The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem

Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:50 pm

The Internet’s Dizzying Citogenesis Problem
https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wi ... oblem.html
Stephen Harrison, Slate, 7 March 2019

On the one hand, this is a good piece as it goes into great detail describing the citogenisis problem, and the likelihood it is never getting fixed anytime soon, because it is both hard to do and because Wikipedia is a cult that is perfectly prepared to sacrifice the needs of the reader to ensure their own survival. This is all true.

On the other, it is incredibly ridiculous for ignoring its own findings. Despite confirming citogenesis has been known about for years, and despite acknowledging "millions of internet users (not just journalists) rely on Wikipedia for information", and despite casting James Heilman as an experienced Wikipediot, and despite having told the reader Heilman seems to have only confirmed for himself that citogenisis is a real thing two weeks ago after stumbling on an example himself, how in fucking holy hell do you DARE write something as hopelessly naive as this as your conclusion........
For now, it’s up to vigilant editors like Heilman to identify suspected citogenesis incidents by relying on their experience and instincts. And, of course, it’s still on everyday readers to apply critical thinking when engaging with new information, whether the platform is Wikipedia or not.
The answer appears to be linked to the fact he didn't interview anyone for this piece who isn't an enthusiastic guzzler of the Kool-Aid of all the basic Wikipedia tenets, of which eventualism is just one.

A better article would have told the reader the cold hard facts - this recently discovered case involves 4,000 potential instances of citogenisis, and in flagging it up Heilman seemed to care more about Wikipedia's copyright being infringed than the risk to readers, and the only definite action that seems to have arisen, is the source has been added to a list of Wikipedia mirrors (therefore unreliable).

It has not been blacklisted to make absolutely sure it cannot be added as a reference in future, and there appears to be nobody working to resolve the question mark that now hangs over all the current uses. Is it even being tagged as {dubious} in each instance? Nobody knows. Well, I do, since after checking the cocaine article, the answer is no.

Someone may be working through to remove them manually, since the total seems to have dropped to ~3,000, but who is doing that, and what they are doing, is anyone's guess. The WikiProject Medicine page, which Heilman sees as his personal fiefdom, doesn't list "clean-up drugbank citogenisis problem" as an open maintenance task, partly because it doesn't list any open maintenance tasks.

Even the way the site has been listed as a mirror, seems to imply the issue is merely one of copyright....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... F#Drugbank

This is the entire contents of the now archived discussion the article linked to......
Copyright / Reliable sourcing issue

The website Drugbank https://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB09141 includes text copied and pasted from Wikipedia. They do it somewhat correct in that they attribute us but they do not do the "share alike" part appropriately.[12] I have followed up with them on that part.

The problem is that we are using this ref 4,000 times.[13] And we are thus like just referencing Wikipedia with Wikipedia :-( Citogenesis has become a reality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears they use Wikipedia a fair bit but often reference it a little worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay Drugbank has agreed that they have copied and pasted from us. The difficulty is that they do so across many articles.

They have stated that they are unable to move to an actually open license (currently they use CC BY SA NC). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider adding it to WP:FORK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Post Reply