User talk:Doc James

We have an offline version of our healthcare content. Download the app and access all this content when there's no Internet. (other languages)

 Translation
Main page Those Involved
(sign up) Newsletter 

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online. Videos from Osmosis I've edited the next five in c:Category:Videos from Osmosis this evening. First one: File:Abscesses 1.webm Next five: File:Achondroplasia 1.webm File:Acute cholecystitis 1.webm File:Acute leukemia 1.webm File:Acute pancreatitis 1.webm File:Acute pyelonephritis 1.webm --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Thanks User:RexxS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Grant James, can you say what the $250,000 grant is for that Knowledge Diffusion Inc (operating as Osmosis) received in January 2017 in relation to WikiProject Medicine? The grant was from the Hewlett Foundation: "In collaboration with WikiProject Medicine and the UCSF-UCB Joint Masters Program, Osmosis will undertake a 12-month pilot project to help medical school faculty and students integrate OER [open educational resources] into their curriculum through a scalable approach combining technology and credit-bearing electives." The videos were in 2016, so it can't be for them. The Osmosis account stopped editing in 2016 apart from one edit. SarahSV (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) User:SlimVirgin part of it is to support this class at UCSF. Amin Azzam has received some funding for this work which includes out reach to other medical schools regarding the editing of Wikipedia. Wiki Project Med Foundation is supporting the teaching of these classes and have been since 2013. Wiki Project Med Foundation however is not receiving any money, nor am I. There was a write up about this class in the NYTs back in 2013 when it started.[1] We are also hoping that this will support a "teaching assistant" and the development of a "userscript" to guide medical students who are editing Wikipedia. Will need to look at this once / if the dust settles. With respect to Osmosis, most of their work with respect to us is uploading videos on Commons as you can see here and they have been active as of February 22 2018. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the information. I can't see what Osmosis has to do with the student editing mentioned by the NYT. [2] Knowledge Diffusion Inc, operating as Osmosis, received $150,000 in 2014 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation "to help Osmosis make its platform accessible to all clinical students", [3] and I believe this led to the creation of the videos for those students; $250,000 in January 2017 from the Hewlett Foundation (touting their relationship with WikiProject Medicine); [4] $100,000 from TEDCO in December 2017 (again the relationship with Wikipedia is mentioned); [5] investment from Coverys, the insurance provider, in January 2018 (the relationship mentioned again); [6] and now they're applying for $100,000 from the Wikimedia Foundation (again mentioning WikiProject Medicine). [7] That's $600,000 plus an unknown amount from Coverys, much or all of it connected to or mentioning WikiProject Medicine or Wiki Project Med Foundation. Which Wikipedians are involved in this? SarahSV (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The "credit-bearing electives" refers to the elective for medical students at UCSF. The prof who leads efforts at UCSF has the folks from Osmosis give a talk during his Wikipedia editing class. He was interested in promoting Wikipedia editing to other schools so joined Osmosis on a grant application to help support these efforts. Wiki Project Med Foundation through myself and others were collaborating with both Amin at UCSF and folks at Osmosis on the class. You can see the nine discussions about these efforts over the last few years on the WTMED pages. It is additionally described in the reports from WPMEDF in both 2016 and 2017. They have also build us a video to help teach people how to edit Wikipedia's medical content.[8] These organizations are also funding the creation of the videos we were using of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Are you helping them in any way with their $100,000 grant application to the WMF? SarahSV (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Other than telling them that there is a grant process, no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Can you say more about it, please? How did they come to ask for a grant from an organization that has been giving them free advertising space? Look at their LinkedIn: "Osmosis aims to provide your future clinicians the best education so that they can provide you the best care. Our popular videos are featured on Wikipedia, YouTube, Medscape/WebMD, the Washington Post, and many other outlets ..." This is the kind of thing you normally can't stand. Something about it being medicine, video, and people you've come to know has blinded you to the PR aspect of it. SarahSV (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The primary issue I have with COI is when the organization creating the content has a COI with respect to the subject matter in question. I do not generally have issues with the NIH using NIH sources, or Cochrane using Cochrane sources, or the WHO using WHO sources. Osmosis as I have said is primarily supported by grants. My initial understanding was that they were working to become an NGO. That they have not at this point is a little frustrating. As the videos per the ongoing RfC are in all likely going to be removed this collaboration will be ending and the chance of them being considered for funding will decrease to around zero. The NIH, WHO, UCSF, and Cochrane also mention their collaboration with Wikipedia by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I hope we can look into that as well, because by driving almost exclusively NIH sources into the leads of articles (including FAs, which had superior sourcing before you re-did them all to NIH), the quality of those articles has been driven down. Not only that, there is no reason to have Wikipedia article leads which essentially do nothing more than repeat what the NIH sources have-- that demotes the very strength that Wikipedia provides. Sorry this is off-topic, but I hope it is something we will discuss in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Agree that is a separate issue. Are you saying you plan to push for not allowing the use of the NIH/CDC as a source? I have always taken them to be positions of national expert bodies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Will start section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC) James, can you say what you meant by "Other than telling them that there is a grant process, no"? Are you saying you advised them to apply for a grant from the WMF, and if yes, can you elaborate, please? SarahSV (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Sure. They asked "does the WMF provide funding" and I said yes they do here is a link to the funding process page on meta. I have had zero roll in the draft of their application and in fact the link you provided above was the first time I had seen it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, thank you for explaining. It just seems utterly bizarre that (a) we give them free advertising by placing their videos in hundreds of articles topped and tailed by their company logo and URL, then (b) we're asked to give them $100,000, when it should be them giving us money, and considerably more than $100,000. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I do not believe they are making any profit. None of the links within the videos here are clickable. I consider the videos a useful resource. That they were willing to use an open license is fairly amazing. Expecially given that the Khan Academy and most other NGOs are not willing to use open licenses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Unless they've opened up their accounts to you, you can't know whether they're making a profit, but there's no reason to assume that they don't intend to, and given that the CEO has an MBA from Harvard Business School, I'm going to assume that he knows what he's doing. Wikipedia was a platform that might help them to grow; if they hadn't used an open licence, you wouldn't have been able to give them the space. What caused Jake and Sylvia from the WMF to get involved, when you already knew the Osmosis people from their time at Khan? SarahSV (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Jake was on the board of Wiki Project Med Foundation. Not sure about what resulted in Sylvia's involvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Would you please explain how it came about? The short replies mean I keep having to ask more questions. Jake was there in his WMF capacity (diff). SarahSV (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) User:SlimVirgin I do not fully remember the step by step details of how this all came together. A few details: I have liked the work of the Khan Academy for years. I randomly reached out to them to suggest collaborating back at least as far as 2013. This is how I meet Rishi who was leading the efforts at Khan to create medical videos. Over a number of meetings I convinced him to convince the organization to do a trial of releasing three videos for use on Wikipedia which occurred in early 2015 and which you can see here. After those three there was no further interest from Khan in releasing more videos under an open license. Khan also decided to narrow their work to K to 12 and thus dropped medical information. Rishi was than picked up by a newly formed group, Osmosis to continue doing what he was previously working on at Khan. This new group was willing to use an open license which I thought was great. Thus we see the videos uploaded by this account Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Looking back at old emails. Rishi reach out to both myself and WMF staff in 2015 which is what brought them into a meeting. The only folks I have really collaborated with were on the content project side of things, this being Rishi and Kyle. Did not interact to any degree with others within the organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Can you tell us about that meeting, e.g. where it took place and who attended? (This is re: "Rishi reach out to both myself and WMF staff in 2015 which is what brought them into a meeting.") SarahSV (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Occurred by teleconference. That is this.[9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC) James, you've always presented yourself as strong on transparency. During the search-engine issue, you were highly critical of people who were releasing bits and pieces of information but who avoided telling the whole story at once. Please do now what you wanted them to do then, and tell us everything that happened. SarahSV (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC) You are by now grave dancing and just kicking and your actions here are coming across very like a hostile deposition-taking or interrogation. This is not like the Knowledge Engine, which was a major direction the WMF were thinking of taking our entire movement in. WPMED has lots of informal collaborations as Doc James already mentioned in this exchange with you. Doc James used some poor judgement by not managing the relationship more closely as he already said. The community didn't pay enough mind to the postings that Doc James made about this, as it was happening. You are trying to hold James accountable for things the company did, like how they leveraged the relationship. Do you really think Doc James is corrupt? The relationship as it stood is over. If you care about the use of our name you should keep an eye on that and let everybody know if they keep using it. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC) SV I have presented above what occurred. There is and was no behind the scenes machinations. Here in 2013 I mentioned that folks at Khan were interested in collaborating (ie Rishi).[10] Mentioned it again plus a number of other efforts with respect to video in Aug 2014. Here in Nov 2014 you can see the "success" we had with an initial agreement of release of 5 videos that turned into 3 videos. Uploaded here. But this still took more time and when it occurred was announced here in 2015. Here in July 2015 I say "am trying to convince organizations that releasing them under a license we can use is a good idea for global health." And there I discuss another release of videos this time from HealthPhone. Additionally we discuss a release of videos from the CDC/Harvard which within the Ebola article. When the first video was released by Osmosis it was announced as "Hey All. The group doing medical videos at Khan has split off and joined an organization called Osmosis. The good news is that this new organization is producing all their videos under a CC BY SA license (rather than using the CC BY SA NC license at Khan). First videos are here and I have added them to the body of a number of articles" This was Dec 2015. This is more or less how all my collaborations have worked. I email people asking if they are willing to release stuff under an open license. This is how I got the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines released under an open license. This is how I got all these ECHO cases released.[11] and these ECGs from ECGpedia[12]. I can list more cases beyond this but the pattern is fairly obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC) James, I'm not alleging "machinations". I'm saying that there are several ways to view what happened, and that you're only seeing it one way. The concern is that you (inadvertently) helped to organize a native advertising campaign on Wikipedia, which led to a startup receiving eight million views of videos containing its brand name, as well as the ability to call itself a Wikipedia partner in its advertising material, and the official source of medical videos for Wikipedia. That relationship may have helped it obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding, considering that Wikipedia is mentioned in the press releases announcing the grants. You're credited as an author of the congestive heart failure video, by the way: [13]. If you had put that out to tender, other parties—including mission-aligned organizations—might have been willing to supply much higher quality videos, in exchange for that amount of advertising. Instead, the partnership went to a couple of people that you knew and liked. Can you see the problem with that? (This ignores the other issues: that the videos didn't comply with WP:V and WP:MEDRS, and that the wider community wasn't consulted.) SarahSV (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Angelman syndrome question Hi Doc James - I've posted a question at the talk page for this article, concerning the correct pronunciation; I noticed you might have that article on your watchlist. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Pronunciation is not really an area I know anything about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC) NIH sourcing Continued from User_talk:Doc_James#Grant "Are you saying you plan to push for not allowing the use of the NIH/CDC as a source?" First, thanks for asking. No, I am not suggesting that at all. An explanation of my concern starts with what I believe to one of the fundamental strengths of Wikipedia. Setting aside the medical realm for a moment, one of the joys of my days as FAC delegate was the privilege to read some articles that were exquisitely written and researched, and comprehensive beyond anything available anywhere online-- clearly pathsetting in their fields (along with some other truly awful articles I was obliged to promote because consensus was there and that was my job). I had the joy of promoting some FAs that put information on the internet that was previously unavailable to people unless they had access to a university library. In the medical realm, this had great potential. At the time I came to Wikipedia, there was nothing comprehensive anywhere online about Tourette syndrome. The readers' options were textbooks (that were above the reading level of some), laybooks (typically dreadfully biased self-help type), brief NIH fact sheets (and for years the NIH would not correct their TS errors), advocacy group websites (that were not so good in the case of TS, because to make money, they needed to promote a somewhat pessimistic prognosis), and a few free full-text journal articles. The ability to pull from the highest quality information available and gel it down to what readers needed to know, in hopefully accessible language (I recognize that we don't always attain that, but we sure try) and give readers more than they could find on an NIH factsheet was motivating, powerful, and inspirational for me. It is a core strength of Wikipedia-- getting info to general readers they might not otherwise have access to. By driving our leads to contain only that which is already available in NIH sources, we lose a core strength. We give our readers nothing they couldn't already get online. They are a reliable source that I often use and that has a place in our sourcing scheme. But by using them almost exclusively in leads, we sacrifice a core strength, and a motivating factor for people who want to produce top content. I am hoping you will understand that some of us are highly motivated to create a unique resource for internet readers. This is what I hope to do at dementia with Lewy bodies (right now, it's a mess-- I tend to chunk in factoids, and go back and smooth prose later). I don't want to only duplicate what readers can already find at the Lewy Body Dementia Association or the NIH. I suspect this matter is at the core of the instances when you and I disagree, which is why I hope you will try to understand, as I try to understand that you are motivated by different factors. This is why the drive to (what I believe) downgrade leads to basically what is already available at NIH sources is so difficult for those of us who hope to provide unique internet resources. We have the ability to offer more than what is already available online, and should use that. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC) As an example, I'll give dementia with Lewy bodies. The sources from NIH highlight depression (neuropsychiatric) and urinary incontinence (autonomic), while the sources I'm reading highlight apathy and constipation. We shouldn't be constrained by what the NIH chooses to highlight; we can offer more. If the top researchers in the field are seeing more concern with apathy v depression or constipation v urinary incontinence, we can offer something of interest to our readers relative to what they can already find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Glad to hear that you are not pushing to disallow the NIH and CDC. I have no problems with other high quality sources being used in the leads or anywhere else in the article, and apologies if I gave that impression. Additionally I use way more than the CDC and NIH as sources. They are however useful in many respects as they provide an easy to access overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I know you use other/more sources, but when aiming to have leads use only easily understood sources (as opposed to language), we may be missing out on valuable information. And by appearing to force leads to be citable to these easily accessible sources, we lose nuance, other information, and other value added by having the lead be a true summary of the article-- not just what is in a few sources that are highlighted in the lead. According to WP:V and WP:LEAD, I can say "urinary incontinence or consipation", "apathy or depression", without having to chunk up the lead with citations-- any citation at all. I can combine thoughts that are summarized in the article. That is much more useful to our readers, and more readable than being forced to stick on another citation of something that is summarized in the body, just because the NIH doesn't use it. Leads are also supposed to entice readers to read the article-- not just to click out to the NIH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC) My request was just to add citations to support the details you add to the lead. If you wish not to, yes that is permissible by policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I am happy to hear that, thanks. I would hope to encourage editors to work on article content, and summarize last to the lead-- it's just better editing. Generally, citations in the lead are evaluated case by case, but that we ended up with this eyesore I suspect is because the fellow truly thought he had to do that, per you. Why FAC passed it is a whole 'nother problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC) IMO nothing in the lead should be so controversial as to require more than one or two sources. With respect to the article you mention I will leave it to User:Seppi333 to answer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC) No, that "eyesore" is all based upon my own preferences Sandy. The notion that a lead shouldn't be cited is utter bullshit. It's article content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) It is odd that someone who does not seem to have digested Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages would respond with "bullshit"; maybe you are spending too much time absorbing the WP:MED ethos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018 Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost? News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments. Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet. In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical. Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up. Humour: WikiWorld Reruns * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Chronic Mania Hi Doc James, You recently removed information about Chronic Mania (see this edit). Your reason for the removal was "need secondary sources" so I reviewed Wikipedia's policy: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Having reviewed the policy, I fail to see how the information that I added required a secondary source. However, I am not a medical expert so I would appreciate if you could please explain why secondary sources were necessary for this information. Also, FYI if the only issue with some information is that it lacks secondary sources then you could use the {{Primary source inline|date=}} tag instead of deleting it. Thanks. selfwormTalk) 19:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Please read WP:MEDRS. Secondary sources are very much prefered. We do not typically use single case reports ever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Angelman syndrome caption [14] Thank you! I was wondering whether I should bother someone who actually knows what a proband was without having to look it up to review that image caption, but thought you'd likely be too busy. --GRuban (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC) User:GRuban wondering if we should cut the image in half to have just the four pictures of the person with the condition? Right now IMO the picture is a little small. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Seems reasonable. Unfortunately the original isn't that much larger, so it will only help a little. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Okay. It needs to be approved before I can crop it. But when that is done will go ahead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Update removal of videos Wikipedia:Osmosis: "This collaboration has formally ended as of Mar 29th, 2018." Are you going to update the community about this, at the RFC and Talk Jimbo? I could write a neutral note myself, but some might accuse me of grave dancing and respond with more abuse. I feel that really, this is your job, and that better communication with the wider community is definitely one of the lessons you need to learn, and admit you need to learn. -- Colin°Talk 10:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC) I was waiting to finish with the removal of videos. Was also waiting to clear up a few other things behind the scenes. Update is out here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Just wondering What do you think about the rise of Wikipedia to 'solve' the disinformation problems of social media. This is for a Signpost Story. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Hey User:Eddie891 Most controversial topics are already semi protected and relatively decently watched. I am hoping that this will be enough to deal with much of the potential disruption. On the plus side this sort of exposure may bring in more people who are interested in improving or maintaining these topics as they may see Wikipedia as having a potentially greater impact. Well Youtube has announced this effort, I do not think it has rolled out yet. I would be nice to help with maintenance if they provided us with a list of articles they plan to link to. This would also allow us to determine what effect their change has on readership if any. We could of course potentially build something internally but creating a list of articles based on traffic coming from Youtube. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Vasculitis video Hey, why did you remove the video from Vasculitis? I saw it was there this morning, when I checked again it disappeared I thought I imagined it, then I saw the edit history and it says you removed it? I found it useful 62.11.172.91 (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC) There was a RfC here and consensus was that due to a number of issues the community no longer wanted these videos on English Wikipedia. As I was the primary person who had added these videos I removed them. They remain on Wikimedia Commons and you can see them here. Whether or not we will one day be able to address the issues sufficiently for similar videos to return I do not know. I also believe they are useful... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Okay, thank you for explaining 62.11.172.91 (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Word of thanks The Anti-Flame Barnstar It's been a bitter saga, but you've ended it with diligence and grace. Thank you. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)