboMeowCat said on the essay talk page. I am okay with the Duck metaphor:
- If it look like a duck and quacks like a Duck, it probably is a duck
- Ducks quack. And the stuff the COIDuck does will indeed involved a lot of quacking/squawking especially towards users who disagree with the COIDuck's COI agenda.
- WifiOne was taken down by (1) rather than proof of COI.
- Thanks for doing this Atsme. I really appreciate it. Please don't give up and let criticism get to you! As Noam Chomsky said early in the documentary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media "if I didn't get this kind of criticism, I would be worried I wasn't doing my job." He says something like that at 5 minutes into the documentary that can be viewed free here. David Tornheim (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, David - I appreciate the input. I also realize we all don't live in the country so it may be hard for some to visualize ducks doing their thang, like chasing a June bug, pecking at each other, or chasing off an intruder. It's quite the experience to be chased by a duck, or a goose, a rooster with long spurs, a billy goat, a Brahma bull, a potbellied pig, or had a June bug get tangled up in your hair. Atsme☯Consult 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Your rewrite of the first two paragraphs is much much better! Now if all those seeking deletion would say what it is they would correct and how to address the COI problems you point out... Also, I do think the various places where we talk about the essay should be consolidated either here or to the essay talk page. Even though I know where they are, it's very confusing. David Tornheim (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Not ready for mainspace?
This is a continuation of the discussion started on Sarah (SV)'s talk page [4] which Atsme requested be moved here. As I mentioned over there, I’m concerned that edits to substantially improve the essay might not help at this point, because so many people have already voted on the initial version, and they may not update their vote based on the improvements. I’m wondering if it would be best to again work on it in user/draft space I think the Wifione case highlights the need for such an essay and also the need to be proactive about this issue in general, but I think we need to be very careful not to in any way imply that editors who adhere to wp:medrs or wp:fringe are doing something wrong, because when those guidelines are properly utilized, they are of clear benefit to WP. It is misuse of policies and guidelines to push POV with the perversion of consensus, gaming the system, wp:own, etc that are of concern, not requiring quality sources. I think the essay may have been read and interpreted in ways other than intended. As suggested by Coretheapple [5], pinging those who expressed support for keeping such an essay on WP to request further input here regarding ways to improve it: David Tornheim, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Redddbaron, Bus stop, Pekay2, Hroðulf, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate,groupuscule --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I agree that simply adhering to wp:medrs or wp:fringe isnt a problem. Its misusing WP policy, no matter what that policy may be, to further advocacy/COI. Its not an easy thing to spot, especially when new editors are confronted by someone with a long editing history and knowledge of policy. It may take a serious study of editing patterns to find, and by those that have more understanding of policy. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bobo. Below is the post I made on SV's page on my concerns regarding the essay:
- Thanks for the ping. I agree that simply adhering to wp:medrs or wp:fringe isnt a problem. Its misusing WP policy, no matter what that policy may be, to further advocacy/COI. Its not an easy thing to spot, especially when new editors are confronted by someone with a long editing history and knowledge of policy. It may take a serious study of editing patterns to find, and by those that have more understanding of policy. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Reading through the essay again, what troubles me about it remains: you talk a lot about COI, but you fail to establish in any convincing way how the behavior that you describe is reflective of a COI. Most of what you discuss is already prohibited by a bunch of policies and guidelines, such as WP:OWN. I'm not sure you even can make such a tie-in; it might be a "mission impossible" situation. That is why I believe that your best bet is to take a focused, narrow look at one particular issue that you feel is rife with COI, and build a focused essay around that. I think you may be spinning wheels with this essay, over and above the fact that it seems to be headed for deletion. For example, MEDRS abuse. Maybe an essay along the lines of "MEDRS is a hammer not an anvil" or something to that effect, if indeed there is abuse of MEDRS. By the way, I'm not saying there is abuse of MEDRS. I'm just saying that if you feel that MEDRS is being abused, then you should focus on that.
- There may be a way of determining COI based solely upon edits, but apart from obvious cases it's really not easy to do. That is why I personally would prefer to spend my time dealing with cases that stink to high heaven of COI but that simply can be dealt with through ordinary editing. Look at my recent contributions and you can see I've been focusing on a couple of really blatantly bad articles where I suspect COI editing, but in which I haven't alleged it because 1) it's not necessary and would be pointless 2) I am not sure. I suspect there might be connected contributors in one instance, and might raise that at an appropriate time, but even if there are, it's not all that important. Our COI rules are weak so even if there is a COI, so what? Not much you can do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- --Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the title, or focus should shift a little. Instead of COI, perhaps focus in on OWN or Advocacy for the ducks? AlbinoFerret 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Advocacy Ducks" makes good sense to me. petrarchan47tc 17:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me. A few minutes ago @Formerly98: posted a rewrite proposal that puts my thoughts about COI ducks much better than I could: [6] (though we don't need another essay about advocates, especially one that says they should be treated softly softly.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)