@ Alexmar983 and MatteoVissani:
Regarding this addition to Treatment of Tourette syndrome:
Please do not reinstate a copyright violation, and please do not reinstate text which does not accurately reflect the recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Alexmar983 and
MatteoVissani: Regarding
this addition, it is unacceptable to base biomedical claims on primary studies. Your students simply cannot claim that "There is a large body of literature demonstrating the benefit of DBS in Parkinson's disease. Specifically, various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive"
based on two trials. You'll note that DBS is cited in the
Parkinson's disease article to
Bronstein et al 2010 which is the review your students should have been using per
WP:MEDRS. It's a pity that reading MEDRS isn't included on
Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera as it's absolutely essential knowledge for any editor wishing to contribute to biomedical topics.
Are you likely to clean up the problems, or will you be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding access to the article, I had to call in a favor to get temporary access to it, I do not have a saved electronic copy (only a printout), and don't have an easy way to send it to you. (This is another of the problems caused when students aren't adequately supervised. I smelled a copyvio and problem with content because of the quality of the writing, but I do not have access to journals without driving an hour, so have to ask for favors). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia and RexxS I write what I wrote this morining but I had to leave in a rush to get a trian. Copyviol should be always removed from page history as far as I know, I really want to meet who theorize the process that you are describing... it takes a cetain responsability to state otherwise. If you see it and you can spot it, you remove it. In any case in this not complicated, it's few lines. I handled stratified copyviol so many times, I am suprised it is considered so "critical". I guess if I got the article I could have fixed it easily, I see no big deal in putting a template.
From my answer you could guess I am likely to clean up the problems (how many people you have found that know the copyright of the dandboxes, something that maybe you do not know yourself? and even teach it?) and I won't be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual. I suspect that WikiMed users might apply some standard behavioral pattern, but I am not in those patterns. I am here. The class is not finished, most simply I am not online a lot in these days. I was told by some students they will have finished their exercises by May so I put on my calendar some free time on a week end of late May to revise them one by one. My wikitime is limited because of other wiki request in real life and I can revise the insertions when they are all complete for the evaluation. In the meantime I provided all the information I can.
Also, I did not skip the part about WP:MEDRS, I just focused on the step which was not fully handled, the copyviol, as soon as I noticed the sandbox was still untouched. It is reasonable, if you don't have time on line, to prioritize. Now, that guideline was not included because the class was supposed to be focused more on technological applications (I was expecting more the area of material science or robotics, because that centre is about that). Aparently, all students from SSSUP were invited even from a neighboring town. So, I was not in total control of the students the University sent to me. Now, if I add all possble guidelines for all possible fields, the page is not readable anymore, it's too much. I can show them single guidelines when the students decide a topic but I was expecting a dozen students, not double the number. So I can only give strong key concepts and dilute the revision control as soon as they are all finished. And I have access to the literature databases, which in these days I don't.
About following, I even came back again to the University to follow the student who asked me to revise the text before inserting it, but not all of them did so. Some of them were so kind to at least inform me about the version in the sandbox, but again not all of them. Yet, I still paid myself to come to see just one single insertion de visu. And that's for free, I am not even reimboursed. I noted down the topic they write and in one case I even sent mail to expert reseracher in other fields for a comment.
It could be also interesting to notice that they were not required an additional excercise, the exam is just a "pass" as far as I know, I am asking this to monitor them and give them a real rank because I really care. So they can learn more. And ranking require monitoring all the inserted content one by one. The xls evaluation file is ready on my computer (that's what i prepared while making a first glance) and ready to be filled. So far I could revised completely only three of them. So, dowloading the required articles, asking to friends for comment, using Earwig, pasting sentences in google scholar, writing feedback mail... all of that. For free.
So I am here and present not because you pinged me but because I have a defined strategy of revision, so you really didn't need to write what you did. I don't know what type of people you dealt int he past, but maybe you shouldn't put me in that scheme because you are not getting more than my current presence and certainly you are asking a person who is engaged. Do you prefer I use my time on line to revise these insertions or to reply to your procedural comments? if it is the first scenario, tell me about the content because this would speed up and improve my work, and I'd like to be committed to that. As an example: if I find the copyviol, I fix the sandbox and leave a request for cleaning, if you do you, you forget the sandbox and you split in two or three passages and you seem to find few lines a problem and all of that seems time-consuming and I would like not to consume my time this way because I don't have a lot of it right now. That being said, thank you and see you in few days if you have any other comment on the content.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
'I am suprised it is considered so "critical"'. So why are you now questioning my statement of the importance we place on it?
The class teached them to use good suorces (well cited scientific articles), don't copy and paste ... and focus on reviews. It clearly didn't. Above you see two glaring examples of a copy-paste copyvio and of a failure to use review articles. It not called "statistics", it's called "quality assurance"; and it's the job of the teacher to ensure their students meet a minimum standard for that before letting them loose on mainspace. I've given you ideas above on how to improve that aspect of your work.
he did not read WPMED because he is one of the few ones who edited a topic deeply related to medicine and this was not the main target of the class when proposed. Three out of the nine topics in Lesson and three out of nine topics in Homework were sufficiently biomedically related to warrant familiarity with MEDRS. That's not "few". You should have known that and ensured your students were thoroughly familiar with MEDRS. I've read what you wrote and that is the point.
I told you why I cannot address it so far and when I will address it so, what do you want to show exactly with this assertion?I want you to understand that the primary aim of editing Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia and any other considerations about your classes come a long way behind that. It is not acceptable to leave copyvios and unsubstantiated medical information in articles for weeks just because you have a busy schedule. If your model of quality assurance is to allow the students to make these sort of edits and then clean them up some weeks later, then it's not fit for use on Wikipedia. Before embarking on this sort of project you need to make sure you will have time to sort out major problems quickly, or take steps to ensure that predictable problems don't arise in the first place. Neither of those things appear to have happened here. Why can't you send a mail to the student pointing them to these discussions and asking him to fix the problems? That's a clear enough request. Are you seriously suggesting you're prepared to ignore the complaints posted by experienced Wikipedians like SandyGeorgia until you've "got feedback by other researchers"?
Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door. Don't be so melodramatic. By all means get it clear; this is precisely about how to set up a class. Many trainers manage to do it regularly with more participants than expected, with equipment that goes wrong, with folks who turn up on the day without an account. They've learned to anticipate what can go wrong and cope with it, not throw their dummies out of the pram. The best teachers have strategies to improvise when circumstances force them to amend their planned exercises, without letting the quality drop.
I don't need to be told these points because I am already aware.If you're not willing to listen to suggestions how you might improve your training, I feel sorry for you. The evidence of what you're aware of is apparent in the work your students produce.
That's a biomedical claim and it's referenced to Clemente, Francesco; Håkansson, Bo; Cipriani, Christian; Wessberg, Johan; Kulbacka-Ortiz, Katarzyna; Brånemark, Rickard; Fredén Jansson, Karl-Johan; Ortiz-Catalan, Max (2017). "Touch and Hearing Mediate Osseoperception". Scientific Reports. 7 (1). doi: 10.1038/srep45363. ISSN 2045-2322. and "Hearing and touch mediate sensations via osseointegrated prostheses". www.eurekalert.org. Retrieved 2019-04-10. – a primary source. How many more of these am I going to find? Did any of the students know about MEDRS? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Recent research on users of bone-anchored upper and lower limb prostheses showed that this osseoperception is not only mediated by mechanoreceptors but also by auditory receptors.
"I have no interest in teaching students abot Med topic on enwikipedia"And so you let a third of them work on medical topics without teaching them.
"it'ìs you assumption I just put a slide"No, it's a quite from your exact words:
"i will put a slide and tell them not to do it. Do you expect me not to be concerned about that?
"One student made a copy and paste and just because I noticed I could have handled easily than done here"Indeed you could if they had been taught not to copy-paste other peoples' work; and if you'd supervised them adequately, you'd have spotted the copyvio before SandyGeorgia had to bring it to your attention. There were two whole days that the copyvio stood in one of our articles and you wonder why I'm not happy about that?
"now you are squuezing an expression out, would you like people to do this to you?"I'm not the one who let my students produce copyvios and breaches of MEDRS. You need to to quit deflecting and take responsibility for your own actions.
"I am the one who opposed keeping the copyviol in the history, who cared about the sandbox and you ignored it and talk me like I did not"That's pure fabrication. Sandy cared about the article and the sandbox enough to raise concerns that you've tried to make excuses for. I was the one who removed the copyvios from the page history and deleted the sandbox. You haven't done a single thing to fix the issues and you have the nerve to question my commitment. I have offered you my advice on how to avoid the problems you encountered from the first. I have encouraged you to take an active part in cleaning up the problems you caused. I have had nothing back from you but obfuscation, ABF, and ill-grace. You have threatened to kick students out of your class (
"Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door") and you call me melodramatic. Get a grip. I have said nothing that wasn't backed up by fact and I've produced the proof of what I've said on every occasion.
"I mostly focused on other aspects ... concetrated the excercise to one or two simple sentences. Thank you for admitting where the problem lay. We both know that is insufficient to teach students about MEDRS. You can't ignore MEDRS as you propose to do when dealing with any topic in the sciences, because any biomedical claim in any article is subject to MEDRS. If you want to ensure that your students don't edit on a topic requiring a knowledge of MEDRS, you need to agree the topics with them before you start teaching them, so that you know what to teach. Your current approach needs to be revised with that in mind.
"this one came out more fragmented, there were too many topics at the same time"Lots of courses run into that issue, but it doesn't have to be a problem if you have the resources to deal with it. If there are too many topics, seek some advice and assistance. There are many experienced Wikipedians who would be glad to help. Again, I've seen no evidence of you making use of the experience available in our WikiProjects to help you deal with those issues. I'm sorry to hear that you've been ill. That does, however, reinforce the need for you to collaborate. Many course leaders take the courtesy step to inform relevant Wikiprojects that the students will be working on articles within their scope. Having established a relationship, no matter how brief, you will find it easier to solicit assistance if you find yourself indsposed at crucial times.
"I told you that this cenario won't happen in the future and why."I'm afraid I you have given me no reason to accept that at face value. You say you'll avoid medical topics, but you don't seem to know what topics the students are working on beforehand, so I find it difficult to see how you'll accomplish that.
"If you want to describe how you handle multitopic edit-a-thon please show me your previous examples"I've been involved as an educator in many forms for almost 50 years, across all branches of education from nursery to adult education, with all stages in between, and I've been doing outreach on Wikimedia projects from before you registered an account, so I don't need to prove my credentials to you, but if you want an example of a large multi-topic editathon, make a start with this one: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/06/a-global-editathon-teaching-wikipedia-to-barclays/ – "378 articles edited or created across 18 different language Wikipedias from 12 different Barclays sites. The topics edited ranged from ABBA to Zeng Jenlian." I'll give you more details if you're genuinely interested.
"Based on how you bahave here would you have been collaborative as you claim?"Pure deflection again, but the answer is "yes, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to collaborate with me", and I've got a lifetime of work to back that up. The ball's in your court if you want any help to avoid these problems in future.
"Please in the spirit of wiki collaboration and your expertise explain to me why you think that talking me to me right now in this way removing time to my content evaluation is the best option?"Nobody is forcing you to write on these talk pages. You choose to do that yourself and you can stop at any time. I'd be grateful for answers to some of my questions, but it's not crucial. I'd be happier to see you using your time to clean up problems that the course has produced. You've already promised to do that this weekend, so I'll gladly be patient. By the way, do you also intend to sort the problem I indicated at Osseointegration, or do you want me to do that? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
RexxS I agrre with all of bullet points, if this is what you need to listen.
But I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading. How did you define the insertion as misleading otherwise? Not adhering to the guideline does not mean something is misleading. The point is not that I don't know what is written in the guideline, I have alredy reassured you (you probably don't trust me on that as with the copyright) and I never said they are better sourced. I can agree with you but you complicated your life because I never disagreed with you on that. I simply said that the content was not misleading as you claimed. You called it that way and this is not correct. Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view. It's brutal but I aplly ro myself. I can evaluate a source, I can choose it, I can write from it but no way i can define a medical content that results from my or somebody's else process as miselading.
I can make a distinction about such two aspects is because I know what is inside a guideline but also what it is not. While it is a problem if you use a primary source, and that can lead to a misleading content, especially a recent ones, not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se.(and by the way, they were told to use reviews, you see that in some insertion, but you can't expect that all students listen the same way, and again if I can't follow becasue I don't have time I cannot correct them all there until now). You can have a text that can be sourced poorly but report correct medical information. I am aware that the text were correct, because even if I couldn't sit at a table and refine the sources with calm immediately, I could however send a mail ask for a revision of the core information. So I acted in respect of the pillar and good sense, which is the minimal situation I could pull there. I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now. Do you want a prove? Compare with Wikipedia:School and university projects/Capellini-Sauro. those are very simple tasks (it's a high school), they were revised one by one. So I will be here as soon as I have time. That's actually the part I like the most.
Your concern that I will do it again is not necessary (you actually gave a useful tool to avoid it). I don't want to come close to the Med project nor I want to change it, the problem is not what you write in a guideline but how you act about it and that can never change with a discussion, it's a social thing. Besides the feedback to students, in retropatrolling and patrolling the core question when you evaluate a text is if the text is correct and which source can be found to evaluate if it is correct, it's not why the current sources are wrong, most of these sources in the medical field become "wrong" very easily because they simply age. So when you aim to long-term quality that is actually a second-rate aspect to start with. it's easy to repeat it, but guidelines are however just a tool and not a goal of a discussion, and since usually med on enwiki is considered a rigid project on that aspect, it's not unusual that people try to avoid. Why spent time to discuss about core distinctions about type of sources that are mostly there by an accident of unfortunate circumstance where in the same time you can discuss with a person with a medical degree, publications, who has trust, is not focused to a procedural checklist and go stick to the point about the real content? It kinda feel that on the Med Porject on enwiki people spend more time than necessary assuring themself that what they are doing brings good quality or is necessary for good quality than actually producing it. they produce a lot of quality, but they actually undersperfom compared to other porject with less users. So if you want to write med topic with students enwiki would not be considered a first choice. Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student. the conversation with an avarage editor there would be "the student did a copyviol" "ok, I clean" "thanks, do you need something else". Why somebody should avoid that, that is actually more effiencent, for this?
BTW I plan things ahead. Right in these days I have sent a mail about another edit a thon. I organize events almost every 1-2 months in different fields and platforms (but I am on hiatus since Apr, 10th), they just don't go on websites. That's why I know by experience that 1) they can go wrong and it's no big deal 2) what really helps in practice. Like I spot so many copyright violation by expert users at edit a thon over the years (but they are closer to some sysop so they are not noticed)... Especially if you are competent you know how bad things happen in any case, and you are calm with this. The competence of experience, not of appearance. That's why I receive every day call for help, people want such help, they want people who can solve quickly a copyright issue and not find complicated to read a simple history with few edits, they want people that know and remind about copyright rule such as sandboxes, people that notice how one bad copyviol our of a dozen task is standard and not make a big deal about it. Because they work. You don't see that because the right edit a thon is actually below the radar.
Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world. An example. last year I was at Uffizi gallery, one trainer was missing, I was put to follow two users at the same time, the only one. I can handle but just in case I open an (active) project in one wikipedia (but I don't see a lot of difference in different language editions), I asked for a precise request, "please we miss one person, I can gear it, just find me these sources because the PC they gave us to find them and help the students is currently frozen". it's a simple task, I was not helped at all. Instead, I received a lecture on a how to organize an edit-a-thon, for example "Use the sandbox". it was surreal. But it's usually like that. They say it's full of people to help but it's not, because instead of assuming that people know how to do things and that they are part of unexpected circumstances when they ask for help, they just teach how to do it because those are standard speechs. Helping wikipedia is considered much easier making assumptions than analyzing a scenario, but this consumes the time of people in exchange of nothing especially when they really need it. I needed time in that circumstance, not somebody to remind what I know. So the choices were 1) go to a project and has in 70-90% of the case a time-consuming reminder which is not the point and try to act politely because if you point this out people will be pissed and tell they are not your servants 2) when students decide to edit medicine contact a doctor who is 100% available and ask if the text is at least clearly correct from the medical point of view. I take resposnability for such choice. You want me to do the other one? Fine. I just jope never to do it, and stay away of striclty medical topic on enwiki as I always tried to do.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading."I completely refute your assertion as it is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is built by the contributions of editors of all backgrounds. Your suggested elitism was thrown out years ago, and if you think we should have a project that's controlled by experts in each particular field, you need to take a good look at what happened to Nupedia.
"Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view."I'm afraid that is further nonsense and seems to display a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Content on Wikipedia is misleading if it makes biomedical claims without having quality evidence to back it up. Let's take a concrete example. This is part of the content that your student wrote:
"... various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive."That sentence misleads the lay reader because it implies that the studies actually demonstrate the effects that it suggests. Primary studies do not demonstrate biomedical effects. What's so difficult to understand about our guidance? Did you read MEDRS where it states
Studies may suggest or imply particular effects, but we rely on secondary sources to analyse and validate them. Take a look at Bronstein et al {2011), and see the differences from what your student is claiming, particularly the caveats that Bronstein makes about the suitability of DBS, and the setting needed for successful results. No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, your student's contribution is misleading to a lay reader, and they need to have read the secondary sources before ever typing a word.A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field ... is that they are often not replicable. and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Drug discovery scientists at Bayer in 2011 reported that they were able to replicate results in only ~20 to 25% of the prominent studies they examined; scientists from Amgen followed with a publication in 2012 showing that they were only able to replicate 6 (11%) of 53 high-impact publications and called for higher standards in scientific publishing. The journal Nature announced in April 2013 that in response to these and other articles showing a widespread problem with reproducibility, it was taking measures to raise its standards. Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.)
"not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se"– but in this case it was, and you're once again trying to defend the indefensible. Just make sure your students don't use primary sources for biomedical content; that's all it needs. And before you tell me that it's all just the English Wikipedia making unreasonable demands on editors, I've read it:Stimolazione cerebrale profonda and that backs up its biomedical claims using pmid:19273170 and pmid:19273169 (both reviews). The Italian Wikipedia employs secondary sources in the equivalent article, and won't thank you for dropping substandard material in there.
"I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now."That's the same excuse you've kept trotting out. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and content shouldn't be left in a poor state simply to fit your schedules. If you don't want to clean up after your students in a timely fashion, that's up to you; but it doesn't mean everybody else has to wait until you get around to it; and it doesn't mean that others are not entitled to criticise you for allowing the unacceptable work in the first place.
"Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student."Have you any evidence to back up this unlikely assertion? When WP:CV is taught properly to students, they remember it.
"Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world."Of course it does. If you had found out ahead of time the topics your students were going to be working on, you could have told WPMED about it, had some advice on teaching MEDRS, and asked some of the editors there to check sandboxes or articles for you. You would have been met with a friendly, helpful response, and your students would have had the benefit of assistance from other experienced editors. Ask JenOttawa about her experience with WPMED when she ran a course for Queen's University.
"the person who noticed the copyviol was not aware that it applies to the sandbox, considered it complicated to remove 8it is actually quite simple"That's downright untrue. SandyGeorgia is perfectly aware that copvio policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and if you carry on making demonstrably false accusations about other editors, I'll take you to ANI and seek sanctions against you. You should retract that PA immediately. The only reason Sandy mentioned the sandbox was because only an admin can delete it, and deletion was the proper course. Does your misrepresentation of what happened show your competence? I think not.
"In other wors your friendly, helpful response does not show"That's because you haven't seen my friendly, helpful response. You've only seen my annoyance that yet another course of students are damaging medical articles, and my frustration that the course teacher refuses to take any responsibility for the damage, or to correct it. I've invested far more time than you deserve in trying to get you to see your mistakes and to take steps to avoid them in future. All I've had back from you is a load of trite excuses that I've heard a hundred times before, bad-mouthing of one of the best Wikiprojects in existence, and a personal attack on a fellow editor.
"I don't think I accused User:SandyGeorgiaExcuse me? What does this mean then: That's a pretty clear judgement on what Sandy doesn't know, and it's completely false. There are very few medical editors with more experience or competence than Sandy. If she "looked a little bit more lost" to you, I think you need to stop jumping to those sort of conclusions.
there is no sign here that a fact that such brutal copy and paste is related to the teaching. I beg to differ. The responsibility for ensuring that a student knows that they mustn't violate copyright rests with the teacher, and there's no reason why a teacher should not satisfy themselves that their students know that. In the real world, I've sanctioned teachers who have either knowingly or carelessly allowed students to submit copied work for public examinations.
the reason is that with somebody diffent than you it would have been easier to put the right sources (the content is not bad as you claim)The content is as bad as I claim. Are you now suggesting that it's okay for students to add copyvios and biomedical information sourced only to primary sources? How is that "not bad"? And how on earth do you get to blame me for your abject failure to teach the students to find the right sources? You've really outdone your previous efforts there.
Perhaps I furthered some of the long discussion by asking RexxS if he would be willing to handle the copyvio, and suggesting that I otherwise would be fine avoiding the history purge (knowing it was unlikely that it could be dealt with anytime soon). Yes, the technically correct path involves templates and posts to places where ... there are simply not enough admins to deal with the amount of copyvio that exists on Wikipedia (a good amount attributable to student editing), most of which is never dealt with, leading experienced editors to shortcut the templating process for a quicker solution whenever feasible. Trying to train up student editors in copyvio is a waste of time, since they never return to become helpful editors. Yes, I know the process; it is backlogged, there is a short supply of admins willing and able to do the work, and the effort of tagging, templating and dealing with student editors is lost as the lessons are not taken on board to create editors who will add good content in the future.
I appreciate that RexxS was willing to deal with the copyvio directly so I didn't have to go through all the gyrations and then wait months for someone to deal with it. I am sorry to have drug RexxS into this lengthy and unproductive discussion, which I hope will end quickly. All persons supervising student editors who are adding biomedical content should engage a curriculum which forces the student to FIRST identify the recent secondary reviews they are planning to use; that would solve a lot of problems. Had the student adding the dietary information on Tourette syndrome first identified the most recent secondary review, they would have seen that there is nothing new, and nothing to add. I hope that lesson will be carried forward to future students. I understand it is near impossible to get students who are forced to edit for a grade to care about copyvio. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
RexxS the article you sent me had no link tot he Barclay's edit-a-thon you cited as an example, as far I could see. I have found Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon. In the talk there are cited "378 pages edited or created". Where is the list? Thank you.
The artcle is from June 2014. In one of the artcile cited Zeng Jenlian I found no edit in 2014 in English, but it could be another language. In any can you show I recent edit a thon you have attended? Thank you-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 22:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"Of course there will be mistakes, who cares"You should care, and it's a pity that you don't. You want to criticise my outreach work? Fix your own work first. You promised to fix the problems caused by your students this weekend. You haven't, so it will be WPMED editors again having to clean up the mess left by the likes of you.
Ok since I was at a certian point asked to prove some assertion I have also asked User:Geoide, one of top medical contributor on itwikipedia, to come here and describe me. I have no other way, I really don't know what else I can do. She understands English but you can stick to very precise questions, maybe. I can make a bullet point list of critical aspect and she can express her opinion if they are true. This is however getting surreal. Hoping this is not called a "deflection" or something like that.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi RexxS just as way to show my competence since I had some time in this hour and I ams till waiting for the last students' reply, I make some check.
When you asked to be an event coordinator you did not have to put any link at all to the pages of your previous events on enwiki even there? There should be pages in seven years that can used a clear procedural reference. Try to understand how much is bizarre to face a platform where an event flag can be given to a user with a simple self-declaration, but the worst can be assumed by one event for another user. I mean if you care so much because of your professional past, maybe you should have been more clear there. This is one the reason why we have communication problem I suppose here, I don't get your style. it's uneven.
What is a "lead trainer"? is it a formal position in WMUK? Does it require that a panel of possibly independent users verify the events attended by the user before giving such title? I actually asked for it in one of my chapter (that's how i take resposnabilty here and in the real world), I would be glad to discover if such procedure existed somewhere, that would be very professional. BTW I also register people days in advance but I never had that problem because my rate is almost 100% there. So it's good to know I am more effective than an expert like you user under such aspect. That's something.
I also looked in the log if I could find any movement of flag to users to find some event you could have been involved. I still don't see a lot of activity but from this one I have found Wikipedia:GLAM/Ikon.
First of all there is a weak separation between tutors and students in the page. The list of information is limited but it could be because you had enough experienced tutors. Than, for being such ratio of expert users there should not be many mistakes right?
First click I did was to go for FrancJonsn because he did not sign himself aparently. He left a sandbox User:FrancJonsn/Colin Dick that is copied from an article of The Guardian here. The sandbox is May 2018, this is also a wayback machine of the article in 2017. Now i can go further but it does not really matter, it's just the only way I try to show you how unfair your approach on copyright is. i don't think you or the main organizer are bad tutors. Can you please understand this aspect?-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 16:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Alexmar983 and MatteoVissani:
Regarding this addition to Treatment of Tourette syndrome:
Please do not reinstate a copyright violation, and please do not reinstate text which does not accurately reflect the recent secondary review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@
Alexmar983 and
MatteoVissani: Regarding
this addition, it is unacceptable to base biomedical claims on primary studies. Your students simply cannot claim that "There is a large body of literature demonstrating the benefit of DBS in Parkinson's disease. Specifically, various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive"
based on two trials. You'll note that DBS is cited in the
Parkinson's disease article to
Bronstein et al 2010 which is the review your students should have been using per
WP:MEDRS. It's a pity that reading MEDRS isn't included on
Wikipedia:School and university projects/IIT SSSUP polo Valdera as it's absolutely essential knowledge for any editor wishing to contribute to biomedical topics.
Are you likely to clean up the problems, or will you be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual? -- RexxS ( talk) 01:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding access to the article, I had to call in a favor to get temporary access to it, I do not have a saved electronic copy (only a printout), and don't have an easy way to send it to you. (This is another of the problems caused when students aren't adequately supervised. I smelled a copyvio and problem with content because of the quality of the writing, but I do not have access to journals without driving an hour, so have to ask for favors). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia and RexxS I write what I wrote this morining but I had to leave in a rush to get a trian. Copyviol should be always removed from page history as far as I know, I really want to meet who theorize the process that you are describing... it takes a cetain responsability to state otherwise. If you see it and you can spot it, you remove it. In any case in this not complicated, it's few lines. I handled stratified copyviol so many times, I am suprised it is considered so "critical". I guess if I got the article I could have fixed it easily, I see no big deal in putting a template.
From my answer you could guess I am likely to clean up the problems (how many people you have found that know the copyright of the dandboxes, something that maybe you do not know yourself? and even teach it?) and I won't be leaving it for the editors at WikiProjact Med as usual. I suspect that WikiMed users might apply some standard behavioral pattern, but I am not in those patterns. I am here. The class is not finished, most simply I am not online a lot in these days. I was told by some students they will have finished their exercises by May so I put on my calendar some free time on a week end of late May to revise them one by one. My wikitime is limited because of other wiki request in real life and I can revise the insertions when they are all complete for the evaluation. In the meantime I provided all the information I can.
Also, I did not skip the part about WP:MEDRS, I just focused on the step which was not fully handled, the copyviol, as soon as I noticed the sandbox was still untouched. It is reasonable, if you don't have time on line, to prioritize. Now, that guideline was not included because the class was supposed to be focused more on technological applications (I was expecting more the area of material science or robotics, because that centre is about that). Aparently, all students from SSSUP were invited even from a neighboring town. So, I was not in total control of the students the University sent to me. Now, if I add all possble guidelines for all possible fields, the page is not readable anymore, it's too much. I can show them single guidelines when the students decide a topic but I was expecting a dozen students, not double the number. So I can only give strong key concepts and dilute the revision control as soon as they are all finished. And I have access to the literature databases, which in these days I don't.
About following, I even came back again to the University to follow the student who asked me to revise the text before inserting it, but not all of them did so. Some of them were so kind to at least inform me about the version in the sandbox, but again not all of them. Yet, I still paid myself to come to see just one single insertion de visu. And that's for free, I am not even reimboursed. I noted down the topic they write and in one case I even sent mail to expert reseracher in other fields for a comment.
It could be also interesting to notice that they were not required an additional excercise, the exam is just a "pass" as far as I know, I am asking this to monitor them and give them a real rank because I really care. So they can learn more. And ranking require monitoring all the inserted content one by one. The xls evaluation file is ready on my computer (that's what i prepared while making a first glance) and ready to be filled. So far I could revised completely only three of them. So, dowloading the required articles, asking to friends for comment, using Earwig, pasting sentences in google scholar, writing feedback mail... all of that. For free.
So I am here and present not because you pinged me but because I have a defined strategy of revision, so you really didn't need to write what you did. I don't know what type of people you dealt int he past, but maybe you shouldn't put me in that scheme because you are not getting more than my current presence and certainly you are asking a person who is engaged. Do you prefer I use my time on line to revise these insertions or to reply to your procedural comments? if it is the first scenario, tell me about the content because this would speed up and improve my work, and I'd like to be committed to that. As an example: if I find the copyviol, I fix the sandbox and leave a request for cleaning, if you do you, you forget the sandbox and you split in two or three passages and you seem to find few lines a problem and all of that seems time-consuming and I would like not to consume my time this way because I don't have a lot of it right now. That being said, thank you and see you in few days if you have any other comment on the content.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
'I am suprised it is considered so "critical"'. So why are you now questioning my statement of the importance we place on it?
The class teached them to use good suorces (well cited scientific articles), don't copy and paste ... and focus on reviews. It clearly didn't. Above you see two glaring examples of a copy-paste copyvio and of a failure to use review articles. It not called "statistics", it's called "quality assurance"; and it's the job of the teacher to ensure their students meet a minimum standard for that before letting them loose on mainspace. I've given you ideas above on how to improve that aspect of your work.
he did not read WPMED because he is one of the few ones who edited a topic deeply related to medicine and this was not the main target of the class when proposed. Three out of the nine topics in Lesson and three out of nine topics in Homework were sufficiently biomedically related to warrant familiarity with MEDRS. That's not "few". You should have known that and ensured your students were thoroughly familiar with MEDRS. I've read what you wrote and that is the point.
I told you why I cannot address it so far and when I will address it so, what do you want to show exactly with this assertion?I want you to understand that the primary aim of editing Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia and any other considerations about your classes come a long way behind that. It is not acceptable to leave copyvios and unsubstantiated medical information in articles for weeks just because you have a busy schedule. If your model of quality assurance is to allow the students to make these sort of edits and then clean them up some weeks later, then it's not fit for use on Wikipedia. Before embarking on this sort of project you need to make sure you will have time to sort out major problems quickly, or take steps to ensure that predictable problems don't arise in the first place. Neither of those things appear to have happened here. Why can't you send a mail to the student pointing them to these discussions and asking him to fix the problems? That's a clear enough request. Are you seriously suggesting you're prepared to ignore the complaints posted by experienced Wikipedians like SandyGeorgia until you've "got feedback by other researchers"?
Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door. Don't be so melodramatic. By all means get it clear; this is precisely about how to set up a class. Many trainers manage to do it regularly with more participants than expected, with equipment that goes wrong, with folks who turn up on the day without an account. They've learned to anticipate what can go wrong and cope with it, not throw their dummies out of the pram. The best teachers have strategies to improvise when circumstances force them to amend their planned exercises, without letting the quality drop.
I don't need to be told these points because I am already aware.If you're not willing to listen to suggestions how you might improve your training, I feel sorry for you. The evidence of what you're aware of is apparent in the work your students produce.
That's a biomedical claim and it's referenced to Clemente, Francesco; Håkansson, Bo; Cipriani, Christian; Wessberg, Johan; Kulbacka-Ortiz, Katarzyna; Brånemark, Rickard; Fredén Jansson, Karl-Johan; Ortiz-Catalan, Max (2017). "Touch and Hearing Mediate Osseoperception". Scientific Reports. 7 (1). doi: 10.1038/srep45363. ISSN 2045-2322. and "Hearing and touch mediate sensations via osseointegrated prostheses". www.eurekalert.org. Retrieved 2019-04-10. – a primary source. How many more of these am I going to find? Did any of the students know about MEDRS? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Recent research on users of bone-anchored upper and lower limb prostheses showed that this osseoperception is not only mediated by mechanoreceptors but also by auditory receptors.
"I have no interest in teaching students abot Med topic on enwikipedia"And so you let a third of them work on medical topics without teaching them.
"it'ìs you assumption I just put a slide"No, it's a quite from your exact words:
"i will put a slide and tell them not to do it. Do you expect me not to be concerned about that?
"One student made a copy and paste and just because I noticed I could have handled easily than done here"Indeed you could if they had been taught not to copy-paste other peoples' work; and if you'd supervised them adequately, you'd have spotted the copyvio before SandyGeorgia had to bring it to your attention. There were two whole days that the copyvio stood in one of our articles and you wonder why I'm not happy about that?
"now you are squuezing an expression out, would you like people to do this to you?"I'm not the one who let my students produce copyvios and breaches of MEDRS. You need to to quit deflecting and take responsibility for your own actions.
"I am the one who opposed keeping the copyviol in the history, who cared about the sandbox and you ignored it and talk me like I did not"That's pure fabrication. Sandy cared about the article and the sandbox enough to raise concerns that you've tried to make excuses for. I was the one who removed the copyvios from the page history and deleted the sandbox. You haven't done a single thing to fix the issues and you have the nerve to question my commitment. I have offered you my advice on how to avoid the problems you encountered from the first. I have encouraged you to take an active part in cleaning up the problems you caused. I have had nothing back from you but obfuscation, ABF, and ill-grace. You have threatened to kick students out of your class (
"Next time I will find more students at a class than intended I will show this page, show them how I do care and tell them that since I do not really deserve this, I will ask them to go outside of the door") and you call me melodramatic. Get a grip. I have said nothing that wasn't backed up by fact and I've produced the proof of what I've said on every occasion.
"I mostly focused on other aspects ... concetrated the excercise to one or two simple sentences. Thank you for admitting where the problem lay. We both know that is insufficient to teach students about MEDRS. You can't ignore MEDRS as you propose to do when dealing with any topic in the sciences, because any biomedical claim in any article is subject to MEDRS. If you want to ensure that your students don't edit on a topic requiring a knowledge of MEDRS, you need to agree the topics with them before you start teaching them, so that you know what to teach. Your current approach needs to be revised with that in mind.
"this one came out more fragmented, there were too many topics at the same time"Lots of courses run into that issue, but it doesn't have to be a problem if you have the resources to deal with it. If there are too many topics, seek some advice and assistance. There are many experienced Wikipedians who would be glad to help. Again, I've seen no evidence of you making use of the experience available in our WikiProjects to help you deal with those issues. I'm sorry to hear that you've been ill. That does, however, reinforce the need for you to collaborate. Many course leaders take the courtesy step to inform relevant Wikiprojects that the students will be working on articles within their scope. Having established a relationship, no matter how brief, you will find it easier to solicit assistance if you find yourself indsposed at crucial times.
"I told you that this cenario won't happen in the future and why."I'm afraid I you have given me no reason to accept that at face value. You say you'll avoid medical topics, but you don't seem to know what topics the students are working on beforehand, so I find it difficult to see how you'll accomplish that.
"If you want to describe how you handle multitopic edit-a-thon please show me your previous examples"I've been involved as an educator in many forms for almost 50 years, across all branches of education from nursery to adult education, with all stages in between, and I've been doing outreach on Wikimedia projects from before you registered an account, so I don't need to prove my credentials to you, but if you want an example of a large multi-topic editathon, make a start with this one: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/06/a-global-editathon-teaching-wikipedia-to-barclays/ – "378 articles edited or created across 18 different language Wikipedias from 12 different Barclays sites. The topics edited ranged from ABBA to Zeng Jenlian." I'll give you more details if you're genuinely interested.
"Based on how you bahave here would you have been collaborative as you claim?"Pure deflection again, but the answer is "yes, I'm happy to collaborate with anyone who wants to collaborate with me", and I've got a lifetime of work to back that up. The ball's in your court if you want any help to avoid these problems in future.
"Please in the spirit of wiki collaboration and your expertise explain to me why you think that talking me to me right now in this way removing time to my content evaluation is the best option?"Nobody is forcing you to write on these talk pages. You choose to do that yourself and you can stop at any time. I'd be grateful for answers to some of my questions, but it's not crucial. I'd be happier to see you using your time to clean up problems that the course has produced. You've already promised to do that this weekend, so I'll gladly be patient. By the way, do you also intend to sort the problem I indicated at Osseointegration, or do you want me to do that? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
RexxS I agrre with all of bullet points, if this is what you need to listen.
But I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading. How did you define the insertion as misleading otherwise? Not adhering to the guideline does not mean something is misleading. The point is not that I don't know what is written in the guideline, I have alredy reassured you (you probably don't trust me on that as with the copyright) and I never said they are better sourced. I can agree with you but you complicated your life because I never disagreed with you on that. I simply said that the content was not misleading as you claimed. You called it that way and this is not correct. Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view. It's brutal but I aplly ro myself. I can evaluate a source, I can choose it, I can write from it but no way i can define a medical content that results from my or somebody's else process as miselading.
I can make a distinction about such two aspects is because I know what is inside a guideline but also what it is not. While it is a problem if you use a primary source, and that can lead to a misleading content, especially a recent ones, not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se.(and by the way, they were told to use reviews, you see that in some insertion, but you can't expect that all students listen the same way, and again if I can't follow becasue I don't have time I cannot correct them all there until now). You can have a text that can be sourced poorly but report correct medical information. I am aware that the text were correct, because even if I couldn't sit at a table and refine the sources with calm immediately, I could however send a mail ask for a revision of the core information. So I acted in respect of the pillar and good sense, which is the minimal situation I could pull there. I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now. Do you want a prove? Compare with Wikipedia:School and university projects/Capellini-Sauro. those are very simple tasks (it's a high school), they were revised one by one. So I will be here as soon as I have time. That's actually the part I like the most.
Your concern that I will do it again is not necessary (you actually gave a useful tool to avoid it). I don't want to come close to the Med project nor I want to change it, the problem is not what you write in a guideline but how you act about it and that can never change with a discussion, it's a social thing. Besides the feedback to students, in retropatrolling and patrolling the core question when you evaluate a text is if the text is correct and which source can be found to evaluate if it is correct, it's not why the current sources are wrong, most of these sources in the medical field become "wrong" very easily because they simply age. So when you aim to long-term quality that is actually a second-rate aspect to start with. it's easy to repeat it, but guidelines are however just a tool and not a goal of a discussion, and since usually med on enwiki is considered a rigid project on that aspect, it's not unusual that people try to avoid. Why spent time to discuss about core distinctions about type of sources that are mostly there by an accident of unfortunate circumstance where in the same time you can discuss with a person with a medical degree, publications, who has trust, is not focused to a procedural checklist and go stick to the point about the real content? It kinda feel that on the Med Porject on enwiki people spend more time than necessary assuring themself that what they are doing brings good quality or is necessary for good quality than actually producing it. they produce a lot of quality, but they actually undersperfom compared to other porject with less users. So if you want to write med topic with students enwiki would not be considered a first choice. Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student. the conversation with an avarage editor there would be "the student did a copyviol" "ok, I clean" "thanks, do you need something else". Why somebody should avoid that, that is actually more effiencent, for this?
BTW I plan things ahead. Right in these days I have sent a mail about another edit a thon. I organize events almost every 1-2 months in different fields and platforms (but I am on hiatus since Apr, 10th), they just don't go on websites. That's why I know by experience that 1) they can go wrong and it's no big deal 2) what really helps in practice. Like I spot so many copyright violation by expert users at edit a thon over the years (but they are closer to some sysop so they are not noticed)... Especially if you are competent you know how bad things happen in any case, and you are calm with this. The competence of experience, not of appearance. That's why I receive every day call for help, people want such help, they want people who can solve quickly a copyright issue and not find complicated to read a simple history with few edits, they want people that know and remind about copyright rule such as sandboxes, people that notice how one bad copyviol our of a dozen task is standard and not make a big deal about it. Because they work. You don't see that because the right edit a thon is actually below the radar.
Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world. An example. last year I was at Uffizi gallery, one trainer was missing, I was put to follow two users at the same time, the only one. I can handle but just in case I open an (active) project in one wikipedia (but I don't see a lot of difference in different language editions), I asked for a precise request, "please we miss one person, I can gear it, just find me these sources because the PC they gave us to find them and help the students is currently frozen". it's a simple task, I was not helped at all. Instead, I received a lecture on a how to organize an edit-a-thon, for example "Use the sandbox". it was surreal. But it's usually like that. They say it's full of people to help but it's not, because instead of assuming that people know how to do things and that they are part of unexpected circumstances when they ask for help, they just teach how to do it because those are standard speechs. Helping wikipedia is considered much easier making assumptions than analyzing a scenario, but this consumes the time of people in exchange of nothing especially when they really need it. I needed time in that circumstance, not somebody to remind what I know. So the choices were 1) go to a project and has in 70-90% of the case a time-consuming reminder which is not the point and try to act politely because if you point this out people will be pissed and tell they are not your servants 2) when students decide to edit medicine contact a doctor who is 100% available and ask if the text is at least clearly correct from the medical point of view. I take resposnability for such choice. You want me to do the other one? Fine. I just jope never to do it, and stay away of striclty medical topic on enwiki as I always tried to do.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 14:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
"I am saying that a real doctor (or a group of them) is the only one who can evaluate if the content of a text is actually misleading."I completely refute your assertion as it is antithetical to how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is built by the contributions of editors of all backgrounds. Your suggested elitism was thrown out years ago, and if you think we should have a project that's controlled by experts in each particular field, you need to take a good look at what happened to Nupedia.
"Unless you ask a qualified doctor you cannot state if you are not a doctor if it is a misleading content from a medical point of view."I'm afraid that is further nonsense and seems to display a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Content on Wikipedia is misleading if it makes biomedical claims without having quality evidence to back it up. Let's take a concrete example. This is part of the content that your student wrote:
"... various studies have shown a sustained general improvement after DBS implant in quality of life, tremor, dyskinesias, motor scores in patients whose motor symptoms were no-drug responsive."That sentence misleads the lay reader because it implies that the studies actually demonstrate the effects that it suggests. Primary studies do not demonstrate biomedical effects. What's so difficult to understand about our guidance? Did you read MEDRS where it states
Studies may suggest or imply particular effects, but we rely on secondary sources to analyse and validate them. Take a look at Bronstein et al {2011), and see the differences from what your student is claiming, particularly the caveats that Bronstein makes about the suitability of DBS, and the setting needed for successful results. No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, your student's contribution is misleading to a lay reader, and they need to have read the secondary sources before ever typing a word.A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field ... is that they are often not replicable. and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Drug discovery scientists at Bayer in 2011 reported that they were able to replicate results in only ~20 to 25% of the prominent studies they examined; scientists from Amgen followed with a publication in 2012 showing that they were only able to replicate 6 (11%) of 53 high-impact publications and called for higher standards in scientific publishing. The journal Nature announced in April 2013 that in response to these and other articles showing a widespread problem with reproducibility, it was taking measures to raise its standards. Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.)
"not all text sourced with primary sources are misleading per se"– but in this case it was, and you're once again trying to defend the indefensible. Just make sure your students don't use primary sources for biomedical content; that's all it needs. And before you tell me that it's all just the English Wikipedia making unreasonable demands on editors, I've read it:Stimolazione cerebrale profonda and that backs up its biomedical claims using pmid:19273170 and pmid:19273169 (both reviews). The Italian Wikipedia employs secondary sources in the equivalent article, and won't thank you for dropping substandard material in there.
"I never acted to leave them poorly sourced, I simply had no time to revise their job up to now."That's the same excuse you've kept trotting out. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and content shouldn't be left in a poor state simply to fit your schedules. If you don't want to clean up after your students in a timely fashion, that's up to you; but it doesn't mean everybody else has to wait until you get around to it; and it doesn't mean that others are not entitled to criticise you for allowing the unacceptable work in the first place.
"Like there is no way a med users on itwikipedia come on a talk page assuming by a single copyviol that it was not teached to student."Have you any evidence to back up this unlikely assertion? When WP:CV is taught properly to students, they remember it.
"Talking about helping in that specific morning, yuor suggestion of going to the project does not help in the practical world."Of course it does. If you had found out ahead of time the topics your students were going to be working on, you could have told WPMED about it, had some advice on teaching MEDRS, and asked some of the editors there to check sandboxes or articles for you. You would have been met with a friendly, helpful response, and your students would have had the benefit of assistance from other experienced editors. Ask JenOttawa about her experience with WPMED when she ran a course for Queen's University.
"the person who noticed the copyviol was not aware that it applies to the sandbox, considered it complicated to remove 8it is actually quite simple"That's downright untrue. SandyGeorgia is perfectly aware that copvio policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and if you carry on making demonstrably false accusations about other editors, I'll take you to ANI and seek sanctions against you. You should retract that PA immediately. The only reason Sandy mentioned the sandbox was because only an admin can delete it, and deletion was the proper course. Does your misrepresentation of what happened show your competence? I think not.
"In other wors your friendly, helpful response does not show"That's because you haven't seen my friendly, helpful response. You've only seen my annoyance that yet another course of students are damaging medical articles, and my frustration that the course teacher refuses to take any responsibility for the damage, or to correct it. I've invested far more time than you deserve in trying to get you to see your mistakes and to take steps to avoid them in future. All I've had back from you is a load of trite excuses that I've heard a hundred times before, bad-mouthing of one of the best Wikiprojects in existence, and a personal attack on a fellow editor.
"I don't think I accused User:SandyGeorgiaExcuse me? What does this mean then: That's a pretty clear judgement on what Sandy doesn't know, and it's completely false. There are very few medical editors with more experience or competence than Sandy. If she "looked a little bit more lost" to you, I think you need to stop jumping to those sort of conclusions.
there is no sign here that a fact that such brutal copy and paste is related to the teaching. I beg to differ. The responsibility for ensuring that a student knows that they mustn't violate copyright rests with the teacher, and there's no reason why a teacher should not satisfy themselves that their students know that. In the real world, I've sanctioned teachers who have either knowingly or carelessly allowed students to submit copied work for public examinations.
the reason is that with somebody diffent than you it would have been easier to put the right sources (the content is not bad as you claim)The content is as bad as I claim. Are you now suggesting that it's okay for students to add copyvios and biomedical information sourced only to primary sources? How is that "not bad"? And how on earth do you get to blame me for your abject failure to teach the students to find the right sources? You've really outdone your previous efforts there.
Perhaps I furthered some of the long discussion by asking RexxS if he would be willing to handle the copyvio, and suggesting that I otherwise would be fine avoiding the history purge (knowing it was unlikely that it could be dealt with anytime soon). Yes, the technically correct path involves templates and posts to places where ... there are simply not enough admins to deal with the amount of copyvio that exists on Wikipedia (a good amount attributable to student editing), most of which is never dealt with, leading experienced editors to shortcut the templating process for a quicker solution whenever feasible. Trying to train up student editors in copyvio is a waste of time, since they never return to become helpful editors. Yes, I know the process; it is backlogged, there is a short supply of admins willing and able to do the work, and the effort of tagging, templating and dealing with student editors is lost as the lessons are not taken on board to create editors who will add good content in the future.
I appreciate that RexxS was willing to deal with the copyvio directly so I didn't have to go through all the gyrations and then wait months for someone to deal with it. I am sorry to have drug RexxS into this lengthy and unproductive discussion, which I hope will end quickly. All persons supervising student editors who are adding biomedical content should engage a curriculum which forces the student to FIRST identify the recent secondary reviews they are planning to use; that would solve a lot of problems. Had the student adding the dietary information on Tourette syndrome first identified the most recent secondary review, they would have seen that there is nothing new, and nothing to add. I hope that lesson will be carried forward to future students. I understand it is near impossible to get students who are forced to edit for a grade to care about copyvio. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
RexxS the article you sent me had no link tot he Barclay's edit-a-thon you cited as an example, as far I could see. I have found Wikipedia:Barclays edit-a-thon. In the talk there are cited "378 pages edited or created". Where is the list? Thank you.
The artcle is from June 2014. In one of the artcile cited Zeng Jenlian I found no edit in 2014 in English, but it could be another language. In any can you show I recent edit a thon you have attended? Thank you-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 22:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
"Of course there will be mistakes, who cares"You should care, and it's a pity that you don't. You want to criticise my outreach work? Fix your own work first. You promised to fix the problems caused by your students this weekend. You haven't, so it will be WPMED editors again having to clean up the mess left by the likes of you.
Ok since I was at a certian point asked to prove some assertion I have also asked User:Geoide, one of top medical contributor on itwikipedia, to come here and describe me. I have no other way, I really don't know what else I can do. She understands English but you can stick to very precise questions, maybe. I can make a bullet point list of critical aspect and she can express her opinion if they are true. This is however getting surreal. Hoping this is not called a "deflection" or something like that.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 00:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi RexxS just as way to show my competence since I had some time in this hour and I ams till waiting for the last students' reply, I make some check.
When you asked to be an event coordinator you did not have to put any link at all to the pages of your previous events on enwiki even there? There should be pages in seven years that can used a clear procedural reference. Try to understand how much is bizarre to face a platform where an event flag can be given to a user with a simple self-declaration, but the worst can be assumed by one event for another user. I mean if you care so much because of your professional past, maybe you should have been more clear there. This is one the reason why we have communication problem I suppose here, I don't get your style. it's uneven.
What is a "lead trainer"? is it a formal position in WMUK? Does it require that a panel of possibly independent users verify the events attended by the user before giving such title? I actually asked for it in one of my chapter (that's how i take resposnabilty here and in the real world), I would be glad to discover if such procedure existed somewhere, that would be very professional. BTW I also register people days in advance but I never had that problem because my rate is almost 100% there. So it's good to know I am more effective than an expert like you user under such aspect. That's something.
I also looked in the log if I could find any movement of flag to users to find some event you could have been involved. I still don't see a lot of activity but from this one I have found Wikipedia:GLAM/Ikon.
First of all there is a weak separation between tutors and students in the page. The list of information is limited but it could be because you had enough experienced tutors. Than, for being such ratio of expert users there should not be many mistakes right?
First click I did was to go for FrancJonsn because he did not sign himself aparently. He left a sandbox User:FrancJonsn/Colin Dick that is copied from an article of The Guardian here. The sandbox is May 2018, this is also a wayback machine of the article in 2017. Now i can go further but it does not really matter, it's just the only way I try to show you how unfair your approach on copyright is. i don't think you or the main organizer are bad tutors. Can you please understand this aspect?-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 16:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)