Wardweistra

tranSMART

Hi User:JzG and User:Maproom,

Thanks for your replies in the Tea House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_717#Does_my_article_have_enough_Secondary_sources?). Couldn't find the right way to reopen my archived question, so I hope you can find me here. Thanks for the feedback, where you indicated that too many of the sources are not independent.

• For the Foundation's website that is clearly right. I've only used that one to cite the latest release version, so I guess that's OK? Not a fact you'll easily find elsewhere.
• There's indeed also a few papers of people who work on tranSMART. The paper that introduced the platform ("Effective knowledge management in translational medicine".) and two others ("tranSMART: An Open Source Knowledge Management and High Content Data Analytics Platform" and "tranSMART: An Open Source and Community-Driven Informatics and Data Sharing Platform for Clinical and Translational Research".)
• But then there's also a few papers that are reviews by users who have adopted or compared the platform ("Integrating Heterogeneous Biomedical Data for Cancer Research: the CARPEM infrastructure", "Two Years of tranSMART in a University Hospital for Translational Research and Education" and one I have added after your last review "Translational research platforms integrating clinical and omics data: a review of publicly available solutions")

Please help me with some concrete suggestions what I could do to make it better.

• Would it help to remove all or part of the first two categories of the above citations?
• Would it help if I added more sources of users of the platform?
• Would you be aware of other secondary sources that would make the article more independent?

I could add mentions of that at the Bio-IT World conference the platform has twice won a Best-Practice award (http://www.bio-itworld.com/2014/5/1/2014-bio-it-world-best-practices-award-winners-named.html, http://www.bio-itworld.com/2015/4/22/2015-bio-it-world-best-practices-awards-winners-announced.html) but I didn't want to be advertising. There are other links out there on the platform (https://www.genomeweb.com/informatics/merger-transmart-i2b2-aims-provide-informatics-boost-precision-medicine-efforts, https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/news-item/eye-precision-medicine-transmart-i2b2-foundations-merge, https://www.biospace.com/article/-b-transmart-foundation-b-teams-with-ibm-to-bring-translational-medicine-data-to-scientists-merges-with-b-i2b2-b-/) but I'm afraid most of these are press releases or at least not quite NYT quality either.

Or if you'd advise me to just give it up, that's tough but welcome too. Thanks again in advance!

Wardweistra (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

When you're asking for advice on a draft, it's a good idea to give a link to it like this Draft:TranSMART, instead of expecting potential helpers to scrat around searching for it.

The main problem with the current version is that it still lacks sufficient evidence of notability. The Briefings in Bioinformatics will help a little, but it's not the kind of secondary source you should be looking for.

A minor point is that the first sentence does not do enough to explain what the draft is about. A casual reader may get the impression that it's about a body of data, rather than a software package that the user will populate. But it's not worth bothering about things like that if you can't find references to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• One very common error among new editors (and actually even established ones) is to mistake press releases for independent coverage - see churnalism. A press release is not an independent source even if it's published in a newspaper or magazine. And papers funded or published by a company describing its product also don't establish notability, only existence. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TranSMART has been accepted

TranSMART, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi Wardweistra. I work on COI matters and edit mostly about health and medicine.

Would you please clarify, if you are editing WP as part of your job or if you are doing on your own time? It changes little but we use different templates in the different situations. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog: Thanks for your question. I'm editing in my own time, not as part of my job. I will clarify this in the text next to my COI declaration. Please let me know if a different COI template should be used! Wardweistra (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. So...

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step, which you have happily taken care of at your userpage; I have added the tag at Talk:tranSMART so disclosure is done there.

The second step is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes, with the disclosure; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page if it is not already there; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following this two step process, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is important, and takes time.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Sure, that sounds fair and not unlike what I've done so far. This article was already deliberately created via the WP:AFC process. I'll propose my not-uncontroversial changes on the corresponding Talk page for tranSMART and possible future COI pages. Wardweistra (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is indeed what you have done - your instincts were dead on. :) I just wanted to give you the framework. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated! And thanks for the hard work you're doing! Wardweistra (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)