Although the proposal seems well intentioned, my advice is that people paid by a for-profit publishing house should avoid editing that benefit the publisher. If the RSC is sincerely dedicated to enhancing Wikipedia, vs enhancing their image and profitability, they could dedicate their energies to many other themes that present no conflict of interest. If RSC is non-profit, then my comments do not apply as strongly, although a COI remains. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So... you have no comments on the merits of the proposal? Rklawton ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet perhaps they might make a profit on publishing this, I don't know - for Merck it was presumably intended to be profitable. That's not a key issue for me. The three templates have been around since 2005/09/10 respectively, & I see no issue with them being merged and updated, and existing references using them updated. But they aren't used very often. Is it intended to add them systematically as part of this project? And add them to infoboxes? If these were the case, I'd want to see clear support from WikiProject Chemistry. I don't know how widely used the index is so can't judge. A lot of the uses as references seem to be by User:Edgar181, I notice. Johnbod ( talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Merck has books, why not a template that points to them instead? They might be more accessible via public library than an online subscription. On the other hand, I suspect that many readers with an interest in following up on a Merck reference are also members of an academic community that already has an online subscription. In that case, a template pointing online would be useful to many of our readers. Either way, some sort of template would be useful given the number of references. Rklawton ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(Seeing as other commenters have their own sections I'm guessing that's the style we want here).
I have a concern regarding content. Presumably the different versions of the Merck Index are different, and entries on a given topic may be added to, thinned out or rephrased between versions. As such changing all citations to the most current version risks changing them in such a way that they no longer support the statements they're being used to underpin. I don't have access to the online Merck Index and seems that few other editors do either, therefore error checking all of this is going to be difficult. I would however support a drive to convert all refs to CS1 style, potentially making use of the {{ Cite book}} template via their ISBN numbers. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Any data from earlier versions will be checked and updated as part of this process."That's the primary reason for the proposal: since the print editions are stale (and clearly not subject to periodic updates), this will ensure that the data concerned is as up-to-date as possible. In other words, the Royal Society of Chemistry are offering, as as service to the community, to carry out error checking on all data currently cited from The Merck Index. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the bottom line is whether or not it is acceptable for citation template to point to a non-profit, subscription based resource. I don't see how who actually does the work is relevant. To wit, if Wiki-gnomes get to it before some society does or vice versa, I don't much care. Personally, I prefer references to non-subscription sources, but we already have established that references to subscription based services have their place in Wikipedia. In the meantime, we owe it to our readers to keep our references as up to date as possible (with hopefully as little effort on our part as feasible), and a template to an online subscription reference seems the best way to go (until a satisfactory free source becomes available). Rklawton ( talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
in {{
Cite web}}), and we have arrangements with many such publishers through the
Wikipedia Library project, whose terms include making such links.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)I think the issue of who makes these edits is immaterial; the issue of potential CoI is resolved by discussing whether or not the edits are appropriate. In other words, if a neutral editor made these edits, would they be reverted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."It continues
"when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". If it is agreed that these edits are in the interests of Wikipedia, then there is no conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to AGF here, that the RSC, Merck and certainly Andy are all trying to improve WP. There are, however, a few distinct activities to be addressed. Most of these are far from automatic:
If Merck might be willing either to release (or even to accept as
fair dealing /
fair use) some brief supporting quotations used to populate |quote=
then the problem would become much simpler. Alternatively, a handful of Wikipedians with access could do the verification, then populate |accessdate=
. The use of the template {{
vn}} would ensure this didn't get accidentally overlooked. It appears
here that the Index is licensed by Merck to the RSC only in the US and Canada, but that ought to be sufficient for WP purposes. Is the Index included under the so-far underutilized offer at
Wikipedia:RSC_Gold?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Should the proposal to unify and update Merck citations, discussed above and outlined on the accompanying page, be enacted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Although the proposal seems well intentioned, my advice is that people paid by a for-profit publishing house should avoid editing that benefit the publisher. If the RSC is sincerely dedicated to enhancing Wikipedia, vs enhancing their image and profitability, they could dedicate their energies to many other themes that present no conflict of interest. If RSC is non-profit, then my comments do not apply as strongly, although a COI remains. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
So... you have no comments on the merits of the proposal? Rklawton ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yet perhaps they might make a profit on publishing this, I don't know - for Merck it was presumably intended to be profitable. That's not a key issue for me. The three templates have been around since 2005/09/10 respectively, & I see no issue with them being merged and updated, and existing references using them updated. But they aren't used very often. Is it intended to add them systematically as part of this project? And add them to infoboxes? If these were the case, I'd want to see clear support from WikiProject Chemistry. I don't know how widely used the index is so can't judge. A lot of the uses as references seem to be by User:Edgar181, I notice. Johnbod ( talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Since Merck has books, why not a template that points to them instead? They might be more accessible via public library than an online subscription. On the other hand, I suspect that many readers with an interest in following up on a Merck reference are also members of an academic community that already has an online subscription. In that case, a template pointing online would be useful to many of our readers. Either way, some sort of template would be useful given the number of references. Rklawton ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
(Seeing as other commenters have their own sections I'm guessing that's the style we want here).
I have a concern regarding content. Presumably the different versions of the Merck Index are different, and entries on a given topic may be added to, thinned out or rephrased between versions. As such changing all citations to the most current version risks changing them in such a way that they no longer support the statements they're being used to underpin. I don't have access to the online Merck Index and seems that few other editors do either, therefore error checking all of this is going to be difficult. I would however support a drive to convert all refs to CS1 style, potentially making use of the {{ Cite book}} template via their ISBN numbers. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Any data from earlier versions will be checked and updated as part of this process."That's the primary reason for the proposal: since the print editions are stale (and clearly not subject to periodic updates), this will ensure that the data concerned is as up-to-date as possible. In other words, the Royal Society of Chemistry are offering, as as service to the community, to carry out error checking on all data currently cited from The Merck Index. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the bottom line is whether or not it is acceptable for citation template to point to a non-profit, subscription based resource. I don't see how who actually does the work is relevant. To wit, if Wiki-gnomes get to it before some society does or vice versa, I don't much care. Personally, I prefer references to non-subscription sources, but we already have established that references to subscription based services have their place in Wikipedia. In the meantime, we owe it to our readers to keep our references as up to date as possible (with hopefully as little effort on our part as feasible), and a template to an online subscription reference seems the best way to go (until a satisfactory free source becomes available). Rklawton ( talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
|subscription=yes
in {{
Cite web}}), and we have arrangements with many such publishers through the
Wikipedia Library project, whose terms include making such links.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)I think the issue of who makes these edits is immaterial; the issue of potential CoI is resolved by discussing whether or not the edits are appropriate. In other words, if a neutral editor made these edits, would they be reverted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."It continues
"when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". If it is agreed that these edits are in the interests of Wikipedia, then there is no conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to AGF here, that the RSC, Merck and certainly Andy are all trying to improve WP. There are, however, a few distinct activities to be addressed. Most of these are far from automatic:
If Merck might be willing either to release (or even to accept as
fair dealing /
fair use) some brief supporting quotations used to populate |quote=
then the problem would become much simpler. Alternatively, a handful of Wikipedians with access could do the verification, then populate |accessdate=
. The use of the template {{
vn}} would ensure this didn't get accidentally overlooked. It appears
here that the Index is licensed by Merck to the RSC only in the US and Canada, but that ought to be sufficient for WP purposes. Is the Index included under the so-far underutilized offer at
Wikipedia:RSC_Gold?
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Should the proposal to unify and update Merck citations, discussed above and outlined on the accompanying page, be enacted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)