Medical videos controversy

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:07 am

A huge argument is breaking out over whether or not to include rather long videos in medical articles, which apparently aim to cover the topic, without being a slavish spoken word reproduction of a stable/approved version. They are apparently the result of a collaboration with a company called Osmosis, and having begun in 2015, has already produced some 300 videos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ne/Osmosis

Issues being argued over seem pretty high level (scope, purpose, verification, accuracy, spam, COI), the most disturbing of which is that it appears the removal of videos with obvious errors is being resisted, and Osmosis are being allowed to fix them at their leisure.

Unsurprisingly, the behaviour of James Heilman (Doc James), both in how he edits Wikipedia, and his numerous roles and positions off it, are forming a large part of the controversy. Even less surprisingly, it is reigniting the debate over the role of experts in Wikipedia.

Given it is a pretty simple but pretty important issue, it will hopefully hit the media as a genuine controversy, as a much needed counterbalance to all the promo-fluff Wikipedia has been putting out there about medical content.

User avatar
sashi
Sucks Critic
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:01 am
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by sashi » Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:08 am

Thorny. I'm allergic to jytdog, every time he gets involved in something I start sneezing and thinking those he's arguing against just must be right because he's so abrasive. Still, as presented, it's pretty clear the videos in wikivoice violate lots of rulez. Whether it's an evil plot or not, I'm not too sure... :twisted:

This discussion is running on JimboTalk (link) where jytdog accuses the original poster -- apparently a WikimportAnt in WP:MEDRS lore -- of climbing the Reichstag instead of working with the rest of the colony to help Doc James in his civilizing mission of creating a sim-card physician's wiki-reference. (less likely to cause cranial trauma than air-dropping PDRs I suppose...) ^^

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:41 pm

The invocation of Strategy 2030 is what I find hilarious. We need more video! Here's a video. No, not that kind of video! Well what kind of video did you want? Video! VIDEO! VIIIDEEOOOH!

There's a hilarious hypocrisy here too - apparently Osmosis, through their very generous donations of free video, aren't using Wikipedia as a means to attract customers to its paid services. Not advertising, not COI, not UPE or even DPE, just good old altruism. This argument is being made by the exact same people who argued that properly declared paid editors who also write articles for free, also have a COI on those pages, whatever their subject, since they can be used to advertise their service, so nothing they ever do on Wikipedia can be assumed to be untainted by COI. They must wear that yellow star, and have their every move scrutinized by the likes of Jytdog.

Time for Jytdog to update the policy, or find some way to explain this anomoly, because it doesn't exactly work when the content is video......
COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead.
Jimmy has had his say. It's cute how he still thinks people will give a crap what he thinks.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I've read all this with great interest and I am reflecting on it. For me, the allegations about COI and "a torrent of subliminal advertising" require a lot more evidence, as I don't really see it. A charitable foundation creating educational videos under a free license is a good thing. On the other hand, I do think there are interesting (and hard) questions about what happens if such a video has errors or ambiguities or could in any way be improved, since it's quite hard for editors to actually do that with a video. (Text is wonderfully fluid, video is much more frozen in form.)
There is also a valid question about the style of the videos, which is super casual. The first line of the 'pneumonia' video goes like this: "Alright, so checkout this dude,..." Not really an ideal match for Wikipedia's style.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I had totally forgotten there is also the prospect of this reigniting the war between Jimmy and Doc James. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:07 pm

This is where Wikipedia is really going to suffer for their lack of seriousness over civility and maintaining a professional environment. This is an incredibly complex issue, and yet already it has become completely poisonous......
Do not ever edit my talk page text again. I can summarise my own opening post to a lengthy discussion. I have added a signature to clarify that it is my summary. -- Colin°Talk 18:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not ever add a bold tendentious summary above text others have already commented on again. Oh, and also? Go away you boring person. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, are you twelve? Wikipedia has gone way way downhill. -- Colin°Talk 21:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I am in my fifties. You on the other hand come across as angry, intolerant, determined to frame a debate to suit your agenda only, and unwilling to assume anything other than bad faith. You bore me. Go away. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I think you are a few words away from a block. I strongly suggest you call it a day. The personal attacks at talk Jimbo are unacceptable. You have not made a single constructive comment. Even leaving Doc Jame's COI/proxy editing/edit warring for a commercial organisation aside, there are serious concerns about "videos that cover the entire article topic". If you would only open your eyes a bit, and read what Wikipedia actual is, you might find youself going "What the f*ck were we thinking?". Which part of "a volunteer collaboratively edited hyperlinked encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is not important to you? -- Colin°Talk 20:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no respect for your posts about the videos. They are bullshit. There are issues with the videos but you are doing your damndest to thwart authentic discussion and I will continue calling that behavior out. With regard to my actual thoughts on the issues, along with the "anyone can edit" thing, see my comment here. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
EDITOR BEHAVIOR: Well, since the Doc just accused me of falsehoods in a post at WT:V, at least I now know where the sources are (I have never been involved in any way with images), and my point is made. Like any content issue on Wikipedia, give us the source, we can debate them, and then delete the inaccurate text with consensus. Only in this case, the inaccuracies are imbedded in a video, we don't know which source supposedly sources which text, so we have to delete the whole video. The behavior problem is that one person seems to believe he can act without consensus. And call people liars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And yet you continue. You simple make stuff up as you go along "this whole project was predicated on them getting priority placement" is BS. But whatever. The number of different locations you are taking this up now numbers 5. Talk about moving fast... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
This page never fails to provide regular doses of hilarity. I am in stitches (ha!) at the sight of an amateur encyclopedia author criticizing the lack of medical expertise of an actual doctor. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure SandyGeorgia, Doc James is corporate shill. There are issues with the videos but you are so busy slathering on resentful garbage that the actual issues cannot be discussed. What a sloppy campaigner you have become. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
If Wikipedia had standards, if it clamped down hard on people who displayed even a hint that they were quite happy to 'comment on the contributor and not the content' in ways other than those approved, they'd not generate this level of bile this quickly. It would be seen for what it is, totally and utterly unacceptable and without any possible justification, not even the one they will of course offer up - 'passion'. It's not passion, it's immaturity and disrespect. Unsurprisingly, some of these editors already have a history of discipliniary issues and are on notice for their behaviour, and that's saying something given Wikipedia's lax standards.

I'm certainly seeing blocks, and likely an entire Arbitration case, on the horizon. People are probably already calculating that if they can remove Colin, the issue likely goes away for lack of a champion, with much less words expended than an actual debate on the issues at hand would incur.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:28 am

James has supposedly listened to feedback and removed all the videos, terminated the collaboration with Osmosis, and got them to remove all mention of it from their website.

Hard to explain this volte-face other than what must be his sheer panic at the thought of what the media would have made of this trainwreck of a clusterfuck, and his role in it all. Of secondary concern must have been the way the dispute was trending toward examining whether or not James' activities and his various interconnected roles represent any kind of COI, and indeed just what the true nature of WikiProject Medicine really is. Some pretty damning posts had been made on that score, even by James' supporters.

Given all that, you can see neow he'd conclude that his personal interests, namely not wanting negative exposure or any kind of restriction in his activities, were far more important than the loss of videos from Wikipedia, which had apparently been viewed eight million times. Even though, as the media has been telling us for years (by slavishly reporting WMF propaganda), he's all about the wonder of the wiki.

Jytdog had foolishly tried to remove the principle agitants using a horrifically biased AN/I report, and that was probably the last straw for James - he'd have surely seen an ArbCom case on the horizon, either begun by Jytdog when it failed, or by those he was trying to silence, and thus he must have decided only a full scale shut down would avert this crisis now.

Given past problems, you'd think he'd want to publish all the emails he's exchanged with assorted folks about this issue, so there's no misunderstandings down the line as to exactly what's been said and what each party thinks has been agreed.

I suppose the one saving grace for James is that he knows Wikipediocracy has his back. Any enemy of Jimmy is a friend of theirs, and Poetlister in particular seems smitten by him. Strange way to expose the faults and failings of Wikipedia, but whatever......

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:07 am

CrowsNest wrote:I had totally forgotten there is also the prospect of this reigniting the war between Jimmy and Doc James. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

That's inevitable. Wales is slowly losing whatever influence he had, and Heilman is grabbing his own slavish army of followers.
Jytdog had foolishly tried to remove the principle agitants using a horrifically biased AN/I report, and that was probably the last straw for James - he'd have surely seen an ArbCom case on the horizon, either begun by Jytdog when it failed, or by those he was trying to silence, and thus he must have decided only a full scale shut down would avert this crisis now.

Jytdog is a damn fool who thinks the Medicine Wikiproject people "have his back". They are the first people who would jam a spear into his spine, given the chance and the need. No honor among thieves.
I suppose the one saving grace for James is that he knows Wikipediocracy has his back. Any enemy of Jimmy is a friend of theirs, and Poetlister in particular seems smitten by him. Strange way to expose the faults and failings of Wikipedia, but whatever......

That is quite possible. I suspect some people have been pushed out of WO for criticizing Heilman and not Wales. This is only the latest sign of an approaching attempt by Heilman to seize control of Wikimedia. Yes, he's arrogant and clueless enough to try it.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:16 am

ericbarbour wrote:I suspect some people have been pushed out of WO for criticizing Heilman and not Wales.
If Poetlister is one of the posters Zoloft respects, then I suspect this includes me. Who else did you have in mind?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Medical videos controversy

Post by CrowsNest » Sat May 12, 2018 12:48 am

Turns out James was just stalling for time. He has been a busy bee, working away to fix some of the issues identified, using Measles as a sample, and has come back to WT:MED to ask for feedback, as a precursor to trying to refloat the idea these videos are usable after all. As you might expect, it's already turned into a trainwreck, and has now spread to Commons too.

Post Reply