User talk:Torybear14

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Promotion and conflict of interest
HI - Torybear14 I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Reviewing your edits to date, it appears that you have some affiliation with David Ditsworth and his Nano clinic. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Torybear14. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Ditsworth or the Nano clinic, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works (you can also review the welcome message above, to get started). But please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thank you for contacting me about the COI. I do have a connection with Dr. David Ditsworth and the Nano Back Institute, which he founded. I am paid by the Nano Back Institute on a regular basis, and I have been paid for working and editing pages that the Nano Back Institute believes needs edits and updated information. I would really appreciate your help with being able to still edits articles that are related to the Nano Back Institute while also fulling disclosing that I am paid to do so.


 * Before editing any pages or attempting to create any rough drafts, I was told that one way I could disclose being paid by the NBI was to add, "$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Nano Back Institute for their contributions to Wikipedia." to my page. Does this not suffice? Torybear14 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again Jytdog. I have been looking into all of the information you have given to me thus far and reading about requesting edits on the talk pages instead of direct edits and COI and how to properly disclose them. If you are able and willing, I would still appreciate your help and guidance with editing articles appropriately and affectively. I also have questions about proposing a completely new page to Wikipedia. I have already placed a request for the page (Non-traumatic, small endoscopic spine surgery), but wanted to know what my best option was to contribute to the page and even get the ball rolling on the page. Should I begin with creating the talk page for it and suggesting edits?
 * Thanks! Torybear14 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Torybear14 (talk)
 * Thanks for replying, and sorry for the delay. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread.  I hope that all makes sense. You already have this part down, but also, at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.  That is how we know who said what.  I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that.  Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I owe you a second apology, as you did disclose that you are paid, on your User page. I completely missed that. Sorry!
 * What is not clear in the disclosure however, is who your employer is. Per the PAID policy, you are obligated to disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation" (the last one there is a kind of grab-bag for any relevant connection not covered by the first two).  So The Clinic is apparently your client.... who is your employer?  Once you answer, we can move on to the next steps. Thanks again. I really appreciate your desire to be a paid editing in good standing!  (I will respond faster next time :)  ) Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries at all Jytdog! I was employed by Dr. David Ditsworth himself. Thus, I assume I would add this to what I already have on my User page. If so, how would I do this and what would be the correct terminology to use to fully disclose my employer?
 * And thank you so much for your willingness to help me out! I really think Wikipedia and the contributors deserve more credit for their hard work! Torybear14 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Torybear14
 * Ok now I am confused. Your disclosure says you are paid by the Clinic. Are you an employee or a contractor?  These are different things. If for example you are a freelancer, and Ditsworth personally hired you and pays you with personal checks or whatever, you are self-employed, and Ditsworth is your client; if you are a freelancer and the Clinic is paying you to promote Ditworth, then you are self employed, Ditsworth is the client, and the Clinic would be listed in "affiliation" as the one actually paying you.  If you are an employee of the Clinic, you are an employee of the Clinic; ditto an employee of Ditworth....  can you please clarify?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the confusion and my delayed reply and clarification Jytdog. I am a freelancer who is paid by the Clinic. Thus, by what you said, I am self employed, Ditsworth is the client, and the Clinic would be listed in "affiliation" as the one actually paying me. I hope this all makes sense now! Torybear14 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that! It would be great if you would update the tag on your userpage. I wanted to understand where you are coming from, so I could provide the best advice I can. I don't know if you are aware of the whole deal with paid editing in Wikipedia. If you aren't, you should be. May I walk you through it? Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Jytdog what exactly should I say on my user page to disclose this? I already have that I am paid by the Institute. How do I list them as an affiliation? Do I also say that Ditsworth is my client? I would very much appreciate you walking me through it all! Torybear14 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that template sucks. People who don't actually work with people who need to use it keep messing with them. Herding cats.. part of the nature of this place.  I made the thing work.  Messy but got there.  I am going to open a new section on the paid editing background, as this one is too long.. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The paid editing thing
I don't know if you are familiar with public scandals that COI and paid editing have caused in the past... if you are not, please see:
 * Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (yes we actually have an article about it)
 * Orangemoody (this is about an actual extortion ring run by paid editors...
 * Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

The Statement above grew out of two scandals that hit us ~2013. One was about a firm called Wiki-PR that offers Wikipedia editing services and created a huge farm of sock-puppets. The other was about Banc de Binary which offered $10,000 for editors to "fix" their page in the midst of other scandals they were having (which became a scandal itself). See this WSJ article which names the BdB scandal but not the other. The WSJ piece says "Throughout February and March, the Wikimedia community extensively discussed the issue of undisclosed paid editing, resulting in 320,000 words of discussion on the site and 6.3 million views of the proposal that is being adopted." It was actually a much longer time, and many more words.

There is a good-sized chunk of the community that hates paid editors. Another big chunk says "content not contributors" and doesn't care if you are paid or not. So people talked and talked and talked, mostly at each other, and at the end of the day, we didn't ban paid editing. As a result, the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns this site, took some executive action and updated the Terms of Use, to at least require paid editors to disclose what they were doing. (See the last bolded item here) Then the WMF would have legal grounds to take action, if they wanted to, against people who didn't disclose that they were editing for pay, and who was paying them. The WMF actually sent a cease-and-desist order to Wiki-PR, with regard to the use of the Wikipedia name, due to their undisclosed paid editing.

That is the context that you are working in. The other thing to keep in mind, is the hard truth that paid editors exploit Wikipedia. (See User:Jytdog....

I always hope that people with a conflict of interest, and paid editors, can "get it". So far you have been really great, and I am hoping I have not completely freaked you out.

My stance is that we need to help editors manage their COIs. We have gotten some great contributions from conflicted editors; I have also given hours and hours of my time to cleaning up after conflicted editors who wouldn't follow our procedure for managing COI.

What everybody cares about, is good, neutral point of view content. The thing about COI is that it causes bias. People with a COI tend to write crappy content, because they cannot see what they are actually doing.

People who come here with a COI or as paid editors, often don't know about, and don't care about, the policies that govern content and behavior here. When we are done working through how people with a COI or who are PAID should do at a basic level, I would appreciate it if you would let me walk you through the basic policies and guidelines. But that comes later. My main goal here, is to make sure you understand what you are getting yourself into. The context.

So there you go. I remain happy to continue talking, and again I hope I haven't freaked you out too much... Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, I really want to say thank you for this detailed lesson in COIs and the history of events that have affected Wikipedia through COIs. I find it very interesting, yet disappointing due to the ill treatment of Wikipedia by people. Through my weeks of working with and learning about the Wikipedia community, I have grown more and more appreciative of it as a service to the world and an accessible tool for all. Throughout my education, that continues even today, Wikipedia has been a source teachers and professors have labeled as 'untrustworthy' due to many factors. However, the more and more I work with Wikipedia and the more I learn from you about all of the review and approval processes, I believe more in Wikipedia as a truly underrated source. Any edits, contributions, and mainly suggestions I make from now on to Wikipedia I am committed to making them beneficial to Wikipedia and I really do hope that that is apparent. I am a paid editor for the contributions and suggestions I make suggested to me from the Back Institute and Dr. Ditsworth himself, but I am also a believer in people having access to all knowledge, especially that of medical or scientific knowledge (I have always had a passion and love for the world of science and medicine, as I am currently in schooling for it). So, I am paid for what I do, but I also enjoy and love what I do for science. Thus, I know that working and contributing to Wikipedia will be something I enjoy doing, not solely for the payment. As you discussed on your user page in the 'Paid editing in particular' section, you have worked with people who are paid editors and therefore have a COI, but that they possessed the needed qualities to contribute while following the missions and values of Wikipedia. I believe that I have the ability to become this type of paid editor, as I am learning the ropes of the Wikipedia community and especially the ways of writing neutrality (I have become more and more convinced that there should be a college/university level course on this because I have found it so important recently!).
 * I really do appreciate your time and commitment to helping me and aiding me in this process and your help and effort to the Wikipedia community is very inspiring to me. As you said, I really hope I "get it" too. I do believe you have achieved your goal of making me understand what I am getting into with wanting to suggest edits while having a COI. I look forward to the next steps in the process. Thank you again for all of your contributions and help! Torybear14 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK great. If you have any questions, about the context, just let me know! Am going to open a new section for the "how to actually do stuff" section... Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do actually do...
OK...

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. So just create a new section on the relevant Talk page, and put your request there.  That will go better if you make a concise proposal, with high quality sources, properly formatted, and written in neutral language.  You can call attention to the request by including the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (As I mentioned above, there are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

That's it! Again, let me know if you have any questions... Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Jytdog thank you so much for this run down of what to do. I went ahead and tried out requesting an edit on the "Minimally invasive spine surgery" talk page. I read the step by step directions on how to do that, and I did it to the best of my knowledge. I would appreciate your approval of my suggestion or really just a look over to make sure nothing is blatantly wrong or not okay to have. I did update the citation with the correct chapter and page numbers! Thank you for pointing that out for me and thank you again for being so helpful and patient with me.
 * Torybear14 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)