Chuckd105
Welcome! edit
|
Edit war warning edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Interventional radiology. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia edit
Hi Chuck D - along with my work on health-related articles, I do a lot of work on conflict of interest (COI) in Wikipedia. You may or may not be familiar with COI but it is a very important issue and needs to be managed. I am providing you formal notice of our COI guideline and the Terms of Use for Wikipedia, and then will have some comments and questions. Please read this carefully and reply below.
Hello, Chuckd105. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.
Comments/Questions edit
Wikipedia highly values contributions by subject matter experts; at the same time, experts have some special challenges when they first start editing here. Please see the essay with advice for experts, WP:EXPERTS, which discusses both sides of that coin.
One of the challenges is related to conflicts of interest (COI). You may be familiar with that concept from your real world work, but it has some interesting twists here in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here. Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work. Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, managing COI is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.
While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with the people who ran the VERiTAS trial, the devices that were tested in it, or VasSol? You can answer how ever you wish, but if there is any relationship that creates a COI, please disclose the relationships and who they are with. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. (note - having a COI doesn't exclude you from Wikipedia, it just means you have to do some things differently) Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog Dog - I do have a relationship to VasSol and would be willing to remove the distributor line (although it is a simple fact). I understand the COI issues - as they are very important in work I have done. So clearly there is a business goal to spread information about VERiTAS. The VERiTAS study is completely independent of me, and was an independent, blind, prospective study (again all factual information from clinicaltrials.gov). From your instruction, I see where the presentation of the data at ISC is considered a primary source - and while my goal was simply to quote that source (and not to interpret beyond that) the community will benefit when the article is published. Thank you for your help on getting the information out. I have several ideas:
- 1. qMRA® is a recognized medical imaging procedure that is not cited in Wikipedia anywhere but does have a page in the recognized medical school textbook on neurosurgery. Note that someone else uses the trademarked qmra in a medical page on Wikipedia - which may be a violation. Not sure. What is the procedure there? qMRA could be posted as its own article or a subset of magnetic resonance angiography.
- 2. NOVA® software is the only commercially available software to conduct qmra studies. Perhaps it deserves a page. Or the company, VasSol. I would agree that of the three, qMRA is most important.
- 3. Updating pages on interventional radiology, and other specialties where the results of VERiTAS are relevant - such as in the discussion on SAMMPRIS. This is a very interesting subject. The conclusion in SAMMPRIS was that the wingspan® stent was less effective than medical management. However, the investigators selected patients under the study based on "percent stenosis". VERITAS suggests that if patients were selected from "percent stenosis" and then further refined by blood-flow such that only Low Flow, high percent stenosis patients were selected that the investigators might have found a high-risk population, for whom the wingspan stent might have reduced risk. Certainly this is relevant to endovascular surgery and interventional radiology. Chuckd105 (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)chuckd105
- PS: I did not mean to start a "war". I was not familiar with the "history" of pages to see why my edits suddenly disappeared nor was I familiar with the methods of communicating with other reviewers. So I simply re-edited the page as an obvious alternative. I am happy to collaborate.
- Sorry for the delay getting back to you. There is a whole slew of issues here. One at a time.
- As I have written to you a few times, content about health needs to be sourced from sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. The conference abstract is not an acceptable source. That is all I will say for now about the content you wanted to add. There are other more urgent things.
- The other thing I will reply to now is your comments about trademark. With regard to trademark symbols, we generally don't use them in WP. Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks. With regard to your comments about some other use of "qmra in a medical page on Wikipedia", never make legal threats in Wikipedia. See WP:No legal threats. We ban people who make them. So don't go there - don't even think about going there. Your comment above is not banworthy but just don't go there. And if you are talking about the QMRA article, if you don't know enough about trademarks to understand why your trademark doesn't read on that product, you should not be talking about IP law at all. If you are talking about some other article, let me know.
- That's all I'll say for now. We have more to discuss. (I know medical imaging and medical imaging software btw). Please respond about the two things I wrote above. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay getting back to you. There is a whole slew of issues here. One at a time.
I will work on an article that describes qMRA compliant with WP:MEDRS. This may take a little time. When complete, can I use you as a sounding board. I was talking about the QMRA article. Thank you. Chuckd105 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.255.29.203 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying! Now on the matter of your company's software. That is a great product and you probably could write a WP article on it. It needs to be a WP article, though, not a marketing piece. (It would be really helpful if you had a section, for example, other ways to measure blood flow like doppler US or catheterization) Please make sure you have read and understand WP:MEDRS for any kind of health claims, and WP:MEDMOS for style guidance. You may want to check out other article about medical devices (but there are many poor ones that are way too WP:TECHNICAL (please read that) so read a lot of articles to really get a flavor. Oh and also maybe check out WP:EXPERT - we do love experts here and if you want to contribute content where don't have a financial interest, that would be amazing.
- fwiw, i am super interested in how new products come to market. it might make sense to have an article on VasSol and its origins instead, and include content about their product. I haven't gone looking to see if there are enough independent sources on the company or the product to the point where it meets our criteria for whether an article can exist or not - which is WP:NOTABILITY. What it really comes to, is whether there are enough independent (not written by the company or the university it started from, etc) to build an article around. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- But back to this COI stuff. OK, we manage COI in WP two ways - via disclosure, and via a form of peer review. So you made an initial disclosure that you have a relationship with VasSol. That is great. You could just write "I have am employee of VasSol and have a COI for articles related to that company and its products. The products are software in the field of magnetic resonance angiography." Something like that. If you want to say more you can (like: I am a scientist/MD/whatever who went into business" that might be helpful to other editors, so they know how to "pitch" discussion with you. That would go on your User page User:Chuckd105. You can disclose your real world identity, but only if you want. There are downsides and upsides to doing that. I don't do it; some do! but you absolutely never have to identity yourself in WP (you do have to identify relationships if you have a COI)
- On the "peer review" front... you are free to draft an article if you have a COI, but once that article enters Wikipedia, or for any content in any article already in WP where you have a COI, you should not directly edit. Instead, you should make an "edit request" on the talk page associated with the article. I don't want to get into the details now, but I can tell you how to do that, if you ever want to.
- OK that is plenty for now. Thanks again for answering Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
