Ian V. McPhail
Welcome Ian V. McPhail!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your userpage.Phallometric research I've published
editDuring my recent edits of the penile plethysmography page, I added in a reference to an article that James Cantor and I recently had published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. In the interest of being transparent and trying to avoid the perception of self-promotion/conflict of interest, here is a full reference to the article. As well, editors who would like a copy of the article for review or vetting for applicability/acceptability of our article, feel free to send me a message on Wikipedia with your email and I will send you a copy of the article.
Cantor, J. M., & McPhail, I. V. (2015). Sensitivity and Specificity of the Phallometric Test for Hebephilia. Journal of Sexual Medicine. Online first.
- Hey Ian. So that ref is PMID 26272778, and it is what we call a "primary source" (see WP:MEDDEF) and is not the kind of source we look for, for content about health. Please do see the links in the messages below... Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- The basic idea is that WP editors do not pretend to be capable of evaluating original articles. By using lit reviews etc., the author of the lit review is providing the quality control on the primary article content. It is perfectly legitimate, however, to use the lit review section of a primary article can still provide that quality control when it cites another primary article.— James Cantor (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping explain! It is true that if there is not a better secondary source we may scrape the "introduction" section of a primary source for review-like content. This situation is not common in my experience, but it happens. The goal is to find the best MEDRS refs and summarize them. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- If there is anyplace we need to mentor more good editors, it's on the sexology pages. This literature is extremely small, unlike most branches of medicine, so we will run into the situation somewhat more than typical. Ian: Also, you can also use teriary sources, such as encyclopedias of sexology or criminology, etc.— James Cantor (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks James and Jytdog for the information and advice. I will start including the PMID number for references. One thing I am struggling with, and perhaps I will mention this on the Pedophilia page, is that I am a content area specialist, so I have the ability to read primary sources and summarize what they have found. In the context of wikipedia editing, should I get used to the idea that I am not allowed/supposed to use these statistical and research skills and simply stick with review articles, published books, and encyclopedia entries? I don't ask this sarcastically, I honestly want to know so that I can alter my expectations for my editing going forward. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also, as James knows as well as I do, and as he indicated above, this area of research is slow-moving relative to other areas of medicine, so secondary sources are unlikely to be available. As well, looking at the WP:MEDRS, these guidelines seem somewhat inapplicable to a page like Pedophilia. To quote WP:MEDRS, "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." The examples provided are in vitro vs clinical trials. In the area of pedophilia research, primary resources are research projects that provide surveys and questionnaires to pedophilic individuals, which they then provide self-report responses for; there is no further advanced methodology, there are only more primary studies that ask other pedophilic individuals the same or different questionnaires. I am open to following more rigid guidelines, I think that the guidelines are just that, guides and not rules, and that if we do follow more rigid guidelines that are somewhat ill-fitting for pedophilia research, we will hamstring ourselves in what we can offer the public in terms of the latest information available on pedophilia. So I want for us to be very clear what we are giving up by following more rigid standards. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Yes, you need to follow the same policies and guidelines as everybody else. You might find User:Jytdog/How helpful - it connects the epistemology of WP with the other foundational aspects of this project, to try to explain not only what we do here, but why we do things as we do them. See also WP:EXPERT. Thanks for being willing to learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- [Edit Conflict]Yes, do read WP:EXPERT. Although there exist contentious issues (and contentious editors), in most cases the people watching and participating on a page welcome the information topic experts can bring. Keep in mind the basic idea I described above, and if there is a specific item for which you think there ought to be an exception, present it on the talk page and make your case! In case it is helpful: It isn't as if there is a BAN on primary sources---but the page needs to rely on secondary ones. Primary ones can be included, and most certainly can (and should) be discussed on the talk page. Our knowledge as experts is often the most useful in helping page provide a "narrative" for how things go together. Also, statements made by genuine experts in the media---including blogs they write---count as legitimate secondary sources. One final note (!): This includes my own blog, which can put me in a conflict of interest when editing the relevant parts of the page.— James Cantor (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Yes, you need to follow the same policies and guidelines as everybody else. You might find User:Jytdog/How helpful - it connects the epistemology of WP with the other foundational aspects of this project, to try to explain not only what we do here, but why we do things as we do them. See also WP:EXPERT. Thanks for being willing to learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- If there is anyplace we need to mentor more good editors, it's on the sexology pages. This literature is extremely small, unlike most branches of medicine, so we will run into the situation somewhat more than typical. Ian: Also, you can also use teriary sources, such as encyclopedias of sexology or criminology, etc.— James Cantor (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping explain! It is true that if there is not a better secondary source we may scrape the "introduction" section of a primary source for review-like content. This situation is not common in my experience, but it happens. The goal is to find the best MEDRS refs and summarize them. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- The basic idea is that WP editors do not pretend to be capable of evaluating original articles. By using lit reviews etc., the author of the lit review is providing the quality control on the primary article content. It is perfectly legitimate, however, to use the lit review section of a primary article can still provide that quality control when it cites another primary article.— James Cantor (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I know at this point I'm going to start to seem difficult. However, the WP:MEDRS is a set of guidelines, yet it has been presented to me as a set of rules. From my understanding, guidelines are not rules that say "Thou shalt do X", they are guides for behaviour, and are more like "Thou might do X for the best possible result". Further, the WP:MEDRS says that primary studies should "generally" not be used. Again, this suggests that they can indeed be used, in some situations, but as it has been presented to me by others, it is again a rule that we do not use primary studies. I'm trying to make sense of what I am reading on the wikipedia pages and what others are telling me, which seem to be their interpretations of guidelines, not rules to be followed. While from all my experience to date, guidelines are not rules and are somewhat open to interpretation. Does my conundrum make sense? Ian V. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is a legitimate question/confusion. The idea is essentially that 'should the consensus of everyone discussing the issue think a rule/guideline is getting in the way, you can break the rule'. (In the early days of WP, there was more of that. As pages have matured and most exceptions worked out, there is less of it.) What culture is to do is called [[WP:BRD|the B-R-D cycle]: Be bold, revert, discuss (on the talk page). The idea is to work out a consensus amongst the interested editors for how to integrate your bold suggestion (or the spirit of it) on the talk page.
- Also, I found it very help to keep notes on the jargon, nicknames, and links to the main policies. Very many problems have essays about them to help guide you in the situation, and feel free to ask! — James Cantor (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ian, if you make arguments in favor of using sources that we generally consider unacceptable, then you must allow and support anyone else who makes those arguments. You could end up with an anonymous pedophile advocate arguing to use sources you consider unacceptable, using the exact same sort of reasoning you had used. Consistency and rigor are essential here due to a) our openness and b) the fact that every edit you make is in the "permanent record" and can be called out later. Hypocrisy gets caught out (and if you ultimately base on argument on "Because I am an expert and say so" then you must permit anyone else to make that argument, which devolves into an complete mess). Authority in Wikipedia attaches to people who deeply understand the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines here, and consistently and wisely apply them as they build content and work with other people here. As an expert, the greatest advantage you have, and the greatest help you bring, is a) understanding the literature and how it is structured, and b) knowing that literature, so you can put your hands on the highest quality secondary sources where the field has deposited "accepted knowledge" as it stands on a given point, and c) being able to summarize those sources in a way that reflects mainstream views in the field. The argument about sources should always be based on the structure of the literature (something relatively objective) not on "this source is best because I say so".
- So... if you want to work here (and we would love to have you) you really must adapt and deal with the reality of this environment. People who don't (and it is real challenge for experts to adapt, for sure) end up leaving frustrated, which is always a hard thing to watch. Again I urge you to read user:Jytdog/How which explains how the system of policies and guidelines here is not arbitrary at all, but makes very good sense here, given the realities of this place. I know this sounds crazy, but it really does make sense! Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks again, both, for the input and guidance in how to think about these various issues as a Wikipedia editor. After what you two have said here, a way forward is becoming more clear and how I can contribute. You have been very helpful and I am grateful for your time. And I hope I have not given the impression that I believe the guidelines are arbitrary, this is not the case. And I also hope there is enough flexibility on Wikipedia to allow reasonable arguments that do not seem to jive with inherited wisdom. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- :) All I can do is urge you to try living within the "received wisdom" for a while to understand how it works. When I first started here ten years ago or so I thought the general "no primary sources" thing was kooky and ham-stringing and argued about it, so believe me I am sympathetic. Nobody explained to me how it all fits together and I wasted a bunch of my own time and that of others before things all came together. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks again, both, for the input and guidance in how to think about these various issues as a Wikipedia editor. After what you two have said here, a way forward is becoming more clear and how I can contribute. You have been very helpful and I am grateful for your time. And I hope I have not given the impression that I believe the guidelines are arbitrary, this is not the case. And I also hope there is enough flexibility on Wikipedia to allow reasonable arguments that do not seem to jive with inherited wisdom. Ian V. McPhail (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome
editWelcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
- Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
- We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
- Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
- The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
- We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
- More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
- Citation details are important:
- Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
- Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
- Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
- Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
- We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
- Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
- Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
- Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.
Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.
– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing and citations
editThe note above mentions and links to the three main guidance documents for editing about health --WP:MEDRS (sourcing), WP:MEDMOS (style), and WP:MEDHOW (important tips).
The note below provides a bit more brief information about sourcing per MEDRS and a concrete explanation on how to format citations from MEDHOW. But there is no substitute for reading the documents.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
- Then click on "templates",
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
- If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".
We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)