User talk:Cathy88

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! David Ruben Talk 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Contibuting for others
Question Hi David,

Thanks for your note to me. I need some help when you have some time. I have done a lot of reading about the Wiki rules and then added some content only to have it removed entirely. I am a writer/editor by trade, but find the Wiki rules and how-to's very confusing.

I do part time contract work for a well-known doctor and nutrition expert, and he has asked me to look into Wiki and add some information about nutrition to certain pages about diseases that could be helped by an improved diet, such as type two diabetes (which is where I had added some information). His son is in medical school and says that all students use Wiki, so it's important that in the treatment or diet sections that an array of approaches is represented, including a healthy/plant-based diet.

I see that he has been quoted in another Wiki area so I used this as a guide to make sure I wasn't violating any rules. (BTW, how do I know by who/why my information was taken down?) I don't know what I am doing wrong. How do I do this without violating the rules, and what are the rules about mentioning names of doctors (there are many who have similar viewpoints as his)?

Thanks much, Cathy Cathy88 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (above transcribed from my talk page to help clarify subsequent responses David Ruben Talk 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the points you raised on my talk page. I'll try and address the various points you raised (feel free to ask any follow questions you may have):


 * I do part time contract work for a well-known doctor and nutrition expert, and he has asked me to look into Wiki and add some information about nutrition to certain pages about diseases that could be helped by an improved diet, such as type two diabetes (which is where I had added some information).

Of course anyone is allowed to contribute to wikipedia, but as noted on the edit page, any writing is liable "to be edited mercilessly" and generally it is poorly viewed to edit articles about a topic which one is personally involved in (either as the subject/company/website of the article or involved with them). The behavioural guideline of importance here is Conflict of interest, which includes:
 * ''If you fit either of these descriptions:
 * ''you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
 * ''you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;
 * ''then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased).

I appreciate your candor re stating your "contract work" relationship, but I think point (1) would apply. I recall not so long ago someone quite openely explored the possibility of creating a commercial company to edit articles on behalf of clients, the official position (or at least that of Jimbo Wales) was to block such activity. Also if you look back on some past issues of Wikipedia Signpost (a non-official community-written and community-edited newspaper) you'll see how various candidates for US-elections have had their fingers burnt editing, or having their staff edit, articles about themeselves or their opponents.


 * How do I do this without violating the rules ?

In such cases it is genrally better to suggest corrections or extra material/links on an article's talk page and then allow another editor to decide what, if anything, to use to update the article. The other editor not having a COI is more likely to be seen to edit the article under NPOV.


 * His son is in medical school and says that all students use Wiki, so it's important that in the treatment or diet sections that an array of approaches is represented, including a healthy/plant-based diet.

Aside from fact that in UK diet and nutrition has been historically poorly covered in Medical School training, clearly WP:NPOV applies for all major and significant minor viewpoints. This does not though allow for what is generally perceived to be trivial minority views, nor that significant minority views should have equal weight as that majority viewpoint (see WP:NPOV). As an encyclopedia, wikipedia does not seek to give the absolute "truth", or correct widespread misconceptions (i.e. does not follow Scientific Point Of View, but rather what can be WP:Cited from WP:Reliable sources following WP:NPOV guidelines). (I'll expand on the differences this means, if you wish).

Finally note the caveat given as the bottom link of Disclaimers and in particular the Medical disclaimer that "Wikipedia does not give medical advice" and "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine."


 * BTW, how do I know by who/why my information was taken down?

For all articles, click on the "history" tab at the top of a page, to see who has edited an article. Hopefully there will be some explanation for the edit in the provided "Edit summary" (but not always).


 * I don't know what I am doing wrong. How do I do this without violating the rules, and what are the rules about mentioning names of doctors (there are many who have similar viewpoints as his)?

If others seem to disagree with your edits and revert, generally best to raise a discussion thread at the bottom of the article's talk page to discuss the edits in question and see what sort of compromise or consensus can be reached (again see suggestions at WP:COI). As for mentioning work of a doctor, as for anything else generally best not to report their own words or website directly, but cite from a reliable third party source. Hence I could make a claim of X about condition Y on my website, but this would not be a reliable source (as in the meaning of the WP:RS guideline). However if this was published in an independant, peer-revieweed journal, or my views commented upon in such a journal (or by national media), then these secondary sources may be used. Note secondary sources are generally prefered in wikipedia (see WP:MOS), although appropriate primary sources have their use in scientific articles (see WP:MEDMOS). David Ruben Talk 01:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

Thanks for your response David :) It was really helpful.

I have one question. If people who have a particular point of view, expertise, or who are personally involved with a topic are not creating articles or editing them, who is and where are they getting their information? Are they always unbiased and contributing just because they love doing research and writing? I imagine people who contribute on certain topics have a personal interest in these topics, yes? Is it just the distinction that they are not making money indirectly for posting information?

I am also a student of nutrition currently, so could I make edits/additions about things that I am learning, since no one is paying me to do so but I believe to be interesting points? Thanks again :) Cathy88 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (above transcribed from my talk page to help clarify subsequent responses David Ruben Talk 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Good questions :-) Of course people with a particular personal point of view may edit an article, rather it is their edits that must maintain NPOV. Hence on occasional I'll come across an article on alternative medical topics, and even if I personal am very cynical on the topic, the fact that such approaches are believed by others and widely used is neither in doubt, nor that such articles should not be well written. Hence despite my personal involvement as a "conventional" doctor, I was happy to work up the poorly cited acupuncture (see these edits) adding a better (I think) phrased details of experimental evidence of mode of action that had been added by another editor to the specific article of plantar fasciitis. Also working up the limited citation details of paleolithic diet (these edits). I don't personally believe much of what is claimed in those 2 articles, but I found them both thought provoking, I learnt a little, and I hope my edits strengthened the articles.

I would not personally see there being any COI in editing, for example, an article on a statin cholesterol-lowering drug - the important issues are that I would source from suitable reliable sources that contain majority viewpoints. However there clearly would be a COI if I tried to add findings from my own research study, or try to add a link to my own website's information pages - both because I would not have (or more importantly be seen to have) an unbiased view on the worth of the details (of course I would feel my research paper or website would be just the very best and most important information on the topic) and also because it might be construed as trying to promote my own clinical practice.


 * Is it just the distinction that they are not making money indirectly for posting information?

So no not just issue of money, although that can be viewed (rightly or wrongly) as being a major cause for bias (hence most journals now require authors to state any COI). But also issue of having personal involvement (even if no money/contract involved) and therefore not being independent of the information. Hence specialist X could add details of a paper by their professional rival Y that had a major contribution to a field, but the specialist Y should not add the information directly themselves.

Of course COI is a guideline not an absolute embargo, and no one would object to the subject of an article (or someone involved with an organisation described by an article) for making non-contentious edits, e.g. correct spelling, working up poorly marked up references. Nor would I see any problem for a practising acupuncturist to edit say the history section of the acupuncture article, but there would be a problem if they uniquely use acupuncture for treating a condition Z and by so adding this to the "indications for acupuncture" section thereby are seen to promote their own sub-specialisation practice. Having an open acknowledgement of who one is, why an edit is being undertaken and scrupulous meek adherence to NPOV helps minimise any accusation of having a COI. However where possible perceived COI is significant, it is probably better to raise points on an article's talk space and either allow others then to carry out the specific article-edit or carry this out oneself if other editors in the discussion give a consensus to try the edit out, which they will then review.


 * I am also a student of nutrition currently, so could I make edits/additions about things that I am learning, since no one is paying me to do so but I believe to be interesting points?

Of course, but cite from a WP:RS, not the unverifiable verbal sayings of one's tutor :-) And as this has been a discussion about COI, remain NPOV & cite carefully about one's tutor's personal subtopics. I had enormous difficult expanding on the Raymond Gosling article as to his work in angiology (see these edits) as most of his publications in angiology predated the internet, or the extent to which PubMed has retrospectively abstracted old journals. Yes the information is out there in hardcopy, but I do not have the time or the access now to real-world scientific medical libraries (and journals charge for reprints of articles), yet I know that a whole series of articles on Angiology could be added to Wikipedia, but doubt if I will ever get the citations and sources to permit me to do so... :-) David Ruben Talk 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)