FieldsTom

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources. If you need help finding these let me know but pubmed is often a useful source. The AHRQ also produces many excellent reviews. The ones you are adding however are primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Source questions

I saw your comment about using high quality resources. Is the AHRQ Innovations Exchange not considered high quality? It does provide evidence ratings and disclosures. I also saw your comment about using secondary rather than primary sources. Should primary sources always be avoided? Thanks for your help with best practices. — Precedingunsigned comment added by FieldsTom (talk •contribs) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes generally primary sources should be avoided in main articles. The issue is one of undue weight. Secondary sources put the literature into perspective while primary sources do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Your addition to Group Health Cooperative has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding WP:COI. The thread is Copy-pastes from innovations.ahrq.gov. Thank you. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tom. I saw that you were trying to improve health articles. As you say, US government website information is in the public domain and can be copied and pasted to Wikipedia, and in many cases it is good to do this. How would you feel about us talking on the phone or Skype next week to review your work and try to find some way to collaborate? I could also give you a tour of some places where people discuss health content on Wikipedia. I want you to feel encouraged to contribute constructively. Post on my talk page or email be through Special:EmailUser/Bluerasberry if you like. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

To supplement what was just said by Blue, a true specialist on public health subjects on WP: Of course it's Public domain, and there's no question of copyvio. However, our rules on plagiarism require exact attribution even for PD sources, and directly quoted material needs quotation marks. Moreover, the problema here are that these statements are basically written by the people engaged in the program--they are apparently reviewed in some manner --though from the description of the project only general oversight of content is exercised, and also that including them as key content in general articles can be seen as undue emphasis on particular examples. That their PR is being published by the government does not make it any the less PR. "Learning objectives are interwoven in the context of service to the community. Experiences in promotion of population health help prepare students for careers in service" is PR-talk no matter who wrote it or who edited it or who published it, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. In addition, WP:MEDRS, our guideline on medical articles, has some rules about what we consider reliable sources in this field, and the sort of individual case studies being added may not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of your edit

Here is your edit. You wrote "Group Health Cooperative enables patients to communicate easily with their providers and empowers them to participate in their health care through an online patient portal, called MyGroupHealth, that includes a comprehensive shared health record and electronic health risk assessment." and you provided a citation. I am in favor of Wikipedia articles on health organizations being filled out. However, this should be done in a way which does not promote the organization. The content you shared is pulled directly from your source. I like this source better than the alternatives, but it is promotional. Better to say "Group Health Cooperative enables allows patients to communicate easily with their providers and empowers permits them to participate in their health care through an online patient portal, called MyGroupHealth, that includes a comprehensive shared health record and electronic health risk assessment." Marketers are unable to think of products except as a set of benefits. On Wikipedia, products have to be described by their nature and not by marketing technique. Still, I want this kind of information on Wikipedia being used to fill out healthcare organizations.

Also, as User:DGG said, if you copy text verbatim then even though it is in the public domain it is still considered plagiarism because direct quotations need to be noted. Wikipedia follows research guidelines to their ideal. Feel free to copy and paste public domain content, but if you then followed up by cutting the promotional text out of it then that would make things closer to the way they should be.

Like DGG, I also want clarification of the nature of this content. From one perspective it seems like these program evaluations you have are supposed to be objective information and reviewed by some third party, but from another perspective somehow the reviewers were permitted to write in PR-jargon. On your userpage please clarify or link to a clarification of the nature of this collection of information which you have. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the current Group Health Cooperative page using the edits you suggested and including quotes. I quoted the entire edit but should I include brackets and ellipses within the quotes to note the changes from the original source like this: "Group Health Cooperative . . . [allows] patients to communicate . . . with their providers and . . . [permits] them to participate in their health care through an online patient portal, called MyGroupHealth, that includes a . . . shared health record and electronic health risk assessment." I see how these edits reduce the PR language, but since I am changing the language is it all right to attribute these changes to the original source without any brackets or ellipses that denote alterations? Is it preferable for me to paraphrase whenever possible and not use quotes? Or should I use quotes whenever possible because this is public domain material from a government agency and just try to edit material that might be considered PR. I will post relevant information about the nature of the collection on my userpage. FieldsTom 15:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Placing a close paraphrase in quotes is actually as misleading as plagarism. The reader thinks they're reading a quote, but it's not really. A footnote alone is not enough for a quote; you need to write in the text whom you are quoting. In this case, there's no reason do have a direct quote at all. See Wikipedia:Quotations for guidelines on when to use direct quotes, and why. What needs to be done in this case, as with almost all article text, is that original prose must be written. Preferably based on independent, third party sources, not the subject's own website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sharing US government health data on Wikipedia

FieldsTom, we have talked by phone and a little by email. I understand that you work for Westat and one of your current projects is disseminating information produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Based on what I know of you, I feel that we share a lot of common interests and that you have access and knowledge of resources which would greatly benefit both the Wikipedia community and public health in general. I would like to give you some recommendations for moving forward.

1. Add some content to your user page, and particularly name your employer and your current organizational collaboration partners. Keep this up to date. Briefly describe any projects you are doing. 5-10 sentences would be fine and add more if you like. Make an offer to answer any questions on your talk page. For more guidance, check out Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you decide to deepen your relationship, then I can direct you to accounts of historical problems with people who were editing Wikipedia as part of their job. My opinion at this point is that your plans are to do things which align with Wikipedia community values and that your project is not in opposition to community values as many organization's projects are.
2. Take time to do small article improvements, then immediately request feedback on some board. For general feedback in your first steps go to the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a place for new editors. After you become aware of the purpose of that board then start going to a wikiproject like WP:WikiProject Medicine and say something like, "Hello, I am FieldsTom. Could I have feedback on what I did here to this health article?"
3. I asked you about curated content. You showed me some videos you have, and yes, they are very interesting and I think they could be shared here. You also have collections of reviews of health care organizations. These reviews might be used to fill out articles - I would like to ask you how objective these reviews are - but I am hopeful to probe whether these might be used in lots of places. When you have a collection of any information, somewhere on your user page describe your collection then link to it, and then describe how you think they information could be integrated into Wikipedia.
4. If anyone gives you any trouble it is because they are afraid that you will make a mess on Wikipedia like so many other paid contributors have done. Messes get cleaned up by volunteers and messes lower morale, especially when people who make the messes get paid and people who clean them are volunteers. The dynamic between staff and volunteers here is tense but no one will criticize you for improving articles in a way aligned with Wikipedia community values. If you make proposals of what you want to do in an appropriate forum, like WikiProject Medicine, and if your proposal passes community scrutiny, then you will be welcomed. Almost any individual who regularly uses Wikipedia can immediately and instantly tell you when a proposal is controversial.
5. If you can, meet other Wikipedians in DC. I would like to recommend two to you - User:Djembayz, who works at the Library of Congress, and User:Econterms, who works at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Both of these are members of meta:Wikimedia DC, which is the local chapter which organizes Wikipedia and Wikimedia meetups. Meetups are posted at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC, but perhaps you should contact either of these because they might have insight into which meetings are of greatest interest to people who share government information.
6. Stay in touch with me. The information you have is personally interesting to me and I want to understand it better and find ways to share the parts of it which ought to be on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to the items from Blue Rasberry :

1. I don't think the project is misaligned with Wikipedia values. I have updated my user page to reflect my affiliations and will continue to add material here as needed.
2. I joined the WP:TEAHOUSE, stating my interest in health care and requested help with editing. I will check back there frequently as I learn how to edit on WP.
3. I have provided a bit more information on my user page about the collection with links to relevant FAQs, submission and editorial policies, etc.
4. Once I have a better understanding of WP policies, I will try my best not to violate them. The AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange posts a new issue every two weeks that usually includes 3-4 new profiles for the collection. I think this would be the best material for me to work with as I learn more about WP. Also, I previously updated the AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange page to remove some of the text that seemed promotional and to include more information about the topics (e.g., setting of care, disease categories, etc.) that users can find on the site. However, those edits were reverted. As a member of the project team, I would like to be able to update this page to make it more objective and current. For example, there are currently 802 profiles in the collection not 750 as appears in the article. I would like to get some help updating this page in a manner that conforms to WP standards. Perhaps, User:Djembayz can help me with that. I will investigate opportunities in WikiProject Medicine to use the collection as a resource.
5. I appreciate these introductions and will follow up with them.
6. I will definitely be in touch and am available to answer any questions about the collection.

Thanks FieldsTom (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats FieldsTom ... You created your Teahouse profile!

Nice to see you at the Teahouse!

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Welcome FieldsTom to Teahouse,if you have questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page,Happy Editing! ~ Carliitaeliza TALK 22:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings from one of your local chapter folks!

Hello FieldsTom, glad you are here as you appear to have useful info to add to the mix! Doc James, Blue Rasberry, and the folks at WikiProject Medicine can help you figure out how your material fits into the overall format of the encyclopedia. Blue Rasberry seems on the right track to me with his comments on how to interact with the community-- this is similar to what we've been seeing with Smithsonian employees.

Doc James got so excited about improving the medical info on Wikipedia that he's actually set up a non-profit organization to work on this, called the Wiki Project Med Foundation.

User:Econterms is very interested in the use of wikis in government, so he could also be a good person for you to meet up with.

I'm adding a standard welcome template below, with an invitation to join the editors on the site who work on medical articles, at "WikiProject Medicine."

Hope to meet you in person at one of our Wikimedia DC events! Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions, or want to talk.

It may take a bit of back-and-forth to get your content into the Wikipedia format, so don't hesitate to ask for help with this. If you find you're not getting your edits and material to stay up on the first try, that's because the Wikipedia practices aren't entirely obvious when you're starting out. One way to get around this could be adding your content to your "Sandbox" or to article talk pages, and asking an experienced medical topics editor to work your material into an article for you. (I can give it a try, but am not well versed in medical information.) Djembayz (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, FieldsTom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Quick introduction to Wikipedia
• How to write a great article
• Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
• Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!  Djembayz (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Teleophthalmology Edit

Hey FieldsTom,I´ve seen all edits in that article,because you did not say what edit specifically and yeah,all is ok in the article,you are doing well,congrats! ~ Carliitaeliza TALK 18:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello FieldsTom, I'm not sure how to answer your question! My coaching abilities for a new editor are more along the lines of formatting articles, adding citations, infoboxes, etc. I'd suggest asking Blue Rasberry, who understands medical topics, or asking him to find you a knowledgeable person to help review and mentor. On most articles, you can't go wrong if you use the "established fact + citation" approach-- people just add more facts until the article gets balanced out. On medical articles, however, it's a little different because one isolated fact isn't necessarily the most important fact or the definitive answer, and you have some very specific terminology.

You might take a look at the page about "weasel words" to get some ideas about writing with a factual, encyclopedic tone.

Will give you a shout-out when I get back to DC next month. Djembayz (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Djembayz. The "weasel words" article is really helpful for tone. I will keep it in mind as a reference. FieldsTom (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medicaid managed care, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pay for performance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the "Cultural competence" article.

As part of the Rutgers GLAM project, I watch the Cultural competence article and its subarticle on Cultural competence in healthcare, and I'm glad to see you joining in on editing those articles. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)