User:Jytdog - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 4 January 2016 (→Privileges/Projects: noting loss of privileges). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:24, 4 January 2016 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→Privileges/Projects: noting loss of privileges)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I believe strongly in Misplaced Pages's Five Pillars. I try to find the best sources I can (per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) for articles I work on, I read them, and strive to write WP:NPOV content based on them.

I work a lot here on articles related to health and to agriculture; I work some on religious topics, and on a smattering of other things.

Favorite article titles:

Essays

I drafted an essay about why WP:MEDRS exists that was moved to mainspace in August 2015. I hope you find it useful; please feel free to improve it! It is here: WP:Why MEDRS?

NPOV part 1: secondary sources

I haven't found anyplace where this is stated in one place, so wanted to pull together my perspective on this. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. It is not a newspaper (we are in no hurry, we don't have to report the latest and best). It is not a journal or a book, pulling together all the primary sources into a coherent picture—that is what scientists and other scholars do in review articles in journals and what historians do in their books.

Our mission is to express the sum of human knowledge. We are all editors. Our role is to read and understand the reliable secondary and tertiary sources, in which experts have pulled the basic research together into a coherent picture, and summarize and compile what those sources say, in clear English that any reader with a decent education can understand.

In topics I work in (especially articles related to health) I find that editors who want to cite primary sources and create extensive or strong content based on them fall in one of three buckets.

Sometimes they are scientists, who treat Misplaced Pages articles like they themselves are literature reviews and want to synthesize a story from primary sources. But articles here are encyclopedia articles, which is a different genre. Each article is meant to be "a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" (emphasis added). (see WP:NOT)
Sometimes they are everyday people, who don't understand that the scientific literature is where science happens - it is where scientists talk to each other. The scientific literature is not intended for the general public, really. The internet has made it more available to the public, as has the open access movement. Both are a mixed blessing. The downside is that everyday people take research papers out of the context of the ongoing and always-developing discussion among scientists, and take individual papers as some kind of gospel truth, when each paper is really just a stepping stone (sometimes a false one) as we (humanity) apply the scientific method to understanding the world around us. Nonscientists don't know that many research articles in biology turn out to be dead ends, or unreplicable, or even withdrawn. (See Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility from Nature, for example, which came after this and this were published). It is not that a review article somehow reaches backward in time and magically makes a research article more or less reliable; it is that you and i cannot know what research article will turn out to be replicable and/or accepted and built on by the relevant field, and which will not. Reviews tell us that. Here is an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that scientist who published work showing that if you shake cells (really!) you could turn them into stem cells? There was huge media hype around that. And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP. (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) only to delete it later when the paper was retracted. We should not be jerking the public around like that. There is no reason to do that - we have no deadline here.
Sometimes editors wanting to use primary sources are agenda-driven — there is something in the real world that is very important to them, and they want that idea expressed in WP and given strong WP:WEIGHT. In the very act of doing that — in selecting a given primary source and giving it a lot of weight (or any weight at all, actually) — they are performing original research. It is sometimes hard to get people to see this.

Misplaced Pages is not about what you think is important, right now, nor even what the media is hyping today. It is about what we know, as expressed in reliable sources. It is so hard for people to differentiate what they see and what they "know" from what humanity — as expressed by experts in a given field — knows.

It is hard for people to think like scholars, with discipline, and actually listen to and be taught by reliable secondary sources instead of acting like barroom philosophers who shoot from the hip or letting media hype drive them.

NPOV depends mightily upon editors' grasp of secondary sources. We have to find good ones - recent ones - and absorb them, and see what the mainstream positions are in the field, what are "significant minority opinions", and what views are just plain WP:FRINGE. We have to let the best sources teach us. And yes, it takes commitment - both in time, and to the values of Misplaced Pages - to really try to find the best secondary sources, access them, absorb them, and learn from them how to distribute WEIGHT in a Misplaced Pages article. yep.

What makes this even more challenging is that because this is a volunteer project, Misplaced Pages editors often come here and stay here due to some passion. This passion is a double-edged sword. It drives engagement and the creation of content but too often brings with it advocacy for one position or another. This is a quandary. The discipline of studying secondary sources and editing content based on those sources, in putting egos aside and letting the secondary sources speak, is the key that saves Misplaced Pages from our personal, limited perspectives.

If you have inserted content into an article based on a primary source and I have deleted it, it is not because I disagree with the content. The content has nothing to do with it. The issue is that we as editors cannot perform the original research to select a given primary source over other primary sources (that say different things) and assign any weight to it at all.

While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them";
WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
WP:VERIFY, in a section called "Original Research", says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."

The call to use secondary sources is deep in the guts of Misplaced Pages. This is a meta-issue — a question of what it means to be an editor on Misplaced Pages.

NPOV part 2: COI and advocacy in Misplaced Pages

Along with my editing, I work at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard ("COIN"), trying to help deal with Conflict-of-interest editing on Misplaced Pages.

There are editors in Misplaced Pages who are gravely concerned about the corrupting influence of paid editing in WP. There is reason be concerned - it happens. No one knows how much, as there is no data on this, and no one knows what corrupts Misplaced Pages more, paid editing or unpaid advocacy.

But to put this in the language of WP - these are the two forces that drive editors to violate the WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY policies, WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY.

It is clear, that conflict of interest is an issue for any knowledge-producing and knowledge-presenting organization, and WP is definitely one of them. We have a responsibility to manage the COI of editors who are part of the community.

COI is created by associations and activities that people have outside of Misplaced Pages, such that editors have some actual interest - some connection with a person or organization outside of WP - that conflicts with Misplaced Pages's mission to present reliable, neutral information to the public. Managing COI, would require the community to delve into those associations and activities.

However, there is a stark tension between that, and a whole nexus of stuff deep in the guts of WP. Namely:

the other part of the mission of WP, to be "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
the closely associated anonymity that we permit editors to have (protected by WP:OUTING which is strictly enforced here)
the focus on behavior, content, and sources (not contributors) (protected by the no personal attacks policy and guided by the talk page guidelines)
in other words -- the fundamental principle here that it doesn't matter who you are here - what matters is what you do.

The nexus of all that, is what makes WP the radical experiment that it is - it makes this "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

This tension between a strong desire to manage COI editing, and the "content not contributor" nexus, is why the community has failed to reach consensus to make our guidance document on COI into a policy and not just a guideline, as it is now. It is why, even after the Banc de Binary scandal and the Wiki-PR scandal, the community had no less than five proposals to ban paid editing and every one of them failed to reach consensus. (If you want to read the failed proposals, you can find them in the "Further reading" section of the COI editing in WP article. If you do, really try to listen to what both sides are saying. The tension I am describing is very easy to see.)

Additionally, there are RW concerns with making claims about editors' outside associations - and especially taking action based on those claims. In some parts of the world, libel and slander cases are not difficult to bring and responsible parties like members of Arbcom ~could~ be financially responsible for defending themselves in court, and ~could~ be held personally/financially responsible for decisions they make.

As a result of the community's failure to act (at least that is how I explain what follows), the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Misplaced Pages and other Wiki-projects, updated the Terms of Use to make it a requirement that paid editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation", and that they follow community policies and guidelines (which would mean our COI guideline). This community has struggled with how to implement that. Our Arbcom has stated (unanimously!): "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

So, the community needs some policy-based approach, that gains wide community consensus, to deal with paid editing. Any solution to address - or better, any effective way to manage - COI in Misplaced Pages beyond voluntary disclosure, needs to take the "content not contributor" nexus seriously, and do everything it can to recognize and accommodate the passion with which a significant chunk of the community values it.

So what can be done, now?

First of all, there are a lot of paid and conflicted editors in Misplaced Pages, who disclose per the Terms of Use and follow the COI guideline. I don't know how many, but what I do know, is that In my day to day work at COIN, I find that many editors with a conflict were simply unaware of our guideline, and when informed of it, will comply, and want to do the right thing. I have helped them do so.

But the harder problem, is people who do not disclose. What about them?

There are really two kinds of paid editors.

1) There is a whole slew of editors (again, no one knows how many), who take freelance jobs at sites like Elance and create or update articles for pay. These editors often use sockpuppets, and our sock puppet investigation ("SPI") process is well-set to deal with socks. But one cannot use off-wiki evidence (like a profile at Elance) there. And additionally, fake joe jobbing profiles can be set up at sites like Elance, to slander people. This happened to a member of Arbcom, User:GorillaWarfare, who describes that on her user page. So what to do for this sort of paid editing?

My suggestion would be to do something like the following: allow a request to use off-wiki information (say a profile from Elance) to be submitted to SPI, in conjunction with a decent sock-puppet case. The off-wiki evidence could only be actually submitted (and submitted only privately) if a functionary there reviewed that case and found the on-wiki evidence compelling but not sufficient, and granted the request, and the off-wiki content would be considered only as one piece of the puzzle. It itself, could not be definitive. Perhaps also, only requests to use off-wiki information would be considered from auto-confirmed users (and maybe only users with a substantial number of edits), to prevent the process from being abused.

This would allow us to mine Elance and other sites for networks of sockpuppets. But we could only use that if we could find on-wiki evidence tying accounts together.

2) For long term editors who edit with a single account under a conflict of interest (like Wifione) - or who are advocates (aka POV-pushers) - at the end of the day, if they are indeed warping Misplaced Pages, that is going to be evident in their editing. (Right? If they actually warped WP, it will be there to see, with diffs to be had) You will be able to see them deleting well-sourced content that is opposed to their interests, and adding only content and sources that favor their interests. You can see this in the evidence page of the Wifione case, here. So the case to bring, is an NPOV-violation case. Most of the evidence in the Wifione case was prior to February 2013. The case could have been settled two years ago, based on that evidence. I don't know why (and I really don't) it wasn't brought sooner. Politics? Someone just didn't think of it? Don't know. But we have the model now.

Those are my thoughts on the problems, anyway.

How I try to help manage COI in WP

Everybody in WP wants content that is NPOV and well sourced. Everybody agrees that editors with a COI tend to be biased. Views diverge strongly from that point.

The approach I have arrived at after a bunch of trial and error, is in a framework of "management", which is something that I think everybody in WP could get behind. The concept of "managing COI" is widely used in academia and elsewhere. In any kind of management situation, you get the best results by educating people about what you want, and giving them the tools to do what you want.

The two key steps in managing COI are disclosing the COI, and peer review. When I encounter edits that make a COI seem likely (it always starts and ends with content), I approach the editor who made the edits, and explain the importance of preserving the integrity of WP content, and ask them to disclose any connection they have with the subject of the article (and I note that they don't have to disclose personal information per OUTING, just the relationship). In conversation, I draw out a disclosure. Once that is done, I ask them to follow a peer review process. In other words, if they want to create an article, they should submit it through AfC, and if they want to change content to an existing article, they should submit a suggestion on the article Talk page using the {{request edit}} template/tool.

This is a management approach to the issue. Most COI editors are happy to understand the process and say they will comply, and I generally find them complying. (I keep semi-template language here that I use when I approach people. Please feel free to use it - it is just my sandbox so is messy, sorry)

I take the same approach with anybody who has a COI, be they a "contract editor" or a company employee writing about the company or its products.

In my experience, contract editors are more difficult. They tend to hide and when approached, tend to lie more. Thinking about where they are coming from, this makes sense, as their income is dependent on their editing here (unlike a company employee who probably has lots of other things they do at the company) and following the COI management process puts their income at risk; the disclosure leads to scrutiny and possibly deletion of their contributions, and the peer review process makes things less efficient and less predictable (both of which, from their perspective, mess up their business model).

Many paid editors come with a sense of entitlement, thinking they have a "right" to edit and feeling unhappy and aggrieved with scrutiny and suspicion. Sometimes, more education - explaining the context more - helps. When I explain what Misplaced Pages actually is (per WP:NOT), that editing WP is not a right, but a privilege (freely offered to all, but that can be restricted or lost), and the history of paid editing scandals, and really emphasize the importance of not shitting in your own backyard (in the sense that biased content harms the credibility of Misplaced Pages, and if the public loses trust in WP, the very reason that the paid editor wants to get content into WP will vanish, as fewer and fewer people will consult it), sometimes they "get it", and stop complaining and start complying. Sometimes. When they do, offering them the {{{paid}} template (still under development) will be a simple tool to help them disclose per the ToU.

But even so, many paid editors have short term vision and goals, and want to get their edits done and get paid. These are the situations that require a pivot from a management approach to an enforcement approach. For these editors, the COI cannot be managed, but needs to eliminated. We do this by removing editing privileges, completely or in part.

In the Misplaced Pages that actually exists, the enforcement approach is difficult, due to OUTING and the support for paid editing in some quarters, which makes it risky to be too aggressive in taking admin actions without a very solid basis. The advantage of having gone through everything I describe above, is that sometimes when a paid editor is finally resistant - sometimes - he or she actually discloses that he or she has edited for pay, without making a full disclosure per the ToU. In those cases, the enforcement of the ToU is simple, and there are growing number of admins who will block for clear violations of the ToU. In cases where they haven't disclosed editing for pay, enforcement requires time and work, gathering diffs and presenting a case.

Either way, in my experience, managing COI editors, contract or otherwise, takes a bunch of work, and the "enforcement approach" is generally only something that is useful to deploy at the end of the process, when the COI cannot be managed, but must be eliminated. Sometimes the work that has already been done makes that easy; other times it requires a bunch more work gathering diffs.

GMO stuff

I wrote the following a long while ago and took it off my page a while ago. In light of the Arbcom case, seems useful to restore for a while.

Quick background. I've been reflecting lately, and realized that I have a life-long interest in food. It is part of my nature to inquire and understand, in a hands-on way as much as I can. So, I had an uncle who was a dairy farmer next to his day job working in a factory, and spent a little time as a kid during summer vacations helping out; I have had huge gardens, have worked in a whole foods co-op as a coordinator where I managed the inventory, have worked in restaurants (rising over several years from dish washing to being chef), have worked in soup kitchens and food pantries... it is a thread running through my whole life. Not intentionally, but something I seem to circle around, coming to understand the entire chain that leads from farm to table. My work in Misplaced Pages since the summer of 2012 has been really focused on agricultural biotechnology, which fits right into that; it was interesting for me to realize that. (The work I do in the real world, which I have done for many years now, is unrelated to food or agriculture, but does involve biotechnology - see COI section below.)

I opened my Misplaced Pages account in January 2008 and didn't do much. I got more interested when someone I knew started taking a bunch of dietary supplements and talking them up, and I wanted to learn more about them. This was my first encounter with bullshit (In the sense used by ] in his book, "On Bullshit"", which you can read here) in Misplaced Pages, and I started doing research per WP:MEDRS and editing articles to improve their sourcing and content as per the pillars. I have kept working on other health-related articles, on dietary supplements, and health effects of various things found in food or other products. This remains an interest of mine, and an area where there is a lot of smoke and not enough light in public discourse.

Then, in the spring of 2012, I walked by a protest where a guy had a sign that said “Monsanto kills” and I thought, “Wow, what’s up with that?” It was a real question - I had only the vaguest notion of what Monsanto was, and wanted to understand why someone would take time out of their day to make such a strong claim, and so passionately. I love real questions and I love random conversations on the street. I wanted to ask the guy, but was already running late to a meeting.

The question stuck with me, so when I got home I started reading about Monsanto. I hit the Monsanto article in Misplaced Pages first thing when I started doing that research, and the article at that time reeked of bullshit.

So I started doing research like a scholar would – like we are supposed to do in Misplaced Pages – finding NPOV reliable sources and reading them and then coming back and editing the Monsanto article and other GM-related articles, and negotiating with other editors interested in the topic. It was surprising to me – really surprising – to find the same statements about Monsanto repeated over and over (often verbatim) in anti-Monsanto sources, which you come across a lot of, as you search for information on the web. And repeated again in the Monsanto article and the other GM-related articles in Misplaced Pages.

And it was more surprising to me to find that many of those statements were untrue or half-true, when I ran their claims to ground. I spent hours learning and digging down into the issues, reading entire OECD, EFSA, and FDA guidances and reports, and the history of regulatory law and policy, reading patents and court cases, reading about the biotechnology behind GMOs and how ag biotechnology has been regulated. And really importantly, reading about farming and why farmers have so widely adopted these products. (It was and is stunning to me how rarely you read anything in the anti-GM literature about what real farmers actually think and do — most times they are portrayed as powerless victims or patsies. Not as the savvy business people they are. Terrible.) Reading how seed is produced and how that market works and has worked, learning how food is actually produced in the US. Reading the scientific papers that both sides tout. And always going back and matching what I was reading, with what was in the anti-GMO sites and with what was in WIkipedia.

Intellectually amazing (and still is - I keep learning more and more; there is so much science, business, ethics, law, history, and politics involved!), and from a human perspective, depressing as hell. The level of passion and ignorance in the anti-GMO community has been just mind-blowing to me. Time after time, I would read some strong negative statement and say, “Wow really??” and go learn more about it, and have it fall apart in my hands. I am not a big one for generalizations, but it is pretty clear to me by now, that material produced by anti-GMO groups is generally not reliable, especially with regard to the key question of food safety; one finds instead a flood of bullshit - speech intended to persuade, without regard for truth. What seems to matter, is trying to scare the hell out of people. However, reality does exist; we have tools to help us try to grasp it (most of them covered between the scientific method and the historical method). And there is a scientific consensus that currently marketed foods from GMOs are as safe to eat as conventional foods. Evidence may emerge one day that changes the consensus. But it has not arrived yet.

There are folks in Misplaced Pages who think that the widespread use of GM crops is a great wrong, and they want to fight that battle in Misplaced Pages. However Misplaced Pages is not a place to right great wrongs and it is not a place for advocacy; this is a place where we describe the world as it is. GM crops, and GM food, are mainstream. Over 90% of all soybean, corn, and sugarbeets grown in the US are GM. That is about as mainstream as it gets.

That said, there are very clear risks and concerns with big ag, biotechnology, and the whole passel of issues that has led to the crap that passes for "food" that Americans manufacture, buy, and eat on such a staggering scale (Why is it so hard to find good bread in America? And how did that come to be? Those are a questions I need to address one day). I have learned about those too, and have always included negative things, and risks, in my edits. I have never removed negative information that was reliably sourced and that had appropriate weight in an article (I acknowledge that negotiations concerning weight are infamously difficult in Misplaced Pages - more on that another day, perhaps). And I have added negative information. But some specific risks and concerns are monoculture's effects on the ecosystem (not an issue with GM crops per se, but clearly GM crops so far have been designed with monoculture in mind and are extensively used in monoculture), gene flow, how well markets are actually working (I am so disappointed with the non-report that the Justice Dept recently produced on whether seed markets are competitive or not), really large questions of how to balance the good things innovation can bring, with managing risks of unintended consequences (chief among them, understanding subtle, long-term toxicities) -- all these and more are really key questions that are both important and challenging. And there is no doubt that pro-GMO forces have their own bullshit. Claims about "feeding the world" remain pretty hollow, as long as the world is basically capitalist and there are poor among us who cannot afford to buy food. (That said, the more abundant the supply, the lower the price, and the lower price, the more people can afford to eat; people went hungry in Egypt when the Russian wheat harvest failed and prices shot up worldwide ~2010.)

But as Harry Frankfurt discusses, if we want to be effective in the world, we need to see reality as clearly as we can. We cannot swallow bullshit. My work in Misplaced Pages over the past year and a half, has been a mostly joyful and very satisfying process of learning and sharing - of grabbing hold of a claim, investigating it thoroughly via good old fashioned research, and working with the community of editors to include new information, or edit existing information, in Misplaced Pages. I've also worked with others to think about how to optimize the organizational structures for the suite of GM-related articles to best present the information for readers' benefit.

There has been darkness, too. There are some who see me as a stooge of Monsanto - either a paid operative or some kind of zombie advocate for them, and as wielding a baleful influence over Misplaced Pages. Which is sad and hurtful to me; and I feel bad for people carrying such unhappiness. None of those folks has asked me why I do what I do. I added this to my page, to give them an answer.

I've asked myself the questions on WP:Tendentious editing. I cringed a couple of times, but overall, I think I am clean. We are all human, and I have made mistakes. When I have, and have seen them, I have acknowledged them and done what I could to apologize and correct them. The goal of my work here is to create a great encyclopedia as per the five pillars.

Self-initiated COI Investigation

I initiated a COI investigation of myself with regard to ag biotech, articles concerning which are often contentious, and in discussion of which COI charges can fly too easily: results are here. (diff)

Here is what happened there. Via email with an oversighter, I disclosed my real life identity and what i do for a living, my life story, and my work history, and we had some discussion about that. The oversighter with whom I emailed evaluated all that (and based on what he wrote, did some research on his own based on what i told him) and found no COI for anything related to ag biotech. I did not mention editing for pay, as I have never done that. I was not asked if I edit for pay and we did not discuss that. In case I have never said it before (it is hard to believe I haven't with all the hammering I have gotten): i have never been paid, or received any consideration of any kind, for anything I do in Misplaced Pages, nor have I expected to, nor do I expect to, nor have I ever agreed to. I edit here purely as a volunteer; it has never been, and is not, part of my day job nor any paid work nor any volunteer work i do outside of my day job. I have tried to make that as broad and clear as possible - I am not a paid editor. I have no COI for ag biotech.

If you care, i explained how i got interested in ag biotech on an older version of this page, which you can see here.

I ask myself the questions in WP:Tendentious editing all the time. I cringe sometimes, but overall, I think I am clean. We are all human, and I have made mistakes. When I have, and have seen them, I have acknowledged them and done what I could to apologize and correct them. The goal of my work here is to create a great encyclopedia per the five pillars.

GMO arbitration case - privileges removed

In the fall of 2015 an Arbcom case was opened, and it was closed in December 2015: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms. Notice of the close was given to me here.

I was "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted"; I was "admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case", and an interaction ban was imposed with another user.

Privileges/Projects

This user participates in WikiProject Medicine.

This user has rollback rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Categories: