Talk:GISAID

Open databases?
Thanks for your addition 2021-12-10T23:52:14 that, "70% of the US SARS-CoV-2 sequences have been also submitted to open databases, so they can be processed and shared freely with anyone."

What open databases? How can I find them?

Is there in this or some other article a list of databases alternatives to GISAID, preferably in a table with pros and cons for each?

I tried to access GISAID for Externalities, contagious diseases and news and a manuscript submitted to the Real-World Economics Review, mentioned above. I gave up, because, as you indicated, the license restrictions were too great. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems this sentence has been deleted, but the main alternatives to GISAID, which are open but have less data, are https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/, https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gwh/Genome/210/show , and https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/Taxon:2697049 (if you want raw reads)


 * A comparison betweem them and others can be found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7799334/ Leomrtns (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I've retrieved the article and will study it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Re-adding "open" to the article lead, since there are numerous reliable sources that characterize GISAID as such, which trumps the opinion of one Wikipedia editor. E.g., "GISAID is the largest open-access portal", "GISAID’s data is open access", and "(Click "Terms", to see Type of access to research data repository: open". - Don&#39;t call me shorely (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking to the re3data registry. Recently (March 2023) this registry changed the "type of access to research data repository" of GISAID from "open" to "restricted". Therefore it would not be wrong to consider GISAID "restricted access", but I simply removed "open" from the article lead as a compromise. I created a new section,Claim of open access, for further discussion. Leomrtns (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Claim of open access
Expanded section GISAID to include a longer explanation, with references, to why GISAID cannot be considered "open access". In summary:


 * re3data now classifies the repository as "restricted access". Almost surely this is because of the scandal of suspended accounts of high-profile scientists (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.adh9055). Irrespective of who is in the right here, the fact that access can be revoked invalidates the openness claims. See also Samples from Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market above.
 * It's been known since 2017 at least that they do revoke access: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.1018
 * GISAID uses this registry as the main reason to call itself "open access" (https://gisaid.org/resources/statements-clarifications/editorial-board-affirms-open-access-designation-of-gisaid/).
 * Some papers do compare GISAID with open access repositories, highlighting the differences. Some are favourable to GISAID, some are neutral, but they all mention the fact that the repository is restrictive and thus not Open Access:
 * https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.patter.2022.100562
 * https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbib%2Fbbaa359
 * https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS2214-109X%2822%2900417-X
 * There was a very public argument against GISAID's restriction and a push for openly sharing the data by scientists working on SARS-CoV-2:
 * https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-01194-6
 * https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-00305-7
 * https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abi4496

These are all in high-profile publications (Nature and Science, amongst others). It is natural that several publications replicate the "open access" statement since they see it here and in the main page http://gisaid.org. Even if such statement is wrong or outdated (I do believe in its launching, back in 2006, the idea was to be open access and shareable with other repositories, but nowadays it is clear not to be the case). Articles looking explicitly at the distinct sharing models conclude that GISAID is not open (see references above).

I would love if the text and specially the references are not summarily deleted from the main article, even if some rephrasing becomes necessary. As I remember, prolific wikipedia editors should be helping newcomers or inexperienced editors, instead of disconsidering their contributions. Leomrtns (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Dispute with SIB
I previously added a mention of GISAID's legal dispute with the SIB, with multiple references. This is an important aspect of GISAID's history which was covered widely in the media at the time. This was removed by user Wacomshera. I am happy to have a wider discussion here about this content.

User Wacomshera recently reverted these edits from myself and another user, with the summary "Clean-up low-quality info inserted by IP address / single-purpose edits". It is entirely fair for this user to point out that our edits were anonymous and/or SPA, however WP:SOCKLEGIT makes clear that such edits are valid when "editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle". GISAID is clearly controversial, and has a history of retaliation against criticism.

Furthermore, I would like to point to the edit history for Wacomshera's account.

Since 2020, this account has performed edits in only 4 bursts of activity:


 * 15-16 Aug 2021
 * 12 September 2021
 * 1 October 2021
 * 21 November 2022

The 15-16 Aug 2021 burst involved two edits related to SARS-CoV-2, both of which added links to GISAID from other articles:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oswaldo_Cruz_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1039120130
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bette_Korber&diff=prev&oldid=1039123271

The 12 September 2021 burst involved four edits related to SARS-CoV-2, all four of which added links to GISAID from other articles:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cluster_5&diff=prev&oldid=1043899040
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SARS-CoV-2_Epsilon_variant&diff=prev&oldid=1043924227
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bioinformatics_Institute_(Singapore)&diff=prev&oldid=1043925098
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agency_for_Science,_Technology_and_Research&diff=prev&oldid=1043925972

The 1 October 2021 burst did not involve any edits related to SARS-CoV-2.

After an absence of more than a year, this user returned on 21 November 2022. They made 3 edits related to SARS-CoV-2, the largest of which was to remove two passages that were less positive than the remainder of the GISAID article.

In every case where SARS-CoV-2 edits were made, these were sandwiched between non-SARS-CoV-2 edits made as part of the same burst.

This therefore appears to be a single-purpose account, or close to it.

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Acknowledging that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter feels that this article should include details of a legal dispute that took place 14 years ago between GISAID and the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. I disagree, for the following reasons.
 * The legal dispute may not be "an important aspect of GISAID's history", because one might say it was NOT actually "covered widely in the media at the time". A search of Newspapers.com for "GISAID" and "Swiss Institute" returns zero results, for example. However, in scientific circles, there were a few stories about the dispute (contemporary to the dispute, but also when GISAID relaunched a new database with the German government's support) published in Scientific American, in Nature, in CIDRAP and in CNET. It's not exactly a flood of media interest, but it's better than nothing.
 * Here is the problem, though. Both sides contended that the other party was in the wrong. We have no reliable secondary sources about the outcome of the dispute. I have not found something suitable to link to as a worthwhile citation for how this legal dispute ended. A supposed "Final Award" document is presented on a site called Jusmundi(dot)com, but it's a questionable source. Very few Wikipedia articles have ever used it as a citation source, and the document in question isn't complete and lacks clarity -- there are redacted items like "witness statements of Professor [Person 1] and Mr. [Person 2]", for example. The document was posted by Carole Malinvaud, who is not a representative of any court. This is why Wikipedia content guidelines state, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". Relying on websites that act as dumping grounds for primary texts puts Wikipedia editors in the role of expert analysts, which is outside of our remit.
 * Lastly, there is a disturbing trend here at this GISAID article of "drive-by" editors throwing bombs into the mix to try to portray the subject in a light that the reliable sources do not share. Dating back to 2010, we had Gsgs2 seeking (twice) to add "controversy" that was sourced to a blog post. More recently, there have been single-purpose IP editors poking away about different disgruntled competing databases. There was a briefly-active editor who wanted to add "criticism" and "numerous problems". Then another single-edit writer who was interested in this SIB "dispute", and now User:Tobeortobebetter exhibiting the same attempts to add non-reliable content that they believe is very important to add -- so focused that they perform not a scratch of work on any other Wikipedia article. If this dispute with the Swiss Institute of Bioinformation is so extremely important to the history of science, why is there no mention of it at all in the Wikipedia article about the SIB (which has a major contributor who appears to have a close connection with its subject)? Why is there no mention of the dispute in the Wikipedia biography of Ron Appel (which also just happens to have a major contributor who appears to have a close connection)?
 * My conclusion is that the incident does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, because there is no proportional support in coverage by reliable sources. - AppleBsTime (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My conclusion is that the incident does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, because there is no proportional support in coverage by reliable sources. - AppleBsTime (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * AppleBsTime raises concerns about JusMundi as a source (concerns which I do not think are valid). I am therefore surprised that they did not seek to WP:PRESERVE the initial reference to the legal clash, which is supported by a reference to a Nature article and, as AppleBsTime points out, several further articles. I think the fact that JusMundi is cited by 15 other Wikipedia articles shows that it is a perfectly reputable source, but given that AppleBsTime has questioned the sourcing of the claim that there was an award of $1M dollars, I have now added three additional references: casetext.com (cited ~812 times on Wikipedia) and VLEX (cited ~275 times on Wikipedia) both provide the judgement of US District Judge Reggie Walton, while a third citation, to Lexology, provides a summary of the judgement in the form that AppleBsTime requests.
 * Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter believes that an opinion about use of primary sources is more persuasive than Wikipedia's community-aligned policy standards which have been developed over many years. But that is not the case. Adding select content from one particular arbitration case that appears not to have attracted the attention of any mainstream media, in addition to not having been covered by any qualified secondary sources, simply does not meet the threshold.
 * Allow me to respectfully outline why it is especially problematic in this particular situation. Per this Associated Press source (widely carried over numerous outlets) from the time of the apparent dispute which is most certainly connected to this discussion (note, this is a secondary source valued more highly than primary records by Wikipedia standards), "the WHO appears to be going to extreme lengths to stand in GISAID's way, including withholding funding that has been pledged for the database", and further states, "In the most recent dispute over GISAID's free database, the WHO has refused to hand over US$450,000 provided by the U.S. Centers of Disease Control for the database's development". Furthermore, from Spring 2010, in a paper by Rachel Irwin published in the scholarly journal Global Health Governance, we find that "Within four months of its launch, GISAID had become the world's largest and most comprehensive database (AP 2008). However, the WHO was reportedly withholding funds earmarked to support GISAID, and was in the process of developing their own database and tracking system. The dispute was over $450,000 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services and GISAID, this money was earmarked for GISAID. According to the WHO, the money had been earmarked for a database, but because of the amount involved the WHO was required to put out an open tender. According to the WHO's David Heymann 'for the first time in decades, developing countries are looking at the [WHO] with mistrust and officials cannot afford to be partial to any group,' and that this was a direct order from the Director-General Margaret Chan. Yet, many flu scientists and governmental officials felt that this situation actually did nothing more than to add to mistrust of the WHO." Additionally, per this recent article from the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations, "In the run up to GISAID's inception in 2008, for example, WHO unsuccessfully attempted to create its own public domain system of virus data sharing, and reportedly prevented the release of funds intended to aid the development of GISAID." I will remind anyone reading this that these secondary sources are valued by Wikipedia standards more highly than primary records.
 * Reading through all these documents, I am even concerned (perhaps dismayed) about a hypothesis: Can we rule out that the SIB conspired -- but failed in their effort with staff at WHO -- to sideline GISAID? Especially since it's reported that the WHO sought "US$10 million for its own database and virus tracking system"? Would it not be true that if the WHO would have succeeded, this could have meant a much bigger carrot looming for the SIB? Can we rule out that the WHO eventually paid out the US taxpayer funding from the CDC to SIB, but SIB claimed it was actually applied to something different than the funds earmarked for the GISAID database development? It would seem the CDC was quite committed to the development of GISAID, according to sources.
 * Thus, there is clearly more to any "story" about contentious financial claims that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter is attempting to introduce into Wikipedia, which raises red flags about a not-so-insignificant appearance of a conflict of interest. We need reliable, secondary sources to support controversial claims. They are not being provided here by the red-linked editor. I strongly urge User:Tobeortobebetter (as I have previously and painstakingly advised User:Mhaeussl) to abide by policy and guidelines and refrain from using Wikipedia to vent or even worse, to smear articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading through all these documents, I am even concerned (perhaps dismayed) about a hypothesis: Can we rule out that the SIB conspired -- but failed in their effort with staff at WHO -- to sideline GISAID? Especially since it's reported that the WHO sought "US$10 million for its own database and virus tracking system"? Would it not be true that if the WHO would have succeeded, this could have meant a much bigger carrot looming for the SIB? Can we rule out that the WHO eventually paid out the US taxpayer funding from the CDC to SIB, but SIB claimed it was actually applied to something different than the funds earmarked for the GISAID database development? It would seem the CDC was quite committed to the development of GISAID, according to sources.
 * Thus, there is clearly more to any "story" about contentious financial claims that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter is attempting to introduce into Wikipedia, which raises red flags about a not-so-insignificant appearance of a conflict of interest. We need reliable, secondary sources to support controversial claims. They are not being provided here by the red-linked editor. I strongly urge User:Tobeortobebetter (as I have previously and painstakingly advised User:Mhaeussl) to abide by policy and guidelines and refrain from using Wikipedia to vent or even worse, to smear articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thus, there is clearly more to any "story" about contentious financial claims that the single-purpose editor Tobeortobebetter is attempting to introduce into Wikipedia, which raises red flags about a not-so-insignificant appearance of a conflict of interest. We need reliable, secondary sources to support controversial claims. They are not being provided here by the red-linked editor. I strongly urge User:Tobeortobebetter (as I have previously and painstakingly advised User:Mhaeussl) to abide by policy and guidelines and refrain from using Wikipedia to vent or even worse, to smear articles. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I thank User:AppleBsTime for providing the link to PDFs from "numerous outlets" that they have uploaded to https://ufile.io/f/9zbwn. AppleBsTime, I am interested to learn how you acquired copies of these articles, as they appear to be no longer online?
 * This WP:TEXTWALL seems to assert that Nature is not a qualified secondary source, and that court judgements may not be cited on Wikipedia. I do not believe that is an accurate reflection of Wikipedia's policy standards.
 * I would encourage AppleBsTime to add any well-sourced content they believe is missing from Wikipedia. I would also request that they confirm whether or not they have a direct connection to the GISAID Initiative.
 * Tobeortobebetter (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * — Tobeortobebetter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Hi, AppleBsTime. You have reverted my edits and you have requested more discussion, but you have not responded to my questions above. Please could you do so, ideally concisely.
 * I note that you yourself were absent from Wikipedia from April 2022 until 17 February 2023 (which is just after I created this thread calling out Wacomshera's editing history).
 * Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that you yourself were absent from Wikipedia from April 2022 until 17 February 2023 (which is just after I created this thread calling out Wacomshera's editing history).
 * Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the ufile.io link and the origination of the files listed there -- it's kind of like the Jusmundi site, right? Nobody knows who posted the documents or how they were acquired, or whether the re-publisher was satisfying an agenda in posting the documents, or even whether the documents have been altered before being published on the site. That's why it's important to recognize what are good sources for Wikipedia articles and what are not-so-good sources. I'd say more, but I understand that you dislike WP:TEXTWALLs and prefer concise answers. I'm looking forward to editing with User:AncientWalrus, given his good-faith intentions. Your interrogation of me, who has contributed very widely to various areas of Wikipedia, including the pending changes team, for several years -- not so much appreciated. I'll endeavor to try harder to be welcoming, though. Are you willing to commit to any cooperative pledges? - AppleBsTime (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for the concision, which makes discussion much more possible. AppleBsTime is saying, as I understand it, that they did not upload these files and do not know who did – please correct me if this understanding is incorrect. This is surprising given that the files were uploaded to this website on exactly the same day that AppleBsTime made this comment (and therefore expire 30 days later on 1 April). AppleBsTime, above I also asked if you could confirm whether you have a direct connection to the GISAID Initiative. I would be grateful if you could respond to that also.


 * I acknowledge that an interrogatory mode is not much fun, and regret that it is necessary but I hope you can understand why I have questions. I am acting in good faith, and commit to continue to do so. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your understanding of the point I made with ufile.io is off the mark; but I'm confident you can figure it out. Also, your use of the word "necessary" above is missing the target. Interrogating editors in good standing is not only not necessary, it is considered rude. But, to satisfy your eager (yet unnecessary) need to know more, I assure you I'm not an employee of GISAID. Please try to remember that, as mutual editors of Wikipedia, we deserve to keep our identities private so that we are not subjected to retaliation -- something you and other "new" editors have mentioned multiple times on this page. - AppleBsTime (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder how User:Tobeortobebetter thinks it's cool to investigate my edit history, but he wants to sockpuppet on one topic, and only showed up a few months ago. Try not to be so much of a creep, okay. I've had stalkers in real life . . . I definitely don't need one on Wikipedia, too. Wacomshera (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asserting that you are not an employee of GISAID. Thank you also for acknowledging that you did upload these files. This means that either you downloaded these files in 2009, or you are in contact with somebody who did, suggesting you have a relatively close connection to this topic. (To use your words above.)

Let's get back to the content, specifically the clause that I am trying to add:
 * After a legal clash with the SIB, in which GISAID was ultimately compelled by an arbitration tribunal to pay out more than $1M,

Let me try to summarise your points above:


 * you don't think JusMundi is a valid source
 * you don't think this material is sufficiently notable to make it into the article
 * you don't think Wikipedia should cite court judgements
 * you believe there may have been a major conspiracy

On the last point, I again encourage you to add any well-supported claims to the article. I fear I must stand firm on the first three points. Perhaps we should put up an RfC to help resolve this: does that sound good? I would like to ensure in this case that we bring in people who have not edited the article previously. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I ended up asking for some opinions on sourcing from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jus Mundi. The response was that this claim is well-sourced (indeed over-sourced!) but there was an agreement with AppleBsTime that secondary sources, such as Lexology and the Nature article, would be substantially preferred over Jus Mundi. I will therefore add the material, using those sources, and also perhaps one of the articles that AppleBsTime points to above. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tobeortobebetter You're not the least bit concerned that at the foot of Lexology pages, it says: "If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email..."? You think a neutral, reliable source helps content marketers with their forward strategy? - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, no, I am not concerned about Lexology as a source here. This is because:
 * It is used >500 times elsewhere on Wikipedia
 * I was encouraged to choose this source by @Banks Irk after posting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 401#Jus Mundi
 * The claim that this source supports is also backed up by three further sources, cited in the (old) proposed text above, and in the Reliable Sources discussion
 * Your passion for source quality appears to be newfound, but is nonetheless welcome. - Tobeortobebetter (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of getting pinged on this discussion, so stop. The editors here are making a mountain out of a molehill. What these sources say is that GISAID wanted to develop a flu database. It entered into an agreement to do so with SIB, but the deal fell apart in a dispute over funding. Subsequently the database was developed with a new partner. The rest is trivial, hardly notable, and ultimately irrelevant. I will not comment further. Stop pinging me. Banks Irk (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Reading the se sentence in the article, this seems like a sort of a "dog barked in the night" assertion. The article as it stands does not explain what the nature of the legal dispute was. If this was indeed merely a contracting dispute, then it is the sort of run-of-the-mill matter that our articles on corporate entities would be absolutely overrun with if it such things were allowed to be included. Can anyone provide a source indicating that this dispute had a significant impact on the collection and distribution of genomic data, which would justify its inclusion? BD2412  T 05:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, expanding this a bit does sound good. The article notes that in 2006-7 GISAID was established as a US charity and entered an agreement with the SIB to launch its database. Only a few years later it was re-established as a German Verein, and the database rebuilt from scratch by the Max Planck Institute for Informatics, and hosted in Germany. This legal case is the missing link that explains that change. I agree that spelling that out more clearly would be helpful to readers. How about something like this:
 * On July 27 2009, the SIB, which had built and administered the EpiFlu database on behalf of GISAID, disconnected the database from the GISAID portal. The SIB claimed that it had not been reimbursed by GISAID, and instructed researchers to access the database through the SIB website. In August, GISAID initiated legal proceedings against the SIB, though these would ultimately conclude with GISAID ordered to pay out $1m.  On September 14, 2009, GISAID launched a new version of the EpiFlu database built by the Max Planck Institute for Informatics. In April 2010 [..]
 * In the interests of consensus, I have not provided a citation to the full arbitration decision but I would encourage editors interested in understanding the case to read it. I think that any dispute that results in the database relocating to a new country is probably significant enough to include in the article. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oddly, this is not mentioned at all in the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics article (a revision history search indicates that it never has been), for which actions by the SIB would seem to be more appropriately housed if notable. Of course, changing contractors for the performance of data storage typically includes changing the location of that data storage. Is there a source that specifically identifies the legal proceedings initiated by GISAID as the cause of this relocation? BD2412  T 15:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, upon reading the case, the timing does not add up. The current text would have the 2010 agreement with the German government occurring after the 2014 arbitration decision. Since 2010 came before 2014, it does not seem that the arbitration decision could have caused the database to relocate to a new country in 2010. BD2412  T 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The legal dispute started just a few months before the database moved to a new provider in Germany. The Scientific American article makes pretty clear that the relaunch of the database with a German institution (Sep 2009) was the result of this dispute with the SIB, which had resulted in GISAID being cut off from the EpiFlu database (July 2009). The partnership with the German government indeed followed in 2010.
 * Regarding your first point, the SIB article does not mention GISAID at all, and I think never has, yet the GISAID article has mentioned the SIB since the very first version. That may be because SIB has a large number of databases. (I count 19 listed on the current article). The level of detail in the two articles is quite different. The SIB History section has just 2 paragraphs for an organisation with hundreds of employees, where GISAID has 9 history paragraphs. I would welcome anyone who wants to add this information to the SIB page. It is also important on this article for WP:BALANCE given the level of detail on promotional points, e.g. relatively inconsequential positive content such as: "The AHF Global Public Health Institute at the University of Miami and GISAID announced in 2022 a collaboration on genetic sequencing, with AHF providing funding for sequencing projects and GISAID leveraging established educational programs." [sourced to a press release]. In contrast, this is a dispute that was covered by Nature, Scientific American, and more outlets as AppleBsTime outlines above.
 * (Lastly, Freunde von GISAID eV was founded in 2013, after the ruling in 2012 against the US organisation, but I suggest we don't get into that in the article.) Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The law firm blog post cited in the article references a 2014 action, not a 2012 decision. Again, a 2013 event can not have been caused by the 2014 decision referenced in the source. My question was one of causation, not merely correlation. Is there a source that says that any of these developments was caused by the legal ruling, rather than by the underlying dispute, irrespective of legal machinations? BD2412  T 17:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Scientific American article is fairly clear that this dispute between the SIB and GISAID is what led GISAID to relaunch the database in partnership with the (German) Max Planck Institute for Informatics, and German web design firm a3 systems. (I said above that the dispute, which occurred in 2009, precipitated the move.) We may be getting sidetracked though, I'm not suggesting that the article should state causation at all. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, I am just wrestling with the fact that the current wording makes it appear that the later arbitration decision(s) had some causal role in the relaunched partnership. BD2412  T 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like the way you moved this to the previous paragraph to make this clearer. I've added a brief mention of the outcome of the dispute, being careful to make the timings clear to avoid the causal implication you mention. I've tried to be very concise, cutting out the mention of the amount awarded. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This may seem counterintuitive, but it is not clear from the single decision cited that there is actually a "winner" of the legal dispute at all. A party to a case can win all sorts of motions during litigation—against dismissal, against summary judgement, in favor of the admission of evidence or witnesses, and even for certain costs and fees—and still not have prevailed in the litigation overall. To say that the litigation "ultimately concluded in SIB's favor" we would need a source reviewing the litigation as a whole—not just a single decision on costs—that says that the litigation ultimately concluded in SIB's favor. BD2412  T 15:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The outcome is very clear from the Dispositive Part of Award in the arbitrator's final award (later enforced by the US judge). However if you aren't keen for us to rely on that that arbitration decision in the text, I'm very happy to go for "concluded with an award of $1M to SIB" (which we can say from the US decision). Tobeortobebetter (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would require a reliable secondary source (not a law firm blog post), not just to support that this was the factual outcome, but that it was an historically notable outcome. BD2412  T 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you confirm whether the same notability criterion applies for "The AHF Global Public Health Institute at the University of Miami and GISAID announced in 2022 a collaboration on genetic sequencing, with AHF providing funding for sequencing projects and GISAID leveraging established educational programs"? Tobeortobebetter (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have explained that a reliable secondary source is required to explain why the outcome of the proceeding is significant to the history of the subject. I have been practicing law for over fifteen years, and I have seen plenty of contract disputes wend their way through legal processes with zero real-world impact on the parties involved. Again, it is possible for a litigant to win a motion or a decision on paper, but have that mean nothing in terms of the life of the litigant. Certainly the termination of the relationship between GISAID and SIB was a significant event in the history of both organizations, but there seems to be no source making such a characterization of this importance for the litigation itself. The decisions themselves are completely silent as to the impact of the litigation on the parties. BD2412  T 16:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide a reliable secondary source that explains why the announcement of AHF's collaboration with GISAID was significant in terms of real-world impact. Currently, we point to an archived version of a website used fewer times on Wikipedia than Lexology, and which simply reproduces a press release. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I find "let's change the subject" tactics to be overly cagey, and therefore distasteful. I will say, however, that Lexology is not a source at all, it is merely an aggregator of legal blogs, in this case one by lawyers at the firm Baker McKenzie, publicizing themselves by putting something out there. I am very well aware of their complete lack of press credentialing. Moreover, nothing in the Lexology piece describes how or why this outcome is actually significant. BD2412  T 17:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I had hoped that the relationship to this discussion would be clear, but it is better to make it explicit. We need to achieve WP:BALANCE. We can only achieve this if we apply equal standards throughout the article. The Lexology article, and the decision, state that GISAID were ordered to pay out $1M. (This was more than a year's budget for the Initiative at the time). That seems a relatively significant event for an organisation. As I understand it, you are not disputing the facts of the decision, but saying a secondary source should be provided saying that "this decision was a significant event for GISAID".
 * If that is indeed the standard you are applying, I am asking that you apply it equally, hence the request for such a source in the case of the AHF announcement. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Plenty of cases have multi-billion dollar awards. We can not assume that an award in the millions is "a relatively significant event for an organisation" without a source saying that, particularly since such awards are routinely amortized and often also covered by business insurance. We do not include content in Wikipedia on an "it seems to me" basis. I would note in passing that the AHF source describes the agreement as "enabling increased collaboration on genomic sequencing (GS) efforts in low- and middle-Income countries" and states that it "will foster high-level advocacy on the importance of GS to end the COVID-19 pandemic and leverage established educational programs offered by GISAID in support of the GS projects AHF is currently funding", which describes an actual impact on the work of both projects. Where is there a source describing any ruling of a court as having any impact on the outcome of GISAID's work?  BD2412  T 18:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But this is not a reliable secondary source. It is a press release from GISAID and the AHF. The media contact details are still there at the bottom, along with a link to the source. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I do not care for "let's change the subject" tactics, particularly when they are used in support of pushing objectively WP:UNDUE content into an article. The discussion in this section is about the SIB conflict, and what its historical significance was. BD2412  T 19:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is exactly the point. If you demand different standards for items that potentially reflect negatively on GISAID: "Wikipedia would require a reliable secondary source, not just to support that this was the factual outcome, but that it was an historically notable outcome", than for items that reflect positively, then you will not end up with WP:DUE weight. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to propose better sources for any point of contention in the article. You must recognize, however, that we can not include assertions the notability of which is entirely unsourced. BD2412  T 19:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having searched more extensively for WP:RS-satisfying coverage of both items raised in this discussion (SIB litigation developments and the AHF partnership), I can not find permissible sourcing for either, so I have removed both. BD2412  T 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the point of Wikipedia which is to capture things of enduring historical significance, not to record news about passing conflicts.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the consistency on those points, which is much appreciated. There seems to be a new reliable secondary source just today on this point: Science, 19 April., so I will use that source shortly to address the concerns we have discussed.
 * "GISAID withdrew the Washington, D.C., suit against SIB, but the arbitration dragged on for nearly 3 years. In 2012, GISAID lost the case and was ordered to pay SIB about $800,000. In November 2013, GISAID dissolved its nonprofit in Washington, D.C.
 * When GISAID failed to pay the debt, SIB sued in the District Court, which in 2014 ordered GISAID, because of interest, to pay about $1 million. By then, a German association named Freunde von GISAID (Friends of GISAID), which still operates the database today, had replaced the U.S. nonprofit. A source close to SIB says the institute decided to give up its attempts to get paid." Tobeortobebetter (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is still not a source that shows the significance of that aspect. I have stated numerous times, we do not need a source merely stating that this run-of-the-mill legal outcome occurred, to include it in the article we need a source showing its significance. What changed in the future history of the entities because of this, not merely because of the dispute? BD2412  T 21:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with BD2412 here. What is the obsession with adding this non-notable point to this article? Do you have any sort of affiliation or relationship with SIB?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no affiliation nor relationship with the SIB. Please be civil. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked a direct question expecting a direct answer which you provided. You have accused me of not being civil. If you feel so, please take me to ANI. If not, you need to retract your statement. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I see neither an ANI discussion or a retraction. Would appreciate a response. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have not and will not refer to the continued efforts to avoid the outcome of this dispute entering the article as an "obsession" on the part of other editors, and would be grateful for reciprocity Tobeortobebetter (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think editing behavior says otherwise but I will no longer debate your conduct with you. Will let the community decide. Do as you feel right. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @BD2412 Could you please point me to the relevant Wikipedia policy backing up your statement: I have stated numerous times, we do not need a source merely stating that this run-of-the-mill legal outcome occurred, to include it in the article we need a source showing its significance. What changed in the future history of the entities because of this, not merely because of the dispute? AncientWalrus (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have previously noted WP:UNDUE, which is precisely the reason why every Wikipedia article on a business or educational institution has not devolved into a list of litigation outcomes for the inevitable array of disputes into which virtually every entity is drawn. I would also like to note that it appears to be odd, as optics go, for an SPA account to suddenly appear after an absence to participate in a live debate, minutes after another SPA account has commented in the same discussion. At this juncture, I am not comfortable with either of you editing the text of the article. BD2412  T 22:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Few scientific organisations have their litigation outcomes covered in such a reliable source as Science's investigative reporting. I fail to see how following the sources is UNDUE.
 * Coming to a talk page when there is an active discussion is not at all odd when you are subscribed to a discussion. Your concern has already been discussed in the SPI you filed. Please stick to the topic of the discussion. I will reply on your talk page. AncientWalrus (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you took the result of the SPI as being able to come back and continue the same conduct. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking opinions
The above discussion is about whether to briefly include in the article the outcome of a legal dispute between GISAID and the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. I believe this is relevant content for the article. BD2412 believes that this inclusion would be WP:UNDUE.

I recently attempted to discuss this at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard but other editors involved declined.

I would like to request the opinions of a few uninvolved editors who have been around here recently:, , : would some of you be willing to offer your brief opinions?

A full account of the dispute is found in a recent article in Science magazine, which I'll quote below. (I am only proposing a very brief mention in the article however). There are also a number of additional legal sources available, as discussed above.

BD2412 has so far been willing to mention the dispute in the article as follows:

I would like something like the following examples which capture the outcome in some way:

or

or in a bit more detail:

BD2412 argues that any version that includes the outcome is WP:UNDUE.

Would these inclusions be WP:UNDUE in your opinion? Many thanks. -Tobeortobebetter (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that any of those other than the first one is completely accurate. We are not in a position to say in whose favor the litigation concluded, because it unquestionably cost both parties more to pursue it to the point that they did than either of them gained. There is also a legal distinction between a judgment of liability and an actual enforcement order for payment, the latter being accompanied by a legal process for something like seizure of assets or garnishment of funds (which can be accomplished internationally through various treaties). That SIB never tried to actually collect the judgment suggests at least that SIB had concerns that an attempt to do so would result in the judgment being challenged and overturned on appeal. The explanation required to accurately encapsulate this state of affairs would exceed the reasonable amount of space that the topic merits in an article. BD2412  T 14:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Having read this, I realise my pings will not have gone through (lvl. 3 heading).   as uninvolved users if some of you would be willing to give your opinion on the subsection above I'd be very grateful. (I'm going to resist the temptation for further discussion temporarily, until there are some thoughts on the WP:UNDUE concern that was raised previously.) Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would just caution that pinging specific editors to a discussion can be viewed as canvassing, and may cause a closing administrator to give less weight to the discussion. BD2412  T 03:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not support any of the proposals above, per UNDUE. This is also part of my comment previously left at the DRN discussion - "It can be very frustrating for new editors to understand why good articles will include or exclude certain things. I think BD has done a very patient job of explaining this, in this situation." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My username is mentioned asking for an opinion but that was several days ago so I don't think I could help now and in fact even if I had answered immediately I would have said basically the same because while I made some edits on GISAID these are not the type of articles I tend to focus neither the kind of problems but I wanted to clarify I didn't ignore the question I was just inactive and saw the ping only now.
 * As far as I can see I think good effort have been put from all parties so hope you can sort things out. Dabed (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wave of Single-purpose accounts
It is troubling to see this article visited and chopped up by no less than three different single-purpose accounts in the course of just a few days.


 * Leomrtns - 75% of edits in past two years are to this article
 * AncientWalrus - New account, 100% of edits related to GISAID
 * Tobeortobebetter - Relatively new account, 100% of edits related to GISAID

I am going to take what I believe is the prudent step and revert the article to the last stable version, and I strongly recommend that these new and/or fixated users (or "user", as sockpuppetry may be likely) discuss their editorial ambitions here on the Talk page first, where we obtain consensus of at least a couple of established editors before substantial modifications are agreed to be included. For example, changing a database's terms from "open" to "restricted" based on one publicly-editable website's designation is foolish at best, malicious at worst. I encourage editors with experience (500 edits to various articles would be a nice start) to step in here to discuss! - AppleBsTime (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello AppleBsTime, thank you for raising your concern on the talk page. I would appreciate if you assumed good faith and did not use loaded language like "troubling" and "chopped" up, but stuck to objective facts.
 * I would like to clarify that I am a separate editor from Leomrtns or Tobeortobebetter. I am a longtime Wikipedia editor (created my first article almost 20 years ago), but due to the topic at hand I am using a legitimate alternative account (WP:VALIDALT), since GISAID is known to retaliate against critics . The policy states:
 * "A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. "
 * My edits were made in good faith and based on reliable sources. If you have concerns about the accuracy or relevance of any of my changes, I would appreciate it if you could explain them in detail on the talk page. As a sign of demonstrating good faith, I will explain my edits in a new topic. I would politely ask you to not PULLRANK (e.g. you wrote "I have been an editor for a number of years, having made over 500 edits to hundreds of different articles, and even created a handful of new articles." above Talk:GISAID). AncientWalrus (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Echoing the reply above, I can confirm that I am a separate editor to the other accounts named here. I am also not a meatpuppet. I have already described my reasons for editing under an alias above. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the welcome I was expecting to newcomers. The accusation of sockpuppetry does not merit comment. I did not change the database definition from "open" to "restricted", re3data did. And according to GISAID's Editorial Board itself, "re3data.org and DataCite, the world’s leading provider of digital object identifiers (DOI) for research data, affirmed the designation of access to GISAID's database and data as Open Access" in 2017 (before current events expose its restrictions). The affirmation that it's a "publicly-editable website's designation" is incorrect, for this and other reasons. Furthermore, as others mentioned before here and in academic publications (shared on this talk page but actively removed from the main page), e.g. 10.1126/science.abi4496, users fear retaliation from GISAID thus limiting their criticism using real names. Leomrtns (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the welcome I was expecting to newcomers. The accusation of sockpuppetry does not merit comment. I did not change the database definition from "open" to "restricted", re3data did. And according to GISAID's Editorial Board itself, "re3data.org and DataCite, the world’s leading provider of digital object identifiers (DOI) for research data, affirmed the designation of access to GISAID's database and data as Open Access" in 2017 (before current events expose its restrictions). The affirmation that it's a "publicly-editable website's designation" is incorrect, for this and other reasons. Furthermore, as others mentioned before here and in academic publications (shared on this talk page but actively removed from the main page), e.g. 10.1126/science.abi4496, users fear retaliation from GISAID thus limiting their criticism using real names. Leomrtns (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Having reviewed the edit histories involved, I find it highly implausible that three different longtime editors would simultaneously happen to appear on the same article using "permissible" WP:SPA sockpuppet accounts or otherwise historically little-used accounts, just to ply the same criticism, with the excuse that they fear retaliation from the article subject (which is far, far down the list of prospectively retaliatory article subjects about whom criticism has been leveled in Wikipedia. This does not pass the WP:DUCK test. BD2412  T 02:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have posted a response at Sockpuppet investigations/Tobeortobebetter, which addresses these points. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the SPI investigation finding possible sockpuppetry here, the wise course of action is probably to back away from editing the GISAID article altogether. I gather from the discussion that AW and TBOTBB both personally rely on GISAID for your work, so you may be too close to it to edit with an unbiased eye. If something is worth having in the article it will be put there by an editor without such a connection to the company, and if it doesn't get put in by an unconnected editor it is often because it is not worth including. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. I am indeed sad not to have clearer evidence from the SPI. Neither the CU nor the Clerk in the case recommended stepping back from editing. They did recommend civility, good editing practices (as well as of course, not being a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet). Where I 100% agree with you is that having more entirely unconnected editors involved in this article would be excellent. (AppleBsTime, who is responsible for the most contributions to the article, uploaded six PDFs of news articles about GISAID saved more than 14 years ago, but declines to say how these came into their possession – Talk:GISAID) Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Advice doesn't have to come from a check user in order to be good advice. No one said not to edit. However, I am strongly advising that you don't as I have seen many times how this ends. There's a talk page here for a reason and would recommend you use it to make suggestions since you have a conflict as it pertains to the topic. I am confident in the editing ability of BD2412 over an SPA to ensure neutrality of this page, especially since they seem to edit in these topic areas. Also, if AppleBsTime is expressing ownership of the page or has a COI, it can be dealt with as well, but this particular thread is not about them (I see another thread listed below). So again, I advise that you back away from editing, but do as you will. Just know that advice has been given.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I hadn't appreciated that you were distinguishing between Talk and the article itself. I have contributed less than a sentence to the article so far over ~five months, and don't foresee a vastly increased rate – I hope that provides some reassurance. Thanks for advice. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I am cognizent of the competing desires in play here, and will have another look through the article with those in mind. I would note that every organization of substantial size and breadth of activity will end up having some rough edges—employees get fired, contracts with vendors or clients get disputed, litigation ensues, some of this gets reported—but we generally focus our articles on the overall picture presented by sources over the life of the entity. That is to say, where events occur that are not of enduring significance, we tend not to include extensive coverage of those even if the article reflects an overall generally positive treatment of the subject in sources. We also abide by guidelines of avoiding WP:RECENTISM, and abiding by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, by trying to give weight to recent events that is is not out of proportion to their significance to the coverage over the life of the subject. BD2412 T 04:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:AppleBsTime potentially demonstrates ownership behaviour
I am raising this point in good faith, in appreciation all editors' contributions.

Reading the talk page, I have noticed that User:AppleBsTime appears to have issues with page ownership (OWNBEHAVIOR):

Ownership behaviour 1: "The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

Ownership behaviour 2: "An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not."

Examples from the talk page (unless linked to diff)

- Recent revert of edits by 4 different authors: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&diff=1146479957&oldid=1146477364 with the message "Restore stable version prior to WP:SPA activity. Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID".

- "I strongly recommend that these new and/or fixated users (or "user", as sockpuppetry may be likely) discuss their editorial ambitions here on the Talk page first, where we obtain consensus of at least a couple of established editors before substantial modifications are agreed to be included "

- "Lastly, there is a disturbing trend here at this GISAID article of "drive-by" editors throwing bombs into the mix to try to portray the subject in a light that the reliable sources do not share."

"A response from an experienced editor -- I want to thank the Duke University IP address(es) for this opportunity to re-examine the Wikipedia article about GISAID from his/her perspective."

"A Concern -- Hello, I have been taking some of my time on Wikipedia to improve this article, quite relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic, with newer sources and a more readable intro. I am noticing multiple edits made (and re-inserted) by IP addresses appearing to have the single purpose of editing Wikipedia exclusively about GISAID, yet no other subjects. "

Furthermore there is evidence of But I'm an administrator!, with User:AppleBsTime repeatedly stating their authority:

- "I have been an editor for a number of years, having made over 500 edits to hundreds of different articles, and even created a handful of new articles."

- Consistently accusing other editors of being Single-purpose account, and using that as the main reason to revert, e.g. "Undid revision 1141758724 - revert SPA inserting primary sources" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&oldid=1142517914) AncientWalrus (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My thanks to the good-faith concerns presented by User:AncientWalrus. There is probably a dash of reality in his or her list of concerns, that a mentality of "ownership" has emerged in my interactions with other editors. I hope there is some understanding that this can happen when primarily one editor takes an interest in a topic that one admires, finds that essentially no other established, long-term editors share this interest, and that the (primarily) only other interactions seem to be with IP and "new account" editors who seem to have an agenda to criticize the topic that the established editor happens to admire. Not an excuse -- it's an explanation. I will endeavor to embrace this new opportunity, where we have one or more EXPERIENCED editors who happen to be creating new account(s) to protect their privacy and avert potential retaliation. My promise: if you endeavor to broadly consider all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that form the basis of a content culture of neutrality and representative accuracy, you'll have an ally here on the article page. I always welcome more experienced, seasoned editors who can bring fresh perspectives. I will respond elsewhere to your good (!) point-by-point suggested edits; hoping you'll allow me another 24 hours to do that -- it's been a long day of volunteer work. - AppleBsTime (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Detailed justification for edits reverted by User:AppleBsTime
@AppleBsTime reverted all the edits I (and other editors) made in the last few days with a blanket reason: "Restore stable version prior to WP:SPA activity. Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID". 

While I consider the blanket reversion of a number of carefully sourced edits back to a "stable" version not in line with PRESERVE, instead of starting an edit war by reverting the revert, I will demonstrate good faith and carefully justify each edit I would like to make. I do not accept @AppleBsTime's view to "Discuss changes FIRST at Talk:GISAID" which smells like Ownership of content to me (for a more detailed discussion of this point see Talk:GISAID above). In addition capitalization of "FIRST" is widely considered shouting and hence possible in violation of Civility.

To keep the discussion on point, I will start a new topic for each proposed edit. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Addition of relevant sourced information to Infobox
''This topic is part of a series. For the series summary see above.''

I propose the following edits to the infobox template:


 * 1) Add
 * 2) Change   from   to  . GISAID was registered legally in 2006 as a non-profit corporation in 2006 in the District of Columbia, US. See: From a memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: "Claimant: Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data, 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 400 E, Washington, DC 20001, USA hereinafter referred to as "Claimant" or "GISAID". Claimant is a non-profit corporation formed in 2006 under the laws of the District of Columbia, USA.
 * 3) Add  . Reference: GISAID: Global initiative on sharing all influenza data – from vision to reality - PMC (nih.gov)
 * 4) Add  . Reference:
 * 5) Add
 * 6) Add
 * 7) Remove   from   as education does not appear to a purpose, at least I couldn't find it supported in sources
 * 8) Make wiki link to Ron Fouchier in `key_people` (it hadn't been a link)
 * 9) Add the two GISAID board members besides Peter Bogner: German lawyers Christoph Wetzler and Jörg Paura.
 * 10) Add
 * 11) Use canonical `website` instead of `homepage`
 * 12) Remove `name` field (it gets auto pulled from the article name) and hence remove abbreviation, as it is already the name

AncientWalrus (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely in favor of point number 1, as this is how the organization has been referenced in mainstream sources since at least May 2020.
 * Point 2 should remain open for discussion, but the "memorandum opinion" is not a reliable source until it's published by an authoritative party on an official (legal/governmental) site. Jus Mundi is a site that itself warns, "You should not consider the content found on the Website as a proper legal assistance", and "Jus Mundi may allow the Users to publish on the Website", and "It must be underlined that Jus Mundi shall not review, moderate, select, check or control the Content." That's why it should not be used as a source for any "official" information on Wikipedia, just as we wouldn't use (for example) Fandom as a formal source for important information, because the content is submitted by anyone, and the publishing site doesn't stand behind it in any real editorial sense. Let's look for other sources that prove the establishment of a corporation in 2006. A Google search for "Global Initiative on Sharing" "1001 G Street" "Suite 400" returns only one document (from the unreliable Jus Mundi).
 * Point 3 has plenty of support in reliable sources.
 * Point 4 -- again, problematic due to the unique source that hasn't been corroborated elsewhere. Also, is "founding_location" an important infobox element? Seems to me that the current location info provides far more utility to the user. I'll take some time to see how often this element is used in other infoboxes of similar organizations.
 * I'd like to continue further, but I have to break away for a spell -- I'll be back to address the remaining points! Again, thank you for this more considered approach to consensus, AncientWalrus. - AppleBsTime (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @AncientWalrus, is there a reason you have seemingly abandoned my agreement with Point 1, and you have disregarded my concerns about Points 2 and 4? For someone who claims that if there is no response for a couple of days on a Talk page, then that equates to agreement, I will have to assume that you agree with all four of my Points above, since it has been well over 10 days that you've had an opportunity to respond. - AppleBsTime (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edits I made to the infobox since your blanket revert, it looks to me that I have taken all of your objections into account:
 * Point 1: A closer look reveals that I have made the change exactly as proposed. Can you specify more precisely as to what exact change you disagree with?
 * Points 2 and 4: Your concern was with the reliability of the source "Jus Mundi". Heeding your objection, I followed the advice of Banks_Irk from the pertinent Reliable Source noticeboard discussion and used official records from the "District of Columbia Corporation Registry", a reliable government source, instead of Jus Mundi as source for the formation date and location.
 * In conclusion, I have taken all of your points into account.
 * The reason I proposed the edits here was a good faith attempt to allow us to resolve potential disagreements in a more constructive way rather than edit-warring. Not because I agree with the principle of “pre-authorisation” - I don’t. There is no need for preauthorisation from you (see WP:OWN) before I can make changes in line with policy (see WP:BOLD). AncientWalrus (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Justification of removal of direct quotation
I removed a direction quotation in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GISAID&oldid=1146820840 and accidentally submitted before I could include an edit summary, so I'm posting the edit summary here:

"Removing inaccurate direct quotation. The Australian minister didn't actually say what was quoted in the article. The article used to say:

"Australia’s Minister of Health Mark Butler commented on 'frameworks that have been so important globally during the pandemic, such as the GISAID Initiative'."

However, the actual quotation from the government source is: "The meeting will also discuss ways to build on some of the frameworks that have been so important globally during the pandemic. The Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID initiative) and the Access to COVID Tools Accelerator proved invaluable in sharing data and driving the development and rollout of COVID‑19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines."

Note, there is no "such as the GISAID initiative" in the original quote. Direct quotes need to be absolutely accurate.

Also, inclusion of this quote may be against WP:NPOV as it is a primary source cherry picked for praising GISAID. If this was to be included, it should be in a section "Praise" and not in "History" - history should definitely be neutral. AncientWalrus (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Samples from Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market
Recent coverage from The Atlantic, Nature, and The Hindu about data posted and removed from GISAID from samples taken from the Wuhan Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market. GISAID revoked account credentials from some scientists who downloaded the data. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @ScienceFlyer, as an established Wikipedia editor with a clearly open mind it would be incredibly useful to have your input on this page, and the discussions above. This page has been dominated by a user who appears to have a close connection to the subject matter, and a number of other recent editors are reluctant to edit under our standard handles for fear of retaliation. If you have time to read through some of the recent discussions above and to give your views that would be very helpful for breaking deadlock. It appears that @Leomrtns has recently added some useful material that touches on the revocation that you mention. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph about this topic here. Feel free to improve, I have no attachment to the exact words. This is just a starter. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Disputed claim of GISAID being first to share SARS-CoV-2 sequences
Earlier today, I removed the following paragraph from the lede:
 * On January 10, 2020, the first whole-genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 were made available on GISAID, which enabled global responses to the pandemic, including the development of the first vaccines and diagnostic tests to detect SARS-CoV-2.

with the following edit summary:
 * Remove incorrect claim that the first SARS-CoV-2 sequences was published via GISAID. It was not. It appeared first on virological.org (11th of January) according to e.g. this reputable Science article from the same day: https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak - edit summary by @AncientWalrus (me)

The reason I felt confident removing the sentence was that neither did the source appear reliable ("BioSpectrum - Asia Edition" (a trade journal that describes itself as "BioSpectrum is an integrated B2B media platform for the healthcare and bioscience industry in the Asia Pacific region.") not was the claim justified in the source, all it said was: "Since the first SARS-CoV-2 viral genomes were shared via GISAID on 10 January 2020, ..." - which could have well been part of a press release provided to the publication. In fact the whole quoted article appears to be a press release.

That by itself was a strong reason to question the inclusion in the lede. However, on top of these issues, I found a far more reputable source (Science (journal) insider) arguing the case convincingly that the first SARS-CoV-2 sequence was published via virological.org - in fact GISAID was not even mentioned once: https://www.science.org/content/article/chinese-researchers-reveal-draft-genome-virus-implicated-wuhan-pneumonia-outbreak

A few hours later, editor @AppleBsTime (who shows evidence of WP:Ownership of this article discussed in detail here), reverted my edit (removing the paragraph) and thereby including the paragraph again with the following edit summary:
 * Contentious editor attempting to unilaterally revise historical record. Don't replace without extensive Talk page discussion. - edit summary by @AppleBsTime

Now, just a few hours ago, the topic of who published the first SARS-CoV-2 sequence has surprisingly, and coincidentally, received new in-depth coverage by Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/dispute-simmers-over-who-first-shared-sars-cov-2-s-genome

Anyone who wants to discuss this topic should read this article. It makes clear how dubious and weakly supported GISAID's claim of being the first to publish is. While there are limited, seemingly independent, sources repeating GISAID's claim, it is clear that GISAID is pressuring third parties to support its claim, e.g from this article:
 * "GISAID officials kept asking the authors to remove the offending virological.org reference even after publication, Andersen says. “They’re basically asking you to participate in their revisionist history,” he says. “I’m not willing to do that.”

I hope we can reach consensus on the removal of the claim in the next few days.

Since the topic is of current interest and the evidence disputing the claim as included in the article is strong, I will add the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed_inline template linking here. AncientWalrus (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I will remove the disputed sentences in 2 days unless there are objections discussed here. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. Good thing I have visited the page to undo your agenda-driven behavior. - AppleBsTime (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by That's not how this works. Please address the content questions at hand instead of resorting to WP:ASPERSIONS arguments. Also, I saw that you had already been called out above for WP:OWN behaviour and had pledged to do better, please stick to those good intentions.
 * Per WP:NPOV, given that the truthfulness of GISAID's primacy claims has been disputed by reputable experts as reported in a reliable source, we must not report them in Wikipedia voice (as the version that you tried to restore does.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Content arguments
This Talk page section should be used to discuss the content of this Wikipedia article, in light of editorial revisions that have been made in the Spring of 2023. The discussion should remain free from personal attacks or aspersions. Simply let the evidence, policies, and guidelines persuade our Wikipedia community, and we will hopefully end up with a more accurate and proportionally representative article about GISAID. - AppleBsTime (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Primacy of SARS-CoV-2 sequences (January 2020)
There is a dispute about who was first to isolate and share the genomic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in January 2020. Generally, the media and the scientific community have offered two main histories of original events.

There is a version that places GISAID at the forefront of receiving complete sequences from the China CDC (George Gao) in the early hours of January 10, 2020.
 * SOURCES:
 * "Since the first SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence was uploaded to the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) platform on January 10, 2020"
 * "The development of BNT162b2 was initiated on January 10, 2020, when the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence was released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and disseminated globally by the GISAID (Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data) initiative."
 * "On 10 January, only a week later, three distinct viral sequences were posted to GISAID where they were openly accessible to any GISAID user anywhere in the world."
 * Letter from GISAID to Science.org "The first genomes of the emerging coronavirus were released through GISAID on January 10, 2020 at 0:41 UTC and 0:44 UTC."
 * Screen grab from 'Race for the Vaccine', CNN Films, Director Catherine Gale, showing George Gao saying, "Then on the morning of the January 10th we published the sequence for the whole world to see." (presumes this publication was via GISAID)

There is another version that places Virological message board at the forefront of receiving a draft sequence from Yong-Zhen Zhang (with Eddie Holmes) on either January 10 or 11, 2020.
 * SOURCES:
 * "10th January 2020 ... The sequence has also been deposited on GenBank (accession MN908947 34.3k) and will be released as soon as possible. ...created Jan 10, 2020 8:05 pm ...post last edited on Jan 27, 2022 3:45 pm"
 * "On the morning of Jan. 11, he was on the runway at Shanghai Hongqiao Airport when he received a phone call from a colleague, Professor Edward Holmes at the University of Sydney. A few minutes later, Zhang was strapped in for takeoff and still on the phone—then Holmes asked permission to release the genome publicly."
 * "He and a Chinese colleague posted a genome sequence of the new coronavirus in mid-January 2020"
 * "Chinese researchers reveal draft genome... 11 JAN 2020"
 * "...on January 12, a day after Professor Zhang Yongzhen’s team published the genome sequence on open platforms."

Additionally, it may be said that there is a third history of events, placing GenBank at the forefront of receiving a sequence from Yong-Zhen Zhang on January 5, 2020, but that neither the media nor the scientific community have brought wide attention to this version of events -- perhaps because this sequence appears not to have been released more widely until January 12, 2020, then was replaced on January 14, then replaced again on January 17, ultimately settling on a version dated March 18, 2000.
 * SOURCES:
 * Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus isolate Wuhan-Hu-1, complete genome; GenBank: MN908947.1
 * "the SARS-CoV-2 sample collected on January 5, 2020"
 * "On January 5, 2020, the complete genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was first released on GenBank (access number: NC_045512.2) by Zhang’s group at Fudan University."
 * "10th January 2020 ... The sequence has also been deposited on GenBank (accession MN908947 34.3k) and will be released as soon as possible. ...created Jan 10, 2020 8:05 pm ...post last edited on Jan 27, 2022 3:45 pm"
 * "Although the GenBank sequence (GenBank: MN908947) was the first of SARS-CoV-2 available, it was subsequently corrected to ensure its accuracy."

- AppleBsTime (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC), and AppleBsTime (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To summarize above, suppose we are looking for who first released an accurate SARS-CoV-2 sequence, and when. In favor of January 10th and GISAID, there are clear statements published in The New England Journal of Medicine and Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, along with timestamps provided by GISAID, and a verbal attestation by George F. Gao as documented by CNN Films that confirms the "morning" of January 10th. These are all considered reliable and secondary sources by Wikipedia standards.
 * Then we have the story of January 10th and 11th and Virological. We have a primary source (Virological itself) that on January 10th says a sequence was deposited on GenBank, but it had not yet been "released". This piece of evidence is somewhat suspect because it's a message board, and this particular message was last edited in January 2022 (two full years after the original post). We then have the excellent source of Time (magazine), which credits Eddie Holmes for convincing Zhang to release his genome -- on January 11th. We also have Science (journal) corroborating January 11th. We have a story in South China Morning Post confirming January 11th. And The New York Times is a little loose with their timing, of "mid-January". So, in only one possible source in this set could we say that anything happened with the Virological sequence on January 10th, but that would be a "deposit" without "release".
 * Finally, we have a GenBank claim to primacy as having received a sequence on January 5th(!), but that it's equally clear that this sequence was not released until January 12th, and then needed to be replaced at least two times. (Per Wikipedia, numerous analyses of GenBank "have identified erroneous sequences" and "incorrect species assignments", so it's likely that Zhang's virus sequence had errors in it that prevented its immediate use in vaccine development, for example.)
 * Rational people can look at the three possibilities above and conclude that the safest comment to make about the situation, within Wikipedia sourcing policy, is something along the lines of:
 * "According to GISAID and numerous scientific articles and the then-director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on the morning of January 10, 2020, GISAID was first to release genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, which spawned the development of vaccines like BNT162b2. Another draft sequence had been uploaded to GenBank on January 5 by another Chinese scientist, and it was released on a message board January 11 by an Australian scientist, and then January 12 by GenBank."
 * I'll assume that other editors agree with this interpretation, unless you have other opposing comments. - AppleBsTime (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose your proposed edit.
 * First, I would like you to stick to WP:SEETALK and reply to the existing topic rather than creating your own. I'd like you to move this topic up. I don't see the need for the parent-topic "Content arguments".
 * Second, I'd like to ask you to be less WP:VERBOSE.
 * Third, I don't see a clear argument why the current text, which is WP:NPOV and cites a reliable secondary source that engages with the topic in depth: "Some of the earliest SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences were released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and shared through GISAID in mid January 2020.", should be replaced by what resembles WP:OR based on WP:Primary sources that are in addition not WP:Independent sources (your proposed edit doesn't list in-line sources so it's hard to judge on its own merit without the text wall).
 * Regarding potential compromise, I could imagine a paragraph discussing the dispute. The most in-depth and reliable source cited already could be used to expand.
 * By the way, because you wrote "Per Wikipedia" I'd like to remind you that WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. AncientWalrus (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I also oppose this edit. Vaxxers by Sarah Gilbert, and Moonshot: Inside Pfizer's Nine-Month Race to Make the Impossible Possible by Albert Pourla both point to vaccine-developers starting to work with the SARS-CoV-2 genome on the 11th rather than the 10th, while The Messenger: Moderna, the Vaccine, and the Business Gamble That Changed the World by Peter Loftus specifically identifies virological.org as the first place the sequence was posted. (I am not proposing any of these sources for this article: if at all, they would be better suited to an article about Virological.) Tobeortobebetter (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusing source of Bogner-Kloos-BMELV thumbnail
The caption of the thumbnail where Peter Bogner shakes a German gov't rep's hand states in the caption: Source: BMELV (Berlin, April 2010) This is at variance with the picture's wikimedia metadata, which states that the author is Joo_Chuan and that the source is "Own work". The only other upload by Joo Chuan is a group picture of a GISAID workshop in Paris in 2015. This suggests that Joo Chuan is affiliated with GISAID - not with the German government. So either the metadata on wikimedia is wrong for the Bogner-Kloos picture, or the caption here is wrong.

The picture was added in this diff by IP 109.43.2.178 on 15:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC) - just 75 minutes after the picture was uploaded by Joo Chuan on wikimedia (13:42, 2 January 2017 UTC). The IP user made 4 significant edits to GISAID at that time.

How shall we clean this contradiction up? AncientWalrus (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To begin on a tangent -- wouldn't it be nice to get these References contained in the right place on the Talk page? I understand that one can "add or  after your comment", if they contain footnotes.


 * In response to the notion that "This suggests that Joo Chuan is affiliated with GISAID - not with the German government", I don't see why a standard Wikipedian needs to play "investigator" about with whom a single-purpose photographer is affiliated. (I've been rightly cautioned not to probe into the affiliations and motivations of certain single-purpose editors, so I think that advice applies here, too, doesn't it?) The user identified as being "Joo Chuan / BMELV", where that acronym may represent the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Germany), which oversees technical hosting arrangements for GISAID. It doesn't seem unusual at all that a government worker might take a photo at one or two meetings related to the public-private partnership project that his department oversees. There is no contradiction to clean up. - AppleBsTime (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion - I've implemented it.
 * A few things suggest that the upload and addition was done by someone affiliated with GISAID:
 * GISAID employee @Cherylbennett created the GISAID article
 * If it was government work, this would have been specified by Joo Chuan when uploading, not by the IP editor who added the thumbnail to the article and was the first to mention the gov't as source.
 * That IP address seems unlikely to be German gov't, given it that also added content totally unrelated to the German ministry involvement: diff.
 * So overall, I think the resolution is to remove the unsourced attribution to the ministry, the claim is not backed up by the uploader nor by source.
 * By the way, per | government website the ministry no longer curates nor hosts the database, at least since 2021. AncientWalrus (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Overall, I think the resolution is to not play "Columbo" about an IP account last active in 2017, and certainly not to play God about attribution of image claims on Wikipedia. There are people on Commons who deal with that, as you should know, since you are an experienced account. - AppleBsTime (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This topic is about an unsupported statement in this article, not about request for deletion on wikimedia. I have removed the statement as there seems to be consensus that there is no evidence that the picture was created by the ministry. In addition, it is unusual that the source is stated in the caption as the image is already linked and hence extra attribution in the caption is not necessary. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed there is another Wikimedia account that the only thing it ever did was upload three images where Bogner is present, the one image of these I looked up was inserted in Wikipedia the same day it was uploaded but just from an IP address as in the other case, I believe this is not new to AncientWalrus as he edited the caption to that image and I respect both opinions given here so only comment this information in case some other person were to read this thread for the sake of completeness. Dabed (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we use Navbox Template:Bioinformatics?
I've come across a potentially relevant navbox for this article: Template:Bioinformatics

GISAID is a specialized genome database and hence fits this topic. However before adding it, I would like to see what others' opinion is on including it.

I added a link to GISAID in the template so the requirement of bidirectionality is satisfied. AncientWalrus (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Reference supported only by a doctored copy of a source
Some time ago, AppleBsTime added the citation to this sentence (the sentence was originally introduced by @Cherylbennett, a GISAID employee):
 * In January 2006, Bogner met with US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and was told about the US government's preparedness concept on dealing with the potential of a flu pandemic.

However the cited source (bypass paywall) does not refer to the event described at all, and contains a less exciting origin involving Bogner reading about the issue. The GISAID website contains what purports to be copy of the WSJ article, however this version contains several alterations from the original (recently discussed in Science) including the introduction of the reference to this meeting in Davos. (Other alterations include an upgraded description of Bogner from "publicist" to "strategic planner", and further changes complimentary to Bogner.)

It is alarming that this article appears to have been altered by GISAID, and that this alteration has been propagated to Wikipedia and attributed to the original source.

I would appreciate an explanation from @AppleBsTime.

Tobeortobebetter (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the alteration was made by GISAID, AppleBsTime would only be aware of that if they are connected to GISAID correct? Is that an accusation being made here? Outside of that, do we know if it was changed by GISAID or if maybe it was a correction by the NYT made after GISAID posted to its website? Just want to make sure this isn't some coincidence as we need to AGF until we know. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we don't need to know. If we're citing the WSJ article, then we should go by the WSJ article's content, and not by a version hosted at GISAID (no matter who's responsible for the differences). MarioGom (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you describe the specific change you would like to see for that paragraph? MarioGom (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input here. My initial suggestion would be simply to cut this unsupported sentence, and the immediately following sentence. Tobeortobebetter (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the lines. Setting aside the question of AGF, we can not have a WP:BLP claim in the article that is not supported by the source cited., there are multiple imaginable explanations of why the text might be different—it could indeed be an updated version, or from an editition in a different country, or from the morning paper rather than the evening paper—but all of this is mere speculation, and the only version of the direct publication that we have before us does not make this very specific claim. BD2412  T 14:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. We use the reference from the original source. My comments are more towards editing behavior. I find it hard to believe that a professional organization somehow doctored a source then made it public while knowing anyone can find the original in an archive on WSJ. Doesn't make sense, especially when that organization archives records and knows that records can be found in WSJ archives. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the set of changes between the WSJ article and the GISAID copy for reference:
 * Removal of "Peter Bogner’s skiing techniques" from Bogner’s résumé
 * “several television ventures” becomes “numerous international television ventures”
 * Change from “editing” to “producing”
 * "a career in broadcasting at Time Warner Inc" is added. (Reporting from Science suggests only brief work at Time Warner)
 * Removal of the word “self-appointed” from a description of Bogner as a “self-appointed champion”
 * Change of origin story for GISAID from reading about bird flu in an article, to a meeting at Davos with the US Secretary of Homeland Security
 * “Some health experts are skeptical of Mr.Bogner’s motives, but others think [he’s a breath of fresh air]” changes to “Some health experts were initially skeptical, but agreed [he’s a breath of fresh air]”
 * Removal of Bogner describing himself as a "layperson" and saying about himself “You just have to understand you’re never an expert in the field”
 * Addition of an anecdote about Herbie Hancock and Napster.
 * Removal of paragraphs about China, Russia, still not sharing data.
 * Removal of quote that the initiative is “not an attack on the WHO”
 * “a publicist [like Bogner]” becomes “a strategic planner like Bogner”
 * Tobeortobebetter (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Are these "changes" or differences? Until we know, I would say to use the latter. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They appear to be mostly embellishments, and are all difficult if not impossible to corroborate. To avoid any conflict, why not link to the current online version of the published WSJ story as the primaru ref? That is certainly a much more defensible position than trying to parse the journalistic practices of the WSJ and interpret differences in an altered version of the story hosted on the website of the organization this man founded?
 * This latter bit should raise some eyebrows and even assuming AGF I am not sure why this is even a matter of debate. 174.208.229.49 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "latter should raise some eyebrows." For the rest, no one is making a case that the link on the GISAID website should be used. It is about the accusation that an organization willfully altered a reference for why reasoning about different prints was brought up in the first place. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since an explanation was requested of me, I am happy to provide it. I think I made the error of assuming that what was on the GISAID "In The News" site (since it linked to a WSJ article) was consistent with what was published in the Wall Street Journal online. It wasn't consistent, so it makes perfect sense to source to the original content. All that being said, I was able to obtain a scan of the Wall Street Journal Asia edition from August 31, 2006, and that edition had different content (even a different headline) than the US web version. For example, the anecdote about Herbie Hancock is right there in the middle of the Asia edition of the newspaper. Again, apologies for any unrest that my edit may have caused. I'll definitely be more careful about direct vs. inferential copies/reprints of sources in my journeys across Wikipedia articles henceforth. - AppleBsTime (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a more plausible explanation than a professional organization doctoring a reference. With that aside, I feel the need to ask if you are in any way connected to GISAID or any other organization that would have an interest in editing this page one way or another. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like a more plausible explanation than a professional organization doctoring a reference. With that aside, I feel the need to ask if you are in any way connected to GISAID or any other organization that would have an interest in editing this page one way or another. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Update Scientific Advisory Council sentence (composition has recently changed)
GISAID's website listing members of its Scientific Advisory Council has changed recently: https://gisaid.org/about-us/governance/

Now the following is no longer entirely correct (I haven't checked when it ceased to be correct or if it ever was correct but that doesn't matter):

In particular "made up of directors of leading public health laboratories including all six WHO Collaborating Centres for Influenza" is not correct at the time of writing. Also, there are no "directors of animal health reference laboratories for research on avian influenza for the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" listed.

I therefore propose to replace with the following:


 * Scientific advice is provided by GISAID's Scientific Advisory Council comprising directors of leading public health laboratories including WHO Collaborating Centres for Influenza.

The governance structure has become quite a bit more complicated recently, with an additional "Nomination Committee". Whether that's worth mentioning or not is for another topic, though. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I would think: "Scientific advice for the initiative is provided by GISAID's Scientific Advisory Council, including directors of leading public health laboratories including five WHO Collaborating Centres for Influenza". If we don't say that scientific advice for the initiative is provided, then it may sound like GISAID's council is a vehicle for providing scientific advice to others. BD2412  T 21:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would drop the "five" because it isn't correct (if you check the affiliations there are 3 directors of "WHO Collaborating Centres for Influenza", 1 director of "WHO Collaborating Centres for Arboviruses" [Arbovirus not Influenza] and 1 "WHO National Influenza Center" [national not regional]). One could list the exact composition but I would rather not given that it is self-published and this detailed listing is of questionable relevance. It is also likely to change and hence become outdated. Without "five" it is correct and will be more robust to changes in board composition.
 * Adding "for the initiative" is fine with me, although I would probably use "organization" in place of "initiative" (a self-description that does not fit the reality of a formal organization existing for >15 year).
 * How about: "Scientific advice to the organization is provided by its Scientific Advisory Council, comprising directors of leading public health laboratories such as WHO Collaborating Centres for Influenza." AncientWalrus (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that there is something of an editorial convention on Wikipedia against using the word "comprising" at all. I personally don't care one way or the other about it, but if the word is used outside of a direct quote, sooner or later someone is going to come along and change it to a synonymous phrase. I have changed the text accordingly. BD2412  T 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wasn't aware of that convention. AncientWalrus (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally only remember it myself when I use the word in an article I watch, and someone comes along and changes it. BD2412  T 14:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

COI tag
Using WP:WWT it is apparent that extensive parts of this article have not been changed since first added by despite having contemporary references dotted through the text. I'm also investigating credible accusations that have been made about another major contributor to the article. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about what would be needed to effectively clear the article of COI. Like a broken clock being right twice a day, even a COI editor can add information that is accurate and correctly sourced. I don't think the inquiry is necessarily "has the text been changed", but "has the text been independently vetted" for neutrality and verification of claims in the sources provided. Given the number of editors in the interim, I would be curious to see specifically what language added by Cherylbennett remains in the article, and whether the remaining language continues to present POV or verification problems. BD2412  T 05:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As of Cherylbennett's last edit, the text content of the article was:

The Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data (GISAID) was brought to life on August 24, 2006 by a group of leading medical researchers from around the world, after announcing the formation of this international coalition for greater transparency, to improve the sharing of influenza data. This initiative was announced in a letter published in the journal Nature. Over 70 leading scientists have signed this letter including seven Nobel laureates.

GISAID is providing a platform including the operation of a publicly accessible database that is free of charge. Its users are requested to register and agree that they share their own data, credit the use of others' data, analyze findings jointly and publish results collaboratively, and maintain common access to technology derived from the data so that it can be used not only for research but for development of products such as diagnostics and vaccines.

The GISAID platform spans national borders and scientific disciplines, with leaders in the fields of veterinary medicine, human medicine, bioinformatics, epidemiology and intellectual property. This cross-disciplinary effort provides new means to communicate and share information, as each discipline has distinct interests but also shares similar goals. The Initiative came together to work around restrictions, which have previously prevented specifically the sharing of information on avian influenza (a.k.a. bird flu), with the hope that more shared information will help researchers understand how viruses spread, evolve, and potentially become pandemic.


 * Goals

The Initiative has earned widespread international support around the goal of better understanding the spread and evolution of the influenza virus, its transmissibility and pathogenicity. With this goal in mind, the Initiative determined that scientists from different fields of expertise needed full access to comprehensive genetic sequencing, clinical and epidemiological data, as well as analysis from both human and animal isolates in order to better understand the virus and its potential mutation to a pandemic pathogen. The Initiative aims to provide developing countries with better access to scientific research and the development of potential pandemic flu vaccines to lessen its dependence on foreign aid. It is already hailed as a model for future initiatives.

GISAID will automatically deposit genomic sequences it collected, in publicly funded databases such as the INSDC, IVDB and LANL as soon as possible after analysis and validation, with a maximum delay of six months.


 * History

The Foundation was initially funded by Peter Bogner - a strategic advisor and international broadcasting executive - who serves as its founder and principal facilitator. Bogner has been directing the build-up of this platform by bringing together the world's leading scientists and stakeholders who are actively committed to accelerating understanding of this potential human pandemic by rapidly sharing scientific data and results.

On January 28, 2006 Bogner met with US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and was told about the US Government's preparedness concept on dealing with the potential of a flu pandemic. Concerns about a pandemic scenario heightened. A subsequent public outcry by Italian veterinary researcher Ilaria Capua of the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie outside of Venice, Italy, complaining about the World Health Organization's sharing practices, eventually led to a dialogue with Bogner and convinced researchers around the world to unite for the creation of GISAID.

Since the inception of the Initiative, Bogner announced his plans to transition out of a day-to-day role as the Chief Executive of The Bogner Organization, to allow him to devote more time to working with the GISAID Foundation as its director.

On November 20, 2006, the Initiative received the endorsement of both The Royal Society and The Academy of Medical Sciences.

On December 19, 2006, GISAID signed a cooperation agreement with the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, which leads a Swiss consortium to manage the GISAID Database on influenza virus strains. Under this agreement, the Lausanne based biotech company SmartGene is to provide services for the secure storage and analysis of genetic, epidemiological and clinical data.


 * Governance

The Foundation is governed by its Board of Trustees. The Members of the Board and the Chairman are elected.

GISAID's Scientific Advisory Board is composed of scientists who are leaders in their respective fields of study and who are as representative as possible of the geographic, ethnic and cultural diversity of the global scientific community. The Scientific Advisory Board is to provide guidance, leadership and advise on appropriate policies governing publication, public communication, access to, and dissemination of, data concerning influenza viruses, including those with pandemic or epidemic potential and to recommend appropriate policies for coordinated international oversight. Its members are elected by the members of the scientific experts groups of GISAID.

There were no citations in this version. BD2412 T 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you and Smartse did enough cleanup up to negate any of the potential COI concerns from that user. I think we simply need to review based on recent sourcing to ensure NPOV. As far as the tag, I don't see a need for it other than the note already placed above on the talk page here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Give me about 24 hours, and I will go through the article one more time and make sure that there is no NPOV content originating from either of the suspected COI editors. This will also give me the opportunity to expand on some of the useful material in the recently-added Telegraph and Vanity Fair sources, both of which cover a lot of ground. BD2412  T 19:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed through these but will read more in-depth later today. Very interesting so far. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant to get back to this a lot sooner, obviously, but I will aim to finish cleaning up any remaining possible COI by the end of today. Looking at it now. BD2412  T 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the tag. If there are specific instances of text in the article that are still of concern, they can be raised and discussed here. Cheers! BD2412  T 23:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. This completely dropped off my radar. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Telegraph article
SmartSE has pointed out at Talk:Peter Bogner (businessman) this Telegraph article, which makes a common-sense observation that there are commercial forces and other power players in the field for whom the existence of GISAID is an obstacle to potentially lucrative privatization, or at least to other extensions of control over the field. The article also makes the equally sensible observation that GISAID, by the very nature of its position, will inevitably find itself at the center of disputes between groups of scientists, which will be pitched to leave one side disappointed, and inclined to blame GISAID itself for the outcome. BD2412 T 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

China-CDC weekly publication in external link section
@BD2412 added the following non-independent publication in a non-reliable source (Chinese Communist Party affiliated periodical) to external links: Shruti Khare, et al., GISAID's Role in Pandemic Response, China CDC Weekly (2021 Dec 3); 3(49): 1049–1051, doi: 10.46234/ccdcw2021.255. I reverted with summary This article is not independent (many authors are GISAID affiliated) nor reliable as it was published in a periodical directly controlled by the Communist Party of China, an organization that has a reputation of unreliability to say the least. . Rather than addressing my concerns, BD2412 reinstated their original edit and accused me of being an involved editor without providing evidence. On my talk page, BD2412 argued that Please note that Wikipedia:External links specifically permits the inclusion as external links of sources that are impermissible to use in the body of the article—for example, the official website of the subject of the article, which is obviously not independent.. This is not a sufficient argument for inclusion. BD2412 needs to explain why this article 'should' be linked, not just why it's OK that the article is neither reliable nor independent.

As the article added is written by the subject (or affiliates thereof) and the article is already linked to from the official link (see first article mentioned under "1. Introduction" here: https://gisaid.org/publish/), including the link is against WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. While the WP:ONUS is on BD2412 to justify the inclusion of the extra link, in the interest of avoiding an edit war, I will not revert now but invite BD2412's response here. AncientWalrus (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That you are an involved editor is well-established based on your own claims of specifically having a relationship with the article subject that requires you to edit from a sockpuppet account. Perhaps rather than saying "in the interest of avoiding an edit war" you should say "in the interest of avoiding any consequences for COI sockpuppet editing". In any case, you provide no evidence that the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention is itself known to be an unreliable source for this publication. Readers who think it is can see for themselves that the source is "China CDC Weekly". I added this link because I came across it while searching for sources with which to provide additional clarification for the article, and the linked content provides interesting information. I note that the accuracy of the information has not been challenged here. BD2412  T 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please strike the word "sockpuppet" when referring to me unless you have evidence that backs this up. Per WP:SOCK, sockpuppetry refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. I am not misusing multiple accounts. As explained on my user page, while I have edited under another account in the past, there has been no misuse of multiple accounts. This one is a clean start to preserve privacy. By the way, I think this discussion belongs on user talk pages or another appropriate forum not here on the article talk page.
 * Now to get back on content discussion. Whether the journal is reliable or not is not the most important point here. It would help if you addressed the main point of my argument: you need to prove ONUS and also justify why a link to this non-independent article that is already linked to from the official link doesn't fall under WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Don't ask me to discuss on talk and then ignore my valid points. AncientWalrus (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you would identify any other Wikipedia account(s) under which you have edited, then I could give credence to the assertion that "there has been no misuse of multiple accounts". However, even using a new "clean start" account does not permit editing in the article space where there is an actual conflict, which can be borne from either a positive or negative personal relationship with the subject of the article. As for the linked content, it is not a subpage of the subject's official account, nor is it part of any "official" website of the subject. I note again that the accuracy of the information has not been challenged here. BD2412  T 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ARBCOM is and was aware of the previous account when you brought me to SPI. Please feel free to bring up your concerns at the appropriate venue. This page is for content discussion.
 * I have deferred discussion of accuracy/reliability to save us time because at this point it is still entirely unclear why the article should be linked to at all. I don't see it covered by any point under WP:ELYES. Do you? AncientWalrus (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EL, "Links to be considered ... Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I note for the third time that the accuracy of the information has not been challenged here, and question why there would be an objection to linking to accurate information. I further note that while this was first published by China CDC, this link goes to the United States National Library of Medicine. BD2412  T 19:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a "maybe" criterion from WP:ELMAYBE and needs to be read in conjunction with the rest of the guideline which states that external links should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Regarding your point that the link points to US NLM, you appear to have missed the disclaimer at the top: As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health..
 * Here are a few points made in the article that may not be accurate or biased:
 * - "Since the first whole-genome sequences were made available by China CDC through GISAID on January 10, 2020": This is a questionable statement that has been disputed by reliable sources. See the section above on this talk page
 * - "GISAID’s publicly accessible data sharing platform" There are doubts regarding how publicly accessible the platform is. It is registration gated and researchers often do not get access, see e.g.
 * - "This high-quality, curated initial set of genomes enabled the rapid development of diagnostic and prophylactic measures against SARS-CoV-2 including the first diagnostic tests (5) and the first vaccines (6) to combat COVID-19." As the first genome was shared on virological and not via GISAID (see point about first genome above), it is hard to see how this statement is accurate.
 * The paper is a citation hook that is required to be cited by those who use sequences shared via GISAID in publications. I don't see how it adds a unique perspective to the article that isn't already reflected in existing sources. On the other hand, there's the downside of linking to a non-independent article with information of questionable reliability and making potentially biased claims. It is also worth noting that the article does not appear to be peer-reviewed.
 * While I disagree with the inclusion based on the reasons stated above, I see that it's not the most important point and am happy to keep it as is for now. I would be interested in independent views, however, should someone come across this topic in the future. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the NLM disclaimer. I am also aware that NLM individually approves publishers for republication of content in their database, and does not itself republish generators of hoax content. As this has been such a concern to you, and since people seriously researching GISAID will likely find it through the same route that I did, I will remove it pending a determination of consensus. BD2412  T 22:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)