User talk:Cglife.trummler
Text
With respect to this text and reference[1]
1) That was already covered in the lead
2) The journal appears to have no impact factor and thus is questionable.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching the repetition! I'll save the philosophical debate about impact factors for another time, but I see your point about taking a closer look when it's, uh, missing ;) --Cglife.trummler (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Vit C edits
C - You have now bumped into (and been reversed by) two of the most experienced, prolific editors on various Wikipedia medicine-related articles, Doc James and Zefr. So I recommend not getting into an edit war with either. On a more general note, some of your additions not MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Roger that. I'm taking a fresh look at WP:MEDRS. Also, I see Vit C has been nominated for good article and that you've been heavily involved in that. Thanks for your work on it, and good luck! Cglife.trummler (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've been active all over the nutrition map, but trying to avoid that feeling of ownership that can infect Wikipedia editors. P.S. jtydog is another avid monitor of all things medical, and especially vigilant for issues pertaining to non-declared COI.
- You are taking a right approach to declaring whenever editing. A even more conservative approach would be to create a New section in Talk for an article and put your proposed text and citation(s) there, for review first. I rarely do this myself, but I did it recently for an update on whether dietary fatty acids can be considered a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. I moved content into the article after Doc James OK'd it. David notMD (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!
Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, pursuing the mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.
One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!
First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
- We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
- Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
- More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.
Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia! --Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
PR firms
Hi - I work lots of issues of conflict of interest and advocacy in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing which is mostly about health and medicine. I also write about biotech companies.
Thanks for being open to working within the PAID policy and COI guideline. You might want to check out (and sign onto) the WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, if you are not aware of it.
There are actually two steps to COI management here in Wikipedia, which are very similar to standard scientific publishing:
- disclosure
- prior peer review
That's how it works, right?
With regard to the peer review piece, it is a bit weird in Wikipedia, as anybody can edit directly. But per both the COI guideline and PAID policy, if you edit on a topic where you have a COI, you should not edit directly.
Instead,
- a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
- b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
- (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and
- (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the
{{request edit}}tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.
By following those "peer review" processes, accompanied by a disclosure, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).
But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.
I hope that makes sense to you. Happy to discuss, if anything doesn't. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- by the way, we are plagued with people spamming refs - both authors and publishers -- to the point where we have an essay about it - see WP:REFSPAM. Please don't waste people's time promoting articles that fail MEDRS by miles. Jytdog (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Cglife.trummler: I appreciate your taking my advice about proposing content in Talk rather than adding directly to articles, given your association with PR for a journal, but the edits you proposed for various articles were consistently rejected as not being MEDRS. My guess is that this is the nature of the types of articles published in the journal you work with. The solution would be to stop trying to add content based on any articles published in the journal. And comply with MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)