The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The videos they produce provides a basic summary of a medical condition using easy to understand language. They are released under a CC BY SA 4.0 license and uploaded to Commons by members of this group. The initial videos lack references while the most recent videos contain references at the ends of the videos. They are working to up date the older videos with references.
In 2016, scripts for the videos were posted to Wikipedia for feedback from the Wikipedia community before the videos were created. As there was not much feedback from Wikipedians via this platform and due to internal staffing changes at Osmosis this has not occurred recently but there is willingness to reactivate this process and continue accepting feedback from this process.
One can see references at the end of this script as an example. The reference formating is bar urls which can definitely be improved. Unfortunately, the references are not formatted as "inline references" and it is unclear if Osmosis is willing / able to create inline referencing. If the community felt this was critical they would be happy to look at collaborating to see if it can be done. Much of the content, however, is fairly basic in nature. Additionally, these videos are created / reviews by physicians before being made.
The videos also exist on Youtube were they receive positive reviews and millions of views.[1] On Wikipedia the videos have been watched more than 8 million times.[2] Concerns recently raised have included that the intro includes a link to "open.osmosis.org" (the Khan Academy videos do something similar) and end with credits and non functional social media links. If the community feels this attribution of Osmosis is too great they are willing to remove and upload versions without it.
The archival was based upon a wish to isolate discussion to a single page for easier perusal, with a prominent link here. I would ask people to refrain from commenting there, and regarding premature archival and percieved ulterior motives behind it I have responded here. Carl Fredrik talk14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally keep the videos within medical articles leads unless significant problems are identified with the content in question or they fit better elsewhere. Remove the ones with problems on a case by case basis. Collaborate with Osmosis to fix significant issues when present. Remove the social media links from the videos.
Support as proposer. A number of surveys of our readers has found a strong interest in us providing rich text including video. Video is, however, slower and more difficult to edit collaboratively and doing will involve a learning curve on both our sides. I am not sure if expecting video to follow all policies and guidelines applied to text is reasonable. Additionally having the videos within our articles allows use to get video content out in offline formats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the question was quite reasonable - I checked the link, and it didn't answer the question. I don't know whether you are asking about issues such as color blindness, or access issues for people with limited ability to access online options.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When web resources are properly designed, everybody can access them. It doesn't matter if you are able-bodied, temporarily disabled, or permanently disabled. MOS:ANIMATION is unable to help, saying that "As of November 2012 this is not possible..." and "as of November 2012 there is no convenient way to provide alt text for videos". There's no way I know of that a video could be accessible to everybody without a transcript, thus my question. It was possible that this team had solved a conundrum for everybody in some way I had not noticed. I did not want to get into a conversation and I still don't. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and i suggest to collaborate with Osmosis to add references to the video descriptions of the old videos if possible.--مصعب (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's ridiculous that our community is so dysfunctional that we need an RFC to determine that the sensible and obvious step is the sensible and obvious step. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have carefully followed both sides of the debate with an open mind. The videos are produced and reviewed by an expert in the field, so that in its own make them high quality sources and negates the argument that they are unsourced. They are sourced, to an expert! Lots of people dislike reading text and prefer the visual and audio experience, some even have cognitive difficulties e.g., dyslexia that make reading difficult or even impossible. We can't stay in the past, with a 2004 Wikipedia vision based on text and still images, we need to move with the times, otherwise some other encyclopaedia will become more popular. We have to supply the demand and give Wikipedia readers what they want, a visual/audio option and a text based option of healthcare content. Finally, the arguments that the videos have problems, well they can be edited and improved over time. Lots of text articles are 'start class' and 'C class' articles, shall we just delete them because they aren't 'perfect'? Even 'B class' articles have problems, do we delete them all because of imperfections? We should do if we are going to delete high quality expert reviewed audio/video overviews.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where, @Literaturegeek: did you develop the incorrect impression that "the videos are produced and reviewed by an expert in the field"? They are not. Have you followed the examples? Perhaps some of them have, and that is why a biased RFC should not have been launched: the RFC should have presented the examples of very basic errors, like the one at breastfeeding (a fairly basic topic)? High quality sources? Ask yourself this: would they be an acceptable MEDRS source? No they would not. And everyone I have seen has fundamental errors of a medical resident type. And the sources they use do not even meet MEDRS. Please see samples at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problematic videos can always be deleted just like a poor source can be deleted, per consensus on article talk pages. It doesn't mean all videos have to go. It looks like Option 4 is the one that is going to pass, so dealing with the various criticisms and improving the quality of the videos seems to be the way forward.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?00:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Literaturegeek: have you read these discussions? On this page and at Talk:Jimbo Wales? Not only can files not be deleted from Commons, but on en.Wikipedia, we cannot even remove demonstrably wrong videos from articles, because Doc James (the admin) edit wars them back in. And people have been waiting years for them to be corrected (curious, no, how Osomelt shows up finally today? It would be most helpful if people in what used to be a highly productive WProject would actually read the discussion of what has been going on in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support — With the surveys showing only a small number of readers view entire articles, and many not reading entire ledes either, any effort to aid understanding is helpful. If a single reader is helped by these videos it is sufficient for their inclusion. Readers who do not wish to view the videos may simply skip them. I also support مصعب's suggestion that we should to the degree it is possible include transcripts and references somewhere easily accessible to readers, such as Commons discriptions as well as at a centralized page. This project may also be seen as an extension of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia (which has many of the same features as the videos, and with time does not either correspond to current versions of articles,thus ostensibly failing WP:V). While improvements are possible to the videos — this makes option 1 the only viable option. Carl Fredrik talk20:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Carl above, if so much as one reader is helped, the videos will have served their purpose. Given that nowadays video is the way forward - and resources for video production at this scale are not available to the Wikipedia community - it is sensible to include the videos in the mainspace of the articles. Agree that the social media links should go. A sound overall proposal--Saintfevrier (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the cry of 'if only one person were to be helped...' and that is a fine sentiment. How about instead — 'if only one person is harmed...'. It has been convincingly asserted (no way to verify video is based on MEDRS) that these videos fall below the standard of care we put into our medical articles. I would say that it is axiomatic that they are therefore more likely to result in harm than the more carefully curated and written MEDRS compliant articles. Jbh Talk22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the videos are written and reviewed by an expert in the field, so the odds are that vastly many more people will benefit than will be harmed by the videos, I doubt anyone will be harmed realisitically. The videos don't actually tell people what to do medically anyway, so they will naturally seek out their healthcare provider. By your logic Jbh, someone should not consult with specialist doctor in real life because there is a real chance they could be harmed (medical negligence, mistake, adverse drug reaction, hospital aquired infection etc.). Don't forget the risk/benefit ratios. These are expert doctors making these videos, so their opinions will by far be a net positive. We can keep a hawk eye look out for any pseudoscience or mistakes that even experts can rarely unintentionally make by accident and remove the video should a problem arise. Oh, and the videos can be edited. :) It can all be improved upon over time. Lets not be all doom and gloom about the bright future of Wikipedia moving with the times and utilising video format.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is also an issue to be adressed on a case by case basis. There may be some problematic videos out there, but that is reason to remove them, not all videos. Carl Fredrik talk22:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point being that it is not possible to make a moral argument based on potential good without also addressing, and being willing to accept, the possibility of enhancing the potential for harm. I would be more convinced the your claims of the videos 'being written and reviewed by an expert in the field' if this whole fracas had not been kicked off by editors here complaining about incorrect content in them. Wikipedia editors have, over years, developed a system for providing medical information while working to minimize potential harm resulting from bad, out of date, or poorly interpreted information. That system is based on strict sourcing requirements; review by several editors who are doctors and many editors who are either lay or actual experts; conservative writing; and the ability to rapidly correct errors which occur in an article. All of that is enhanced near constant proofreading in pedantic detail. The end result is quite different from a video which was given the once over by, at most, a couple of medical doctors using unknown review criteria. An MD guarantees certain minimum knowledge and skills relating to the care and treatment of human beings. It does not mean that the MD is a careful writer or reviewer of a script or indeed has any pedagogical abilities at all. As to addressing issues on a case-by-case basis; the time to do that would have been before the videos were added to the article. To fall back on that canard now that material of questionable quality sits in places of prominence in out medical articles is simply an abdication of responsibility, and from my personal viewpoint, ethically unsustainable. I believe it goes "first do no harm" not "first do, and then on a case-by-case basis make sure one did not make a silly error and hope no harm was done in the interim". But I guess I may be unreasonably picky about stuff like that. Jbh Talk23:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notwithstanding option 5. It should be noted that the subset of videos with major problems might be large, but even if we have to remove 100 of them these videos are still a net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Certainly remove branding where possible. In general, the underlying problem is that our community lacks video editing skills (editing difficulty text < images < videos). These videos are likely the beginning of a larger issue of how to handle videos > 20 seconds (e.g. how-to-edit, or experimental evolution). What would we do if a complex image had an error (e.g. this)? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk11:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I read through a good number of the options and a lot of the responses, but there were so many of them (and the arguments were rehashed on the ones that I saw), so eventually it became pointless to read more, as far as I could tell. Videos per se are fine to include in articles; I suppose their rarity (especially when compared with photos) is the fact that creating anything close to a decent video is a good deal more difficult than creating anything close to a decent photo, combined with the facts that PD-old videos don't exist and that PD-USGov videos and freely licensed videos from other sources are rare, and finally combined with the nutty requirement that videos use an unusual file format. Moreover, your (in)ability to edit a video is totally unrelated to its appropriateness in an article: I don't have the ability to edit sound files, so should I start removing audio recordings from articles about songs? At worst, it can always be removed from the article entirely. Properly licensed videos should be used if they're relevant and trustworthy. Finally, if a good number of these videos are coming from reliable creators, why object? These aren't random people putting selfie videos on YouTube. I understand the concerns about some being demonstrably wrong, but there's no real difference between a video being wrong and a piece of text being wrong — add the content in question and retain it unless it's wrong or it has other problems, and be ready to remove it should any problems be noted. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. They are a net benefit to Wikipedia. For readers who are not prepared to read through our sometimes too technical articles, Osmosis videos are the right direction, even if they may not be perfect by our standards. feminist (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at this time. At present, they do not satisfy community norms for content. But see my suggestions about how to do an RfC better, in a talk section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "unless significant problems are identified with the content" is not the requirement for keeping content on Wikipedia. I should be able to quickly edit this content, revise it, trim it, expand on it, etc. I cannot do this with this videos. -- Colin°Talk20:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true for most editors and images. This is not an argument against videos, but may present an argument against any specific video based on specific problems. A centralized page for discussion of issues may be a solution to help with updating videos, in the same way that such pages exist for image edit requests. Carl Fredrik talk20:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More of my reasoning is here and a small sample of the problems with these videos are at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues
I also oppose Doc James framing this as We at WP:MED when it was mostly his project, with very little evidence of consensus, either at WP:MED or outside.
As an additional example of less than good faith, Doc James has put forward the best possible examples in his framing of the RFC, which does not show the number of videos that do NOT have sources or are NOT so well done. This RFC was not neutrally framed.
We unfortunately have a situation with Osmosis that may not be salvageable, because one person appeared to speak on behalf of Wikipedia, to allow them an interestingly and unprecedented free reign of Wikipedia articles for their own advertising in our articles. The Osmosis videos amount to free advertising for an external group, they were developed and added to articles on the consensus of a very small, walled group of a medical editors; they are dated and unsourced and often inaccurate; they breach WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ELNO among others; there ws no consensus outside of a handful of medical editors for adding videos of this type to articles, where an external company was granted provisions outside of the normal provisions of ELNO in external links. They must all be deleted.
I also mention that this RFC is premature. You cannot change WP:V or WP:NPOV by an RFC about one set of videos. And Doc, while you knew that many here were willing to give you time to come around, back of of edit warring, and collaborate to put up a well-designed RFC, you did it anyway, unilaterally. And it is that kind of behavior that led WP:MED to where it is now. It was your one-man insistence that caused this problem, and you launched this RFC the same way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not interpret this RfC to have the issues you suggest it does. Someone had to launch this RfC, and it was suggested at least 10 times that an RfC be launched. Are you suggesting we should have had an RfC about how to launch the RfC SandyGeorgia? Carl Fredrik talk21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: First, I have read throughout these discussions that you have had a hard time keeping up with them. While about a dozen of us (at least) have followed every post for days. And although you have said you can't keep up, I see you taking it upon yourself to respond on almost every post and disagree with what others are saying :(
Yes, typical to everything we are seeing these days from WP:MED, there is little understanding of what goes on in Wikipedia outside of this walled garden, and that includes how to frame an important RFC. A good faith editor, who truly seeks resolution, would typically put it in draft space, and get at least someone representing each "side" to participate in the drafting. After all we have been through in these discussions, no one who is opposed to the videos pulled this trigger prematurely, like Doc James did when he framed a decidedly incomplete and non-neutral RFC on a topic that has significance beyond WP:MED. While you may not have read everything, Doc James should have, and that included ample discussion about waiting to form an RFC neutrally, correctly, with all points represented. This impetuous posting of a biased RFC speaks very poorly for Doc James, and wastes the time of the entire community. But that is the pattern and that, more than anything, shows exactly the kind of arrogant indifference that brought us to this problem.
If you are not familiar with how RFCs should work, and if you have not read everything that brought us to this point (for example, you continue to insist that the videos are summaries of the leads), then at least have the courtesy on what is already a poorly formed RFC, to stop responding to everyone who opines here and filling up space with blather. Because, quite simply, you don't know what you're talking about.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi:Just wondering if I am missing something obvious (or subtle). Inability to edit video sounds orthogonal to WP:V. I do see some legitimate discussion about the need for references, which is on point, but I don't see the interaction between difficulty of editing and verifiability.--S Philbrick(Talk)18:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer here, but after that I'm out of this discussion. Videos are evil because 1) I have to use my own voice certainly and my own face probably, both massively undesirable (privacy, a very big issue in my book), 2) the only way to cite is to speak aloud the cite, distracting, especially if several/many cites needed 3) two or three or four people (voice changes every few words) citing facts on the same video sounds ridiculously stupid and unprofessional 4) multiple edits? how are you gonna make multiple edits back and forth between editors? 5) Almost anyone can single-finger-hunt-and-peck text editing, but far fewer people know how to edit a video. That's a barrier to editing. 6) It is very very much less amenable to "anyone can edit" for the reasons just mentioned 7) For all the reasons mentioned, videos are far far far more likely (many multiple times more likely) to end up being WP:OWNed by their original poster. 8) Just basically it's fucking stupid. It's idiocy masquerading as progress. It's completely incompatible with and unsuitable for a multiple-editor philosophy. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
Oppose until such a time as we determine through community discussion how Wikipedia's general content policies should be applied. They are medical articles however there is no indication they are derived solely from MEDRS compliant sources. There is no way to verify any given claim, etc. Wikipedia requires enhanced care in out medical articles precisely because of the harm which they cause when non-medical readers turn to them to get information relating to their real-world, potentially life and death issues. (True, people should not do this but they do and WP:MED seems to recognize this with their enhanced content guidelines.) Because these videos are targeted at a lay audience and are simpler to understand for many than the text of the articles there is a greater duty of care required for their content and there is no indication that these videos exercise even the level of care we expect of our non-medical articles. Jbh Talk21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This option appears to give the videos favor beyond ordinary article content that is kept or kept in the lede only so long as the local editors desire it. Additionally, people with a COI should not get a vote on how prominent their content is in an article. Wnt (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at Jimbo Wales' page. For example User:OsmoseIt representing OpenOsmosis added this video with a pre-roll link pointing to the company site ([4]). I have not examined this issue closely enough to determine whether some other people here have a COI because of arrangements with the company or not, but one violation of COI by a company is certainly cause to be suspicious of others. There's likely to be some interesting admin work coming up for those with the patience for it. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all as premature Clarification and work through by the community is necessary. The issue is not "videos" as worded in the RFC, but what videos, where added, created by whom, and whether that are easily edited.Until these issues are worked through and clarified this RFC in its totality is very premature. As far as I can see adding more options in the RFC when the questions I noted above are not answered can't add clarity but just muddles the situation more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose. I will not re-write the arguments I agree with, but I will say that this effort looks to me like one of the endless stream of attempts to expand the scope of Wikipedia through the back door, then ask for forgiveness later, as the saying goes. The first consensus that needs to be sought is whether Wikipedia articles on the whole are suitable places for overview videos. I do not think so. Videos are a different medium (no kidding; but that's important here) and cannot stand beside text without changing how the audience views and engages with the site, and what the audience comes to expect of the site. Videos compete for attention in a way that fundamentally shifts "what a wikipedia article is". There are other projects, and new projects can be made, if Wikimedia wants to get into the video business. Outriggr (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The RfC is biased, which is disappointing. The only connection with Khan Academy is that two of the employees involved in this used to work for them. The videos were made by a for-profit company, Knowledge Diffusion Inc., doing business as Osmosis. They are aimed at medical students, not the general reader, and are "freemium" content with which the company hopes to encourage students to subscribe to one of their Osmosis Prime plans; they are clear about the free/paid link on their YouTube channel. The videos don't comply with WP:V (a core content policy) and WP:MEDRS; the company could have released scripts with inline citations, but it chose not to. They're also not easily editable, and therefore can't be kept up to date. Several editors have expressed concern about errors or out-of-date material. When one editor (BallenaBlanca, a specialist in gastroenterology) complained about the coeliac-disease video in 2016, the company made some adjustments to the video, but not to the extent that he wanted. [5] They told him: "We feel your other suggestions are an expansion of the scope of the video, beyond what we want to cover for our target audience" (bold added). [6] That sums up the problem right there: "our target audience". Our content needs to be aimed at Wikipedia's target audience, not Knowledge Diffusion's, and our readers need to be able to go to a library, order our sources, and verify and edit the content. Adding these videos turns us into gatekeepers: this is true because we say so. SarahSV(talk)00:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Creating big difficult-to-correct-or-modify (beyond truncation) blocks of content that get a blanket presumption in favor of their inclusion is antithetical to the normal Wikipedia ethos. Insisting that concerns be handled on a video-by-video basis, separately for each of 300+ videos, is simply an attempt to suppress and exhaust critics, rather than seriously address issues. The videos, as they exist and are placed now, are transparently a device to build recognition for Knowledge Diffusion's Osmosis brand, with the hope that they will be able to sell subscriptions to their Osmosis Prime video service (enjoy 1, 2, or 4 years for $209, $279, or $419* *best per-month value!). We've been presenting their logos and credits at the top of some of our high-traffic articles for a remarkably long time; for some reason I can't find any meaningful discussion in any of sparse archives about whether or not we're okay with trading this much marketing exposure away in exchange for this content. And where is Osmosis in all this? We've been discussing this for a few days, but as far as I can tell the company seems content to funnel all of their promises (vague thought they are) through James. What's up with that? Why don't they have an official rep who is actively engaged with Wikipedia? As a procedural note, per SarahSV, it is problematic that Doc James has not followed the instructions at WP:RFC in presenting this RfC. James' summary of the dispute is both unsigned and slanted in favor of James' preferred outcome, as are the descriptions of the alternative options. Option 3 (which James wrote up as "Delete all the videos." without further description) is particularly misleading, as English Wikipedia does not have the authority to delete videos hosted on Commons. Presumably the intended meaning would be "Remove the embedded videos from Wikpedia articles (with the potential to reuse or remix some of the content in the future after a suitable, context-appropriate discussion)"—but that wouldn't inflame the inclusionists nearly so effectively. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The videos do almost consistently not match the content of the articles and aligning them in real time is a nightmare. I am not on record as expressing my concerns about this because I thought there was consensus for it. Clearly there isn't. JFW | T@lk06:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see all Osmosis videos removed from articles, and preferably left out indefinitely because they seem to have a lot of accuracy problems, they are a time sink to review, and they are very hard to keep up to date. I'm also unconvinced of the utility. I have a hard time reconciling the statements "These videos were created for medical students" and "These videos are a good way to reach people who have difficulty reading Wikipedia articles".
If we must be open to re-adding some of the videos, I suggest the following minimum criteria: 1) Thorough inline referencing to MEDRS sources, 2) release of the script for the video (not all have been made available to us), 3) Talk page consensus in which at least one of the regular contributors to the articles - in addition to the people who are fans of all Osmosis videos - says they have reviewed it and attest to its goodness, 4) No editor identifies an issue that the editor thinks is a showstopper. Showstopper issues could be for things like NPOV and tone issues as well as blatant factual errors. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There should not be a blanket approval for any set of content. Each video must be considered in the context of the article for relevance, accuracy, and verifiability - in the case of medical articles to MEDRS standards. It is OK to boldly add a video, but equally OK to revert when there is a perceived issue, after which the correct procedure is to discuss and get local consensus for the inclusion or otherwise of that video in that article in that place. When after the passage of time a video is found to be out of date, it can again be removed/delinked, with an explanation in the edit summary, and the correct procedure would be to either to fix it before reinstatement, discuss the problem on the talk page and get a new consensus taking into account the changes in the state of the art, or leave it out. I also would oppose individual inclusions of videos that do not have in-line citation, and a satisfactory citation format (no bare urls - a dead link in a bare url would be sufficient grounds to remove the video, as it is not amenable to being fixed by Wikipedia editors). Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per SV, SG, and others. Not easily edited, verified, or even referenced. As shown below, they don't duplicate the leads either, so they fail to meet WP:V. They should be removed from en.wikipedia. What commons chooses to do is their own affair. Ealdgyth - Talk12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per the points made by many others, especially that they cannot easily be edited by anyone and they don't meet WP:V, and these are an outside project, not part of wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Is Wikipedia not the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? These videos can't be edited by anyone, they contain commercial adverts, include no transcripts, and no sources (the sources I saw were in pathetic condition). Text is King. Suggest we take a deep breath and remove them all. W3C has a FAQ on this. Question number 1 is What do I need to do to make audio and video accessible? The answer is in multi-parts, but begins with Transcript - required. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as described above and in related discussions, these videos are littered with problems. Issues raised include factual accuracy, currency, verifiability, and Web accessibility of the content, apart from the COI/promo issue of including links and logos. If full transcripts with inline citations to MEDRS compliant sources were provided, we could begin to have a discussion about keeping them. Until then, a user page is a more appropriate place to rework these into something acceptable.Dialectric (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per the arguments above from Colin, Diaelectric, Jrfw51, Tryptofish, et al., these videos have serious issues regarding the ability of editors to change them, their factual accuracy, their accessibility, and lack of verification and references. As such, it's clear that they cannot continue to be on Wikipedia, as a matter of community norms and said reasons.—Javert2113 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. the 4:30 screen It's ridiculous that our community is so dysfunctional that we need an RFC to determine that the sensible and obvious step is the sensible and obvious step. Let us take Posttraumatic stress disorder as an example. At 20:45, 20 September 2016, the file Posttraumatic_stress_disorder.webm has been embedded in the article. At 4:30 of the file, we have the following screen. This clearly states that the video describes only the opinion of Rishi Desai, MD, MPH. Moreover, this file is nothing but a free piece of cake... from some cake seller. Subscribe, subscribe, subscribe to get some more cake. Who has introduced this clear advertisement for a money maker ? Guess who ? Nobody else but Doc James, the sitting trustee. With which edit summary ? Guess what? added. No less, no more. The result is the introduction of around 300 files that haven't been submitted to the usual editorial process. Medical pages shouldn't be substandard compared with the TV series or the baseball players pages... and shouldn't open a breach into the best practices. Pldx1 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments given by Javert2113. Also, considering that we're all supposed to be able to edit WP, which often means not only long discussions but a degree of edit warring as well, how would an edit war of a video proceed? I"m pretty sure that both elderly and woman editors would be at a disadvantage. I certainly would be. I'd guess that in most cases the few people with the knowledge/ability to make video changes would have their way. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "unless significant problems are identified with the content in question" is a burned waffle. What sort of objective metric is sans "significant problem"? Allowing problematic content violates WP:V. Glrx (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have no doubt whatsoever that those editors, such as Doc James, who sought to add the videos were were acting in good faith and with the best of intentions. Nevertheless, the concerns that have been raised here and at Jimbo's talk page—the connection to a for-profit start-up, the lack of practicable editability, the prominent placement within the articles, the lack of community-wide discussion about adding them in the first place, the edit warring to stymie those seeking to remove them, the inappropriately dismissive attitude and belligerent tone of some editors (not Doc James) who have sought to keep them, and the appearance of conflict of interest—are extremely serious and must be addressed. It would be unthinkable to keep the videos in the face of all of this. RivertorchFIREWATER16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've only devoted about 20 minutes to this, so I could be wrong, but the criticisms of the content seem valid, and I generally agree with the opposers. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: Yes, images. If that image, or even a gif, is conveying a certain concept (in general, not the whole article). That differs from video, and certainly from what I perceive to be the idea of these videos: these videos explain the subject of the article in the same way, we do not link our text to the explanation in the video, here the video is completely standalone. So is the video adding anything that we do not have in the article, and that we cannot include in the article (an WP:EL-like reasoning for inclusion standard)? Otherwise a 'commons has material regarding to subject X' at the bottom of the article (where that video is in the category of subject X) is more than enough. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. This approach is backwards to the way we deal with content. Not seeing why these should get special exemptions. AIRcorn(talk)05:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As my second preference, with caveat that they are evaluated exactly like any other External link, and only added with consensus. If we are stuck with them, they go in EL only if there is consensus to add them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is obviously some editorial control over these videos, they are not particularly biased and freely available I would support their inclusion in the EL section. Link only rather than the actual video embedded, as the latter would suggest that this is Wikipedia content. JFW | T@lk06:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support only for those videos which have been individually verified as meeting the required standards of verifiability, etc. and whose inclusions is supported by a consensus of editors of the article concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the videos are produced by an external organisation, this is the best place for them. Displaying them as an embedded video is fine as this makes their nature clear to the reader. Andrew D. (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per Jrfw51 and Thryduulf. Everybody knows that Wikipedia is not responsible for content accessed via external links, but we do have a responsibility for curating those links. If the content of a given video is deemed accurate and up-to-date and otherwise meets EL (e.g., isn't blatantly promotional and contains useful information beyond the scope of the article), then it should be fine to link to it. The link must not be more prominent than any other link, so as to avoid any appearance that Wikipedia is endorsing it. RivertorchFIREWATER16:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, you are proposing keeping them embedded in the article, not turning them into external links. No, they don't belong on Wikipedia at all per WP:NOTYOUTUBE. -- Colin°Talk20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This providing a blanket approval for including the videos without further discussion at the various articles. Further, this would only be acceptable if the Osmosis advertising/branding is removed. We are not here to provide promotion for an external company by providing them an unconditional 'home' on Wikipedia and the PR boost they get by that association. Jbh Talk21:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a video is bad, it does not belong in the article. There shouldn't be a because this is a video, you may not delete it; you may only move it to the EL section. What sort of logic is that? Glrx (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Glrx, I don't think the proposal was meant to mean keeping demonstrably bad videos in the external links section. If there was a consensus that a particular video was bad then the external link could ne deleted like any other external link.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?20:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not see the logic of "if X does not belong in an article, then X should be moved to EL". That's not the purpose of EL. ELs should contain additional information that is either too detailed for the current article or has not been incorporated yet. EL is not a place to keep flawed content. Glrx (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would only be a solution if the videos were of sufficient quality, but we wanted to reduce video prominence in general. The issue is mostly over video accuracy and edit-ability. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk11:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This option is very confused. Is this to be an embedded video (as now) just moved to the bottom of the article? Or to be removed from Wikipedia and merely have an external link to the video on Commons? The support comments appear to suggest the latter. This sort of mess is exactly why James should have consulted with others before rushing out this RFC.-- Colin°Talk09:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Colin. I would support them being added as an external link if that is decided by consensus at the individual article, but not them being embedded there and not as a fait accompli. AIRcorn(talk)05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first option. The Osmosis videos amount to free advertising for an external group, they were developed and added to articles on the consensus of a very small, walled group; they are dated and unsourced and often inaccurate; they breach WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ELNO among others; and there is no consensus outside of a handful of medical editors for adding videos of this type to articles, outside of the normal provisions of ELNO in external links. And they have now become the focus of some very unbecoming behaviors, including admins willing to edit war to keep them, and cabalistic behaviors. This has WP:MED headed towards an Infobox-style dispute, except that unlike in the Infobox wars, there are at least two core policies that these videos breach-- WP:V and WP:NPOV. Deleting them all for a fresh start is the only way to solve this impasse.
I am also extremely disappointed in Doc James for not working with someone to craft a neutral RFC; he instead put forward a biased account, not showing those videos that don't have sources, or less than good videos, and he claims the imperial WE supported this venture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my support, AFTER the description in the section heading here changed, indicating that I understand it is for deleting them from EN.WIKIPEDIA, since they can't be deleted from Commons. Sheesh. How about putting up a draft RFC for input from others next time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I don't think that we literally have to delete them all. I'm putting myself here because I don't think we should get stuck on defending the videos in their present form, and because it is perfectly possible and very desirable to replace them with better versions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tryptofish supporting this is supporting "deleting all links to the videos on Wikipedia" and more or less is opposed to collaborating with Osmosis going forwards. How this will result in "better versions" you will need to explain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, I'm doing it as much as anything to make a stand against the editors who are opposing any change to the use of the videos. I'm less interested in deleting them all, than in getting us out of this standoff. My approach to better versions is in Option 4 below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish — I do not think any editor supports this notion. This option risks setting precendent and removing all future possibility of videos without the same discussion. Keep in mind that some editors here oppose the entire premise of using videos at all to convey information. I support changes, but requiring a massive rewrite of all the vidoes at once is likely to result in the loss of all videos. Carl Fredrik talk05:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on what the community says in this RfC, and it sure looks to me like the trend is going strongly in the opposite direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No User:Lingzhi, it doesn't violate WP:V because the video is written by an expert in the field so the video is in its own right a reliable source. If a serious/dangerous factual mistake were discovered in the video it can be deleted until it is fixed. Surveys of our readers show they desire video and audio content so that is what we must do. Many of our visitors have reading difficulties, e.g., dyslexia, everyone deserves access to healthcare information.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support first option. As I read more about the processes involved, notwithstanding the technical, accuracy, and philosophical issues raised by others, I believe the only solution here is cleanse with fire. The process by which meta:Wiki Project Med came to purport to represent the community of Wikipedia editors while making a deal to place advertorial content in privileged positions in our medical articles needs to be examined. Of particular concern is this agreement. It is an agreement to bypass normal collaboration "James and other medical editors will place the videos in the first sections of articles" (which he did, at least in some cases, without edit summaries or talk page discussion and indeed reverted other editors to keep the videos in place per discussion here) There was little if any consideration given to these being 'teasers' to sell Osmosis Prime subscriptions and it seems that this was accepted as a reasonable quid pro quo for these videos being provided to Commons. By hosting these at Commons they could be embedded directly into articles in a more prominent position and allowed to bypass WP:ELNO which would have disallowed the Osmosis branding. I am also concerned about the lack of care exercised in policing the relationship. For instance it evidently went unnoticed for years that Osmosis' claimed to provide the Official Wikipedia medical videos(see discussions [9] and otherwise used the Wikipedia and Wiki Project Medicine name in their promotional material. All of this, even allowing it was done with the best of intentions, simply taints these videos beyond salvage. The best outcome is a solid community discussion about how we got here, the lessons which can be learned and how we can prevent something like this from happening again. Specifically how to prevent two outside companies from making deals about Wikipedia content. generally for the reasons I opposed their blanket keep or blanket move to external links in the above sections. Jbh Talk21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jbh, which ELNO provision do you think would disallow the Osmosis branding? If you are looking at ELNO #5, then showing a logo for ~1% of a video is not what we mean by "objectionable advertising". The standard for that is much closer to "more ads than content" (or "annoying pop-up ads"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: There is a strong argument for applying WP:ELNO#4/WP:ELNO#5, considering these are essentially advertorial teasers specifically intended to generate subscriptions for Osmosis -- the intent of the material (There is a comment somewhere I can not find offhand where Osmosis refuses to address concerns because it is more detailed than their "target audience".) plus the bumpers make the native advertising nature of the video clear. The same sentiment is also expressed in WP:LINKSPAM ("Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product.") and Wikipedia:Spam#Videos ("It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site". Which specifically addresses merely displaying a link.). Looking into other reasonable applications of ELNO; WP:ELNO#1 and the intent behind WP:ELNO#11 are arguable as well. The material provided is, in general, of lesser quality than the existing articles and much less than what would be found in a Featured Article. ELNO#11 exists, at least in part, to keep substandard material out of articles and Osmosis in not a 'recognized authority' (Certainly not to the level expected in medical articles.) particularly considering the basic errors pointed out. Jbh Talk17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Spam#Videos contains what I think is an important example, in the very point you quoted: For example, "book available at xyzBooks dot net". I'm generally underwhelmed by intention-based criteria, because we are not mind readers. I also think that it's overbroad, and it's missing a critical definition of the word "commercial". Also, see WP:ADV: Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link. Thinking about that "immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers", and keeping in mind that I truly don't care what happens to someone else's website, I think there's good scope for considering an ELNO #1 violation in at least some of these videos. I don't think we could sustain a complaint under ELNO #4 (the link would primarily show a video on Commons about something other than someone else's website) or ELNO #5 (because of its emphasis on the exact page being linked, and that "individual web page" on Commons primarily exists to show a video, rather than to engage in a sales transaction). ELNO #11 is not intended to cover this (that's all about "please don't link to some random private person's self-published blog"). I'm thinking that ELNO #1 is probably the only serious (specific) objection, and "same information, different format" might be enough to wriggle out of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about it being primarily a link to a video on Commons is one of the things I find so pernicious about these videos. By uploading them to Commons rather than linking to the same video on YouTube they were able to short circuit the discussion we are having right now while, at the same time, allowing the video to be linked 'above the fold' rather than being relegated to the end of the article. This was a concentrated native advertising campaign disguised as a 'donation' of material. Osmosis gained millions of views to a pre-screened audience and every one of them was invited to subscribe to Osmosis Prime. Pretty smart of them. They also got to trade off of their relationship with Wikipedia in the press and in grant applications — we essentially were presented as endorsing Osmosis. Regardless of whether it would be possible to thread our PaGs to allow these videos singly in aggregate they were a blatant abuse of Wikipedia for commercial gain and needed to be ripped out. No complicity, other than over eager naivety and a willingness not look too closely, was needed from our side but Osmosis literally built their business on this. Consider, Osmosis leveraged Wikipedia's name recognition, Internet presence, and good will (No little part based the public knowing we do not allow advertisements and figuring since we let these on all of our major medical articles Osmosis must be really special). They did this with the help of a small number of editors, most of whom seem to be part of meta:Wiki Project Med. No malice or avarice needs to be assigned to these people. WP:MED seems to be a great foundation, with laudable people and goals, but it is not Wikipedia — it is a separate corporation with its own goals and aspirations. That the values expressed in this deal did not line up with the values and expectation of the community is evident from the response here. Frankly, if I were part of the WMF I would be calling the people involved in this to the carpet. Making deals to place content from a single source throughout an entire class of articles; Allowing that content to consist of native advertising (How hard would it have been to have them strip the branding before uploading to Commons?); Being a proxy for Osmosis (Osmosis could have put the links in. Instead an extremely senior editor did it for them ) That same editor protecting that content when it is objected to; Allowing them to use Wikipedia's name in their press material and not clearly differentiating between meta:Wiki Project Med (the independent corporation), WP:Wikiproject Medicine (the group of editors), Wikipedia, and the WMF — this is the one which would really piss me off if I were the WMF. Also, who negotiates a collaboration without addressing publicity?! The more I write the more unconscionable this whole thing becomes to me and the more I find I must choose between assuming good faith and assuming basic competence so I will stop here. I question the wisdom of hitting Publish but if I am seeing things this way then I must assume others here have the same worries. I hope this will not be seen as indictment. I really do not think any Wikipedia editor acted with selfish or nefarious intent. I do, in making that assessment, see a case of ego and probably a desire to get videos usable in offline versions of Wikipedia as leading to some, from my perspective at least, very bad decisions that severely compromised the neutrality of the encyclopedia and our non-commercial nature. Jbh Talk00:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to demonstrate your assumption: you have perfectly summed up my concerns on this aspect of the issue. I will only add that, logically, there is no need to assume bad faith or ascribe intentionality to Osmosis either: all the observable evidence could be artefacts of entirely good faith by everyone involved. Admittedly, my ability to assume good faith on the part of some parties is stretched somewhat thin; but there is nothing I can think of in this situation that actually requires someone to have acted in bad faith. --Xover (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully stand behind the original decision, and do not share your interpretation that it was incorrect to add the videos to articles. However, you are right in that removing the boilerplates at the ends of videos should have occured sooner. As for the rest, nothing of what you state Jbh is correct.
The wish to include the videos is entirely based on the judgement that they serve a purpose that is in line with Wikipedia's fundamental goals. The wish to not scare away Osmosis is also based entirely on Wikipedia's goals. Scaring them off, in the manner that this dispute has done — leads to no future videos , even ones that take into account any percieved issues. The collaboration has been marked by a willingness by both those who organized it — and of Osmosis — to work together in writing scripts and formatting videos. Your depiction ignores this fact.
You may dispute whether the videos provide useful content, and you may dislike the format, and consensus may be reached that they should not be included on Wikiedia. However, this does not change that prior to consensus, there was nothing wrong in keeping the videos, or reinstating them based upon trivial concerns (not regarding the boilerplate). Carl Fredrik talk13:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Outriggr under option 1. We should have decided, on a broader scale, whether this kind of video is acceptable in Wikipedia, before these were added to so many prominent articles. We still have not yet had that discussion. BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Last edited: 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the understanding that this option is very poorly phrased, bordering on misleading*. The videos are appropriately licensed and hosted on Commons, not locally on the English Wikipedia. We can't "delete" the videos, even if we wanted to; that's a matter for Commons. All this option actually addresses is removing the embedded videos from our articles. It does not necessarily preclude their reintroduction at some point and in some form in the future—after a discussion that is well-advertised and explicit in its effects. It is also conceivable that some other independent editor might be able to remix clips into something quite different and usable.
(It is...problematic...that an enthusiastic proponent for keeping the videos wrote the supposed-to-be-neutral summary of this dispute and decided on the top three choices and how they would be presented.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for removing all embedded videos from articles. Deletion process on commons is outside our purview here. JFW | T@lk06:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are too many concerns about these videos. They are created by an outside group, cannot be easily edited, and seem to be the pet project of a few people. They violate several policies as listed above by several people. Natureium (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading more comments and information, I am more in support of removing all Osmosis videos from Wikipedia, in large part because of the shady nature of the way they are taking advantage of Wikipedia's free publicity for their for-profit company. I wrote more on this in the discussion section at the end. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Using my experience from two articles that had videos I can't see any reason to add these videos to our encyclopedia. The Breastfeeding video had numerous mistakes, and I don't mean just little errors, I mean very serious errors. Perhaps because it was written by an MD whose main field of medicine is genetics. That there apparently was no editorial process to review his work suggests that this is not the sort of information that we want to introduce to Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Huh, didn't realize this was an option (to think I was about to add it!). Let me summarize the wall of text that I wrote and then deleted: issues with WP:V and WP:MEDRS, issues of fact, issues of purpose, issues of editing (or the possibility of editing being done), issues regarding the veracity of particular statements made by particular users, issues of edit-warring, issues of possible advertising (which I would say is clearly advertising), and issues regarding the ethos of Wikipedia, and who or what we editors want our exquisite encyclopedia to be. (Pardon the purple prose.) In short, there are just too many problems with the videos, in this insignificant editor's opinion, for their continued presence here on English Wikipedia, and perhaps even on Commons. One last note, if I may: I can only hope that the aforementioned instance of edit-warring I earlier did not drive away a new user, all for simply noting that a company is a for-profit thing. —Javert2113 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons I explained at Jimbo's talk page (User talk:Jimbo Wales#Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation), a discussion which led me here after the RfC was announced there. Also for the analysis in #Osmosis grants and timeline aboveWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Osmosis grants and timeline (where this RfC was moved from), especially the part where the Osmosis company claims that their "... videos are the official medical teaching videos on Wikipedia". They are not. And if they ever were, booting them out is a mild approach. Also, the quality of the videos is amateuristic at best (...glorified powerpoints based on sketchy material). Wikimedia should distance itself from this for-profit organisation, and certainly not give them a grant. Keep them out of en.Wikipedia. Osmosis should be happy if they would still get a link to a commons category that hosts their videos, and even there, I don't think the way Osmosis's editorial policies are going that they would have a chance in the long term to keep their videos hosted there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC); updated after this RfC has been moved to a separate page. 14:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Well these videos are not perfect and could use improvements deleting them all will be overall harmful to a large segment of our readers including those who access Wikipedia offline. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose i think deleting them is harmful to readers because it's very short and helpful to summarize the medical subjects--مصعب (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose. The videos represent a substantial donation of free content that has been marred by COI and commercial issues. The people who are interested in unscrewing this deserve a chance to despam and set things right, but it should come with an expiration date. Non-COI users should continue to be able to find these CC-licensed videos on the web and upload all or part of them as they see fit to help a specific article without having to worry about a broad policy decision. Wnt (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that this RfC option (as presented by Doc James) is very poorly phrased, to the point of being misleading. The videos are hosted on Commons, not on English Wikipedia. No matter what the outcome of this discussion, we cannot "delete" the videos—that's a matter for Commons. At most, we can remove the embedded videos from our articles. That does not preclude the reintroduction of some content – perhaps heavily edited or remixed – at some point in the future, after discussion appropriate to the context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary if they are managed as content should be managed. Keep those that are worth keeping and comply with requirements when and while they comply, and remove them when they do not comply, with the option of reinstating when they have been fixed to the consensus agreement on the talk page of the article where they are to be included. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that this is equivalent to deleting all of the images by a certain creator. Certainly videos with errors should be removed until they are fixed. However, removing them all by default would be an over-reaction. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk11:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Develop a list of requirements that such videos must meet, in order to be used anywhere on en-Wiki pages. Have a community-wide RfC about that. Use the outcome of that RfC to determine whether or not a video may be used.
Support as proposer. I don't think we can get a consensus about the Osmosis videos in their present versions, and it would be best not to use them without consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support w/ caveat The first thing we should do is see if there is a community consensus for long form article-as-video videos which cover entire articles or sections of articles. Once there is a consensus to host such videos then we should develop, as a community, how article-as'video will be implemented and what requirements/content guidelines they must meet for inclusion. Jbh Talk21:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support under conditions that: 1) This is implemented gradually as to allow videos to be changed in response to new requirement and not simply deleted & 2) That this RfC does not include the option of removal of all vidoes, and that no consensus in that RfC does not default into blanket removing videos. Carl Fredrik talk21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is something that desperately needs to happen regardless of the outcome of this RfC. Wikipedia's guidelines for video use are very poorly developed. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good option going forward, although it will always be difficult to align the content of videos with the precise content of articles. If a new high-quality secondary source throws new light on the article, the last thing I want to see is a video that contradicts the text because it looks us look beyond stupid. Until there is better technology I am not that hopeful that we can fix this vital problem. JFW | T@lk06:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support Videos must be considered on a article by article basis based on the guidelines and policies for content that already exist, but there is no harm in trying to clarify what this means for video. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Videos are hard to edit. So are images. We have guidelines and norms for images. Videos are going to become more common as they become easier to make. We will therefore need to develop guidelines and norms for videos. Just as svg diagrams are preferred over png, there may be some applicable editable raw format. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk11:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While better requirements about videos would be a good idea, this collaboration has two fundamental problems. It is designed to produce articles-as-videos, the videos are largely text & narration so don't actually add anything we couldn't do in a normal article + diagrams, and the videos are created by a private firm who it seems are now inactive in developing more for over a year (despite promises from James). See WP:NOTYOUTUBE for why lengthy articles-as-videos are fundamentally wrong on Wikipedia. They may be valid on other projects for WMF and can be hosted on Commons. -- Colin°Talk21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the typically useful and well thought reasoning from Tryptofish, because most unfortunately, that would mean, in this case, basically trusting Doc James to comply, when he has shown he is either unable or unwilling to understand anything outside of his own POV on this issue. He could have worked with someone to draft a neutral RFC, which he did not. He framed the RFC with bias, that has been typical of his behavior that brought this debacle upon us, so no, Trypto, so sorry :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as instruction creep - we already have guidelines on verifiability (they should have the equivalent of inline references at the end BTW), and lack of branding or watermarking Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general terms I agree with Casliber, but there may be some benefit in examining how best to apply existing guidelines to video content. It will have to be done sometime. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose, that is, as long as this would mean a delay in removing the videos from Wikipedia's mainspace: I'd see this as an issue to be sorted out at commons, not something Wikipedia editors should invest their time in. See also my rationale in #Support option 3 above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Yes I was pushing to create a list of what we require to keep the videos. But my support depends what the bar is. For example are we saying:
Remove front and back bumper? Sure can be done in a few weeks.
Is it to allow collaboration on scripts? Sure was done. Not many people engaged. Can be reactivated definately.
Is it to have references present? Yes that is being done already. And older videos are yet to be updated.4) Is it updating videos that have significant errors? Yes they have agreed to do that.
Is it to have every video follow WP:MEDMOS to the letter? They are working on some improvements in that direction, such as regarding the person / patient issue. But are they going to be required to use our font? Follow or layouts etc?
Must these videos have inline references for every single sentence? We do not even mandate this for Wikipedia. That would be requesting a bar within the videos that we do not even come close to meeting ourselves.
Must these videos use Wikipedia text verbatum and follow Wikipedia's outline and be updated within two weeks of any new change to Wikipedia? Not going to happen. They are releasing videos under an open license and allowing us to use them. They are not making videos for use. Would it be cool having someone making videos for us? Yes definitely. But we would need to find funding to make that happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tryptofish if we are set on deleting all the videos no sense anyone wasting efforts to try to improve them. Thus a RfC about whether or not we support the idea of these videos before defining what criteria we want to put in place or what improvements we want to mandate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of videos to be included in medical articles I see no reason why they should not have to comply with all the conditions required of other content. That includes MEDRS. MEDMOS is a slightly different issue, and should be considered. My personal view is that they should comply with MEDMOS as default, but could be excused minor infringements on a case by case basis, based on talk page consensus. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 09:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there is no point in trying to improve them if the consensus proves to be to not use videos at all, and it looks to me that the consensus is heading in that direction. I'm just trying to find a way to get the antagonistic camps to come together, but I'm pessimistic that it will happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest different focus. Our existing core content policies probably suffice for evaluating individual videos, but new questions about processes and roles have come up about initiatives from strategic partnerships like this, as a whole. We should be doing small pilot projects with clear success criteria that are spelled out in advance, saying how to evaluate whether the project should proceed. And there needs to be a plan for measuring success against those criteria. E.g. If one of the success criteria is that the material comply with core content policies, how is that going to be evaluated and by who? If one of the success criteria is that the material be accessible to people who have difficulty reading Wikipedia articles, where are representatives of this group going to be found so that the suitability of the material can be tested with them?
Another thing that would be helpful is to spell out some recommended best practices for how to structure this type of partnership in terms of roles and responsibilities. For instance, should someone whose role is to decide whether a video needs to be updated also be the same person whose role is to tell the partner that we want a particular video updated for the third time in six months? Perhaps it would be better to separate these roles.
Remove videos and only allow them to be placed in articles, in whatever manner decided by this RfC, only after the Osmosis video branding (beginning and ending screens and any other endorsement or promotion of Osmosis they may include) has been removed.
To clarify this option is only applicable should other options lead to the videos being kept or used as external links. It simply serves as a caveat that no video with promotional material/branding/credits/etc be allowed to remain on the site. If they are to be allowed the branded ones must be immediately removed and then replaced with non-branded versions as they become available. Last edited: 21:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Regardless of any other issue relating to these videos using them to promote Osmosis by attaching them to Wikipedia content and giving prominent placement to promotional corporate branding within Wikipedia articles is simply not appropriate in any way. Jbh Talk21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read Option 1 was that it did not require the promo be removed before they could be placed in articles. My intention here is that if we decide to the videos in any way they be rapidly scrubbed of Osmosis branding and to make sure a video with branding is not allowed to stay up until they get around to cleaning it up. This removes any incentive Osmosis may have for slow walking the clean up or pushing it off to the community ie no promotional benefit to be derived from 'eventualism'. Jbh Talk21:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: If I had to propose a 'path-of-least-drama' solution I would say scrub the videos and then drop them, subject to discussion/rejection at individual articles, into the External links section. This would, in my opinion, address the 'big picture' stuff like applicability of Wikipedia content and sourcing PaGs and any perception of promotion, preferred placement or Wikipedia's implied endorsement (simply due to the videos having preferred placement and corporate branding) of a commercial organization. Beyond that it would not act a precedent for preferred placement 'donations' nor for a de facto move into 'article-as-video' in other areas. They would 'just' be external links and no more divisive than any other external link. Jbh Talk01:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Actually, I semi-support this. Agreeing to remove them pending improvements is a very positive offer, and I appreciate it. But I also anticipate that more than just removing the endorsements is going to be needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. The branding is a main issue and booting them from the articles pre-emptively is a reasonable response, but there will likely be lingering COI fallout beyond this. The "bright line rule" probably needs to be applied. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm worried that people will watch the video and not read the page. Why then do we make so much effort and spend so much time writing, documenting and updating the pages continuously? People have to read the pages, at least the leads, in which we strive to make a summary of the content (I do not even like the new infoboxes, there are times when it can not be simplified and summarized at that level). I like the idea of short videos, of specific aspects, such as the TS video.
Have you stopped to think about the production rate of the Osmosis videos? The Wikiproyecto Osmosis was created in December 2015. Two years and three months and they have made about 300 videos. One video every 2.7 days. It looks like a churros factory, in all likelihood that was the reason why they did not want to invest time in improved the CD video (it is shown in OsmoseIt's replies). It seems that the number and not the content quality prevail.
I think Osmosis have been proud and arrogant (and specifically OsmoseIt, which is the one I talked with), believing that they can go over us and over us policies, with their arguments and their objectives, I think they should have taken more into account Wikipedia's policies and objectives, not theirs, and now there is too much to correct. I think the option is not to keep the videos and to correct them, but vice versa (in case their inclusion in the pages is approved), that is, to eliminate them and start one by one, reviewing them from scratch so all the inaccuracies and problems get fixed, reaching consensus in each of the talk pages and not in a Wikiproject that nobody knows and nobody sees. And probably using another approach, with short videos on specific aspects. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)09:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the Crohn's disease video and removed it. It contains numerous inaccuracies in terms of etiology, genetic basis, treatment, etc. with a very superficial approach. IMO, it must be rejected in its entirety. It is disinformative so its diffusion is dangerous, in Wikipedia and any other place. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk)10:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
support This is the correct move, and what has started to happen. It is likely that any future versions should be more clip-like; illuminating a section, rather than providing a whole overview. If they are kept whole they are likely to be ELs in any specific page, rather than anywhere in the article per se. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After the advertising is removed, these videos can be managed like any other video, image, or gif that we use in Wikipedia to helpfully illustrate the content in an article. --Iamozy (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What part of don't delete them from Wikipedia is not clear? I am surprised that an editor like you who edits on articles related to disability e.g., epilepsy is so against this, because it discriminates against people with reading difficulties who prefer audio and visual formats of healthcare information. We need to move with the times, otherwise other encyclopedias and healthcare platforms will become preferred over Wikipedia. We need to supply the demands of our visitors. The videos are written by experts in the field so meet WP:V, the videos and audios are brilliant, a work of art, lets keep them and drop the hysteria.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Literaturegeek I think the videos are educational and useful and belong on Commons and some other site that doesn't care about sourcing and collaborative editing. "The videos are written by experts in the field so meet WP:V" is just so, so, so wrong I don't know where to begin, other than I now have a clue why some people want them on WP. WP:MED does not understand WP. -- Colin°Talk21:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the fishiness of this venture-- propelled as it was by one person acting on behalf of Wikipedia-- is bad, and their inability to get basic medicine right is worse. This is not a salvageable relationship. Cut all ties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can, the fact that it might not turn out well is a different point entirely. You're quite unlikely to be able to edit a featured article without in-depth knowledge of the subject, but that isn't an argument against featured articles. Carl Fredrik talk21:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove COI links and activities and be absolutely clear that the content is fully editable by all users. In the discussion at Jimbo Wales' page, an opponent of the videos cited a page making the claim that Commons opposes free editing of videos to remove pre-roll ads from videos. That page seems wrong-headed, dangerous, and worthy of deletion to me - though I'm still not clear it really applies to this case - but this issue needs to be settled independently of what happens to it. We need to establish:
A private company adding spam back to itself in multiple Wikipedia references, even with the best intentions, is violating WP:COI badly.
There can and should be an exception for them to get credit via file attribution consistent with CC-licensing, which is to say, a statement we keep according to our own preferences in the text talk page associated with the video upload about where it came from, but this does not create any "right" of the video not to be trimmed, cut in five-second snippets, made into a diorama, or painted on a naked lady pole-dancing around the Liberty torch.
The company should trim the links from the videos itself quickly, per our request, to show it is attempting to mitigate its COI behavior.
It must nonetheless also concede that we have the right to do that or edit them in any way whenever and however we wish, whether it does so or not. Any representation to the contrary would seem to imply that they are not presenting the CC license as valid, or are making a legal threat, and could serve as valid reason to delete videos and block users until all trace of the company is expunged from the project.
Notwithstanding this, other users who find the videos on YouTube or archive them from Wikipedia and re-upload them because they think they are useful to the topic at hand are doing no wrong. So long as a user without a COI finds what he in good faith thinks is a CC-licensed video useful to the project, he's free to upload it and use it in an article. It is also not Wikipedia's job to figure out if he violated DMCA by trimming a CC-licensed video in a way that is against the DMCA but nonetheless leads to CC-licensed content, nor whether that user was subject to DMCA at all, even if we believed that Commons claim above.
Future uploads of these articles by those associated with the company depend on administrative decisions regarding particular users, which may or may not turn out to impose topic bans or other moratoria for a limited or indefinite duration. The "bright line rule" suggests the best practice is for them to place talk page threads at relevant articles saying the videos are available, leaving it to other users to upload them or not. However, they have a right to make an argument for an exception based on utility. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sarah - I left it on for the first one to test out what folks wanted. The next five have everything extra removed. It's easy enough to remove the last couple of seconds of the first one if that's what is preferred, but nobody's actually told me yet exactly what they want. Although it's such a simple job that anybody could make their own version. --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, would you mind removing it from the end too, i.e. remove all mention of the company? That would at least deal with the freemium aspect of this, i.e. that, as they make clear on their YouTube channel, they hope the free videos will encourage people to buy one of their plans. SarahSV(talk)23:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah: Done. I've replaced File:Abscesses 1.webm with one that I cropped 3 seconds shorter, so no logos in there now. They still have a perfectly reasonable credit on the file description page of course, the same as anybody else who kindly donates content. --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who thinks these videos are editable should read WP:NOTYOUTUBE. And watch one of them and ask themselves "Could I edit this, to replace a word, fix a graphic, add some new material?" The answer will be no, of course, you can't. -- Colin°Talk07:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This solutions seems designed to convince people that it's just as simple to edit a video as it is to edit wikipedia. If wikipedia had some kind of inline video editing capability where you could instantly edit it and see a record of exactly what was changed, it would be different, but as it is, saying everyone can edit it is an oversimplification. Editing a video requires that one downloads the video, has the appropriate editing software, is able to change the information in a way that still fits the video, and re-upload a new video. This is very different to editing an article. Natureium (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unreasonable to expect that crowdsourced video explanations will be perfectly seamless, use the same narrator throughout, or use expensive software. I will admit I know little about video editing and do find the idea daunting. However, the whole point of Wikipedia is to make it possible for people to work together. Either we get editors who know how to do it to teach us, or have WMF make better tools; meanwhile we can delete bad videos if we can't fix them or chop them up into usable bits. Template editing isn't easy, Lua isn't easy, table editing isn't easy, PDF editing isn't easy, and even using that template that lets you draw out a transit line through ten stops and a cloverleaf is no task for the faint of heart. Wnt (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as meaningless because the videos are not editable by the average user. Even with high-end video editing software, videos often contain elements that effectively cannot be edited at all. Also, if the videos were hosted elsewhere and merely accessible by external link (which is the way it should be), then it's unclear how anyone might edit them anyway. (Download them from YouTube, edit them, and then upload them to Commons?) I think I understand the reasoning behind it, but this option makes little sense to me. RivertorchFIREWATER17:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — 5/6 of these suggestions are requirements inherent in the CC licence. I would suggest withdrawing this option, or rephrasing to suggest adding this at the WP:Osmosis page (however, there is nothing stopping you from just doing this). Carl Fredrik talk21:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lingzhi, could you have the good (really, he is) RexxS teach you how to take the POV words "suffer from" out of the Tic Disorders video? You can find the issue described at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Issues-- that would be a good teaching point. And after you become an expert, could you then fix those other errors? have funnnnnnnnnnnn :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suffer from is the correct term for tic disorders, it is at a minimum an embarrassing frustrating problem to have and can be almost totally socially disabling. To deny the distress of this disorder would be a strange POV, and I don't understand your position.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?00:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Literaturegeek:, I need to implore once again, that you read before opining. The fricking DSM-IV-TR in the year 2000 (that was two decades ago) quite explicitly removed the requirement for "significant distress or impairment" from the TS diagnosis in recognition that most people with TS are not impaired or distressed. Same for DSM-5. What has happened on this Project that folks in here don't even know medicine anymore? Please, it's in the article, and it's on the page I linked above; it would be helpful if you would read it before opining. And as to tic disorders in general, even more so. Most people with them are undiagnosed, and don't even know they have them. There is no distress criteria, as there are for most other neuropsychiatric DSM conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:Okay, fair enough. Tic disorders is not an area that I have researched in detail so I never followed those DSM changes. I obviously spoke out of turn and my knowledge area. My gut did warn me about this, I ignored my gut. It does seem you are right about the suffer bit. I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Literturegeek, and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Something similar was said the first time I sought help as a newbie for the TS article, and I realized there was no one on Wikipedia who could help me improve a dismal article, so I embarked alone. Twelve years later, that memory still pushes buttons, so I apologize for reacting so strongly and inappropriately to your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your post was strongly worded but I don't think you were inappropriate in your communication style, especially given the heated context of this RfC and the fact I was in error and you were correct.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?14:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "anyone can edit" one of these videos is preposterous. RexxS has demonstrated he knows how to use the "cut" feature of a video editor and now believes that makes him a film producer. See WP:NOTYOUTUBE. This is deliberate misinformation and if you believe this, I've got £350 million per week to give to the NHS. -- Colin°Talk07:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinThat's quite enough. I've demonstrated that it is possible to simply crop off offending ads from the beginning and end of videos to resolve one concern about PROMO, but I have made no claim nor voiced any opinion beyond that. I don't need your disgraceful jibes about "thinks he's a film producer", and I'll ask you now to remove that slur. It's a good job this is an online medium because you'd never have the nerve to speak to me like that face-to-face. Now cut out your playground attitude to good faith editors and start to engage with the genuine issues here. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, your use of the word "edited" is the problem, because, as Wikipedians, we all know that editing involves all of adding, changing and removing material. You wrote "I've just edited File:Abscesses.webm and uploaded a new version" and "They can be edited, of course. See above.". This is then being repeated by James "We are free to edit the videos as we wish. In fact User:RexxS has already removed the front and back bumpers from one of them." The "as we wish" is as wishful as saying we are free to fly to Mars. That might be a theoretical possibility, but realistically it isn't going to happen. If this was a good faith mistake on your part, then please can you go back up this discussion and strike the word "edit", replaced with "truncate" or "trim". Then I'd be happy to strike what I wrote. It is really quite important distinction and I trust you realise that. -- Colin°Talk15:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ColinDon't talk bollocks. Of course I edited the videos, and I am free to do so, just as anybody else is. The nature of my edits is crude and akin to removing advertising from text in an article - that requires no knowledge of the subject or the way that MediaWiki software allows a piece of text to be removed. Editing a video "as we wish" is exactly comparable to editing text "as we wish". Anybody can make wholescale changes to text or to a video and make a mess of it, but it requires certain skills and expertise to make subtle adjustments in either medium. I've made no claims other than that removing the ads from beginning and end is a simple job. You're ridiculously trying to wikilawyer arguments that have not been made. Either you know that and are editing disruptively, or you don't understand it and have no business polluting these discussions with further nonsense. Some competence is required. --RexxS (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explain in more detail in WP:NOTYOUTUBE why editing is not the same and not going to repeat here. Anyone can make an edit on Wikipedia and only the most basic competence is required. This isn't a strawman. Quick, easy, simple editing on-site using MediaWiki software is totally fundamental to Wikipedia. It is entirely how we collaborate. Editing these Osmosis videos in a seamless manner that would be considered acceptable, is just not realistic. It has to occur offline, and Osmosis admit themselves that even small edits take hours. Ok, here's a challenge. Go edit the epilepsy video so that the on-screen text says "Focal Onset Impaired Awareness Seizures" rather than "Complex Partial Seizures". And replace the words "patients" with "people with epilepsy". If you can do that, in a way that is seamless, then I'll agree you can "edit the video". You see, if that text was in the article, I could make that edit in a few seconds using the website. So, until then, I'm very sorry that you are wilfully using misleading language. -- Colin°Talk15:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin:, as I recall RexxS's initial comment about these videos being editable came up, at least in part, in the context of my misunderstanding that the videos were un-editable as in technically or legally un-changeable with respect to the branding. His edits were to demonstrate that it was possible to excise that material. I have not seem him represent that they can be practically 'edited' in the wiki sense nor do I think that, in the context of video, most people would read that in to what he is saying. None of that, however, takes away from your point that it is not possible for Wikipedia editors to collaboratively modify these videos to correct or improve them. I agree completely with your view that the inability to collaboratively modify them should bar them from having any implication of representing the Wikipedia article or its topic. Jbh Talk16:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have struck the film producer bit as a gesture of good will, but the "deliberate misinformation" stays, sadly. I know RexxS second comment "They can be edited, of course. See above." was in response to you, but his earlier "I've just edited File:Abscesses.webm and uploaded a new version" was not. SlimV said "What happened here is that someone decided it was okay to let a for-profit company effectively add a few unsourced paragraphs to medical articles—paragraphs not written by specialists and not capable of being edited" Littleolive oil created a "Medical/health related editing" section where her use of the word "edited" most certainly included all its forms (add/modify/delete) and was not concerned with trimming off promotional literature. It was directly in response to her "videos which are not editable, verifiable or reliable cannot be used" that RexxS did his proof of principle. Which only demonstrated trimming or truncating the video and nothing more. Both TenOfAllTrades and Clayoquot have called RexxS out on his use of the word "edited" and RexxS has not revised it. When Lingzhi said "i cannot edit a video to alter its details", RexxS replied "I'll teach you how to, Lingzhi. It should take no more than about 15 minutes". So the above claim that "I have made no claim nor voiced any opinion beyond that [it is possible to simply crop off offending ads from the beginning and end of videos]" is untrue. He's directly claimed that altering a video's details should "take no more than about 15 minutes" for a newbie to learn how to do. It is sad that he is digging his heals in, because I think it quite unnecessary. It would be quite trivial for him to improve his word choice. -- Colin°Talk16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thank you. I'd like to address your accusation of "deliberate misinformation". When I load a video clip into a video editor and make changes – even ones as trivial as cropping a few seconds off each end – then export the amended video with my choice of parameters, such as resolution, container and codec, I do indeed think of that as "editing" the video. I don't see that describing that process as "editing" is a deliberate misrepresentation of the word. Our article on Video editing states "Video editing includes cutting segments (trimming), re-sequencing clips, and adding transitions and other Special Effects." I had no intent to mislead anybody by my choice of word, and – even if somebody misunderstood – I reject your assertion that there was anything "deliberate" on my part. Without diffs, I'm not certain where Both TenOfAllTrades and Clayoquot have called RexxS out on his use of the word "edited", but I suspect it may be this:
Well....they can be edited as long as by "edited" one only means "cut down". Practically speaking, it's extraordinarily difficult to make even minor changes or additions to the content of these videos. (Though removing the Osmosis logos and credit sequences would resolve one of the issues with this content: the violation of the spirit of WP:WATERMARK and MOS:CREDITS.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be extraordinarily difficult, and probably require expensive technology, to make changes or additions in the style of the original video. It would probably be quite hard even for Osmosis to do this because some of the original creators of the videos no longer work for the company. But hey, it wouldn't be too hard to splice in new content if we weren't trying to make it look consistent. A Wikipedian could, for instance, create a 60-second clip, in whatever tool and style they want, that summarizes the errors in the video and points out that the author of the video is a nonspecialist medical resident. And then that clip could be quite easily spliced into the start of the Osmosis video and re-uploaded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Was that it? If those are the comments where I'm "called out", I'm sorry that I didn't reply, but I actually agree with what they wrote entirely. Nevertheless, I've only commented here, that is Comments about option 6, which discuses the proposal to Remove COI links and activities and be absolutely clear that the content is fully editable by all users. I think that the indisputable difficulty of editing out factual errors, for example, has no bearing on this particular suggestion to remove the adverts and establish that the videos are capable of being edited. I've not commented in any other section of this RfC as I don't have anything useful to add there. I'm not "digging in my heals" (brilliant malapropism for a medical page!), but I do maintain that 15 minutes is all it takes to teach any competent Wikipedia editor like Lingzhi to crop the end off a video. I respect you right not to believe me. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I wasn't intending to "call out" RexxS. I think TenOfAllTrades kind of digressed from the original theme of the section, which was advertising, and I continued the digression even further. Clayoquot20:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS Can we agree there are two definitions of the word edited. Yes, film/video editing typically involves making cuts and rearranging the pieces, though it also involves transitions between pieces, overlaying the sound track (narration, music, effects) in sync with the video. But also involves having access to a much larger body of work (all the filming that took place) and being selective about what to include. For a series of works, there will also be a choice to make about which material goes in which video. I would also guess, that if the editing process highlights something missing or that didn't work out well, it can sometimes be redone, reshot or new material made and added on. Hence you can have a "directors cut" that is an hour longer, or the movie studio can demand a different (happy) ending be made, and this is edited into the film instead. On Wikipedia, the word editing means anything one can do when you press the edit button. You can add text, remove text, revise text, vandalise, or polish. We can also rename articles, split them up, join them together, categorise them, link to them, fill in info-boxes, and illustrate them with media on Commons. So while trimming the title section and credits off the front and back of a video can be called "editing", it doesn't represent "editing" in the full extent to which Wikipedians expect. If I told you you could edit Epilepsy but in fact all you could do was remove the infobox and the external links section, or move the history section about, you wouldn't feel very empowered, and might feel I was not being entirely honest. -- Colin°Talk08:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin:I don't give a shit about your essay: it's worthless as a debating point. It's clear that the videos can be edited as we wish. Anyone can edit a video and only the most basic competence is required. Your argument is a strawman, because I have only argued that it is a simple job to remove the adverts from start and finish. Address that for once, instead of childishly pretending I've claimed something else. I don't have to create a Featured Article to show that I can remove advertising text. Now, explain why anybody can't edit the videos to remove the adverts. You can't, can you? --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Fuck (Forget) the adverts. Twice, and with a glass of milk afterward. It's the whole fucking video idea that is eyewash. Oh wait, there's an error.. oh.. I'm gonna use my voice to correct it? Fuck no. I'm gonna use my face? Fuck no. Oh, I'll just leave the images there but overdub my voice.. but wait, what the fuck, someone else thinks it's NOT an error! It's time for Overdub Edit War!Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck this moronic oh yes I said moronic horse shit. it pretends to be progress but it's an ugly-assed briar thicket. In the end, whoever puts the video up will WP:OWN (it) its sorry butt because editing it is NOT like editing text, EVEN if it may be technically possible. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, a crowdsourced encyclopedia. Demanding that we keep a single narrator or voice throughout an explanatory video seems unreasonable to me. I think if some people get into this not merely won't it be jarring -- it'll be a cute, visible, tangible manifestation of the encyclopedia in visual terms. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the single most laughably... ridiculous... reply I have ever seen in over a decade.. I won't strike through this comment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)05:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn. It is clear that they cannot be in WP space with the branding, and this proposal does not include that. Freely licensed good quality videos are not a potato to be thrown out the window, but the branding makes them inedible. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fully support, the most sensible option available. It is more sensible than moving to external llinks because the videos are hosted on commons and are thus not external.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?17:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The placement of content within an article is not the responsibility of an RFC, but editors working on the page per consensus. The videos don't belong on Wikipedia. Full stop. -- Colin°Talk18:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I too appreciate this as a good faith proposal, but it looks to me like there are deep enough problems that they won't be solved by moving the location of the videos on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The videos are Wikimedia content. The usual link, if you want to go this route, is "Commons has information pertaining to..." True, that interface sucks, and there should be better Interwiki sections for everything, but that's another fish to fry. Meanwhile, a despammed video with errors fixed often belongs in the article (not the lede), per decision of local editors. Wnt (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wherever they're placed doesn't solve the above well-identified fundamental problems about the videos in their entirely. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This isn't 2004 anymore. Video isn't a superfluous extra that we stick at the end of the article. There should not be arbitrary limits on what or how we create and present information. Gamaliel (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are good quality (not perfect) openly licensed video, albeit with too much PROMO fore and aft. Accessible, good quality cc 4.0 videos are rare; these are not a potato to be thrown out the window.
In my view a lot of the emotional reaction has been to the placement of videos in the LEAD or in the body of the article. The PROMO makes that especially difficult to swallow. If the videos are in the article they are arguably subject to the policies and guidelines (although there are arguments against this as well).
If however we put them in further reading, they are their own independent things (which is what they actually are -- they are not WP content or an expression of it, and they are too elaborate to function like images do, or say like video of a congressional hearing that is discussed in the article body) and the objections about V, editability, etc, vanish.
They are not "external links" really, because they are on the commons; we can have the video in the "further reading" appendix to the article, still accessible to our audience, which wants video content.
About the commercial aspects, I have thought a lot about this. Folks are wanting to make this very black and white, and in my view it isn't. Osmosis is definitely a for-profit company so their mission is to make money, and they are realizing that mission in part by making accessible, good quality video content available for free and under a cc 4.0 license (which is far more than is necessary for them - this is something people should take into account).
They make money through youtube advertising (via the videos posted there) and through subscriptions to their edtech learning platform (which takes some digging to figure out, but is basically is a website that helps med students learn and study by providing content generated by Osmosis and integrating other e-learning tools)
However the links to youtube and their social media and their website are not functional in the videos on the commons. Yes they are there, but nobody can actually click through. So they are ugly and for us icky, but they are not actually functional - they cannot get "click-throughs" and that matters.
Additionally, licensing the videos cc 4.0 was completely unnecessary for them. I cannot emphasize that enough. They do have strong roots in the Khan Academy which very much has a public good mission, and the license they are putting on their videos is less restrictive than the one Khan uses. That licensing makes it possible for us to display the videos.
So there is a tradeoff, like there always is in the real world. They benefit by being associated with us when they talk to people and can brag on the views they get through us; we benefit by having good quality cc 4.0 licensed video which is an unmet need for us. (I fully understand that some people don't care about that; lots of other people do).
Additionally, while the videos are primarily aimed at med students, Osmosis made them with accessible, plain English. As noted here (from Nov 2016 - the date is from the google play listing of the podcasts as there is no date on the source), "And so we wanted to make things even simpler for medical students, but in the process we’ve actually realized that nursing, PA, pharmacy, dentistry students are using Osmosis, even veterinary students, and most surprisingly patients and their families, and that’s actually been really an exciting development" That is happening because they are done in plain English and are accessible.
So... moving them all to "Further reading" now and letting them be, is the appropriate thing, striking a real world balance between benefits and harms. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Colin, as someone coming into this discussion new, I find myself agreeing with you that there are serious problems with the videos, but I also see your opposes in this RfC as being WP:POINTy, as if you want everything to fail unless you get exactly what you want. Believe it or not, not all editors agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a terrible RFC James. I suggest you close it and start again. Create it on a new page and ask for some discussion before making your proposal. The formatting is already causing editing problems. Having 5 options already is just way too much, and can be viewed as diluting the views such that no clear opinion arises. I should note that regardless of the views expressed here about "I like it!!!", none of them trump policy. These fail WP:V, and there's no getting around that. -- Colin°Talk21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone independent would not have formatted this RFC like this. You should have asked a single question. If it is not yet clear what the question is, you should have a discussion first. And keep discussing until you see a consensus approaching. Then you have a vote to confirm the consensus you have achieved. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Colin°Talk21:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No independent person would have formatted the RfC at all, and I would also like to point out that a single person trying to overwhelm all other posters is not substitute for discussion. We get your point, and we get your essay. There is nothing out of the ordinary with this RfC. Carl Fredrik talk21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Citizendium. "Experts" making videos that other editors cannot edit is... not Wikipedia. Go start your own website. Put them there. Have fun. Stop riding on other editors' years of work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)21:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the videos can be edited. The question is, can they be edited into anything useful and of decent quality? If you want to remove a whole section (of content, or of credits, say) and you're fine with sudden cuts, that's OK. But, for example, what if there is an incorrect sentence in the narration, where simply cutting those few seconds would not make sense? Removing the original speaker's voice and replacing it with another person's would be jarring for the viewer and would lead to a low quality production. Therefore to make any changes to the substantive content of the videos, we are dependent upon Osmosis. I do not regard that as acceptable. BethNaught (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beth, in the rare hypothetical circumstance where a significant factual error was discovered and we edited it rendering video with weird sudden breaks or gaps, and Osmosis was unable or unwilling to fix it, then we just delete the video, just like how we delete outdated sourced text. We delete entire text articles here, we can do the same with problematic videos.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?22:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught, Literaturegeek. This isn't a "rare hypothetical circumstance". The breastfeeding video has a huge mistake about "Breast milk contains all the nutrients a baby needs for its first year." noted by User:Clayoquot. It was not allowed to be removed. And Irritable bowel syndrome was judged by a "horrified" gastrointestinal specialist to be "outdated, incomplete, simplistic, disinformative". Their removal of the "problematic" video, as you suggest should be no problem at all, was reverted by ... none other than Literaturegeek! This is how our experts are treated, and how thoroughly dishonest the discussion here has become. Shame on you Literaturegeek. -- Colin°Talk10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, if you looked at my edit summary I agreed that the video was incomplete. Personally, I noted the video did not discuss the microbiome-neuroimmune-gut-brain axis, low grade inflammation, link with chronic fatigue syndrome, how a quarter of IBS-D are actually misdiagnosed and instead have bile acid diarrhea (a fact along with many other facts that I personally edited into the IBS article) and that it does not mention non-celiac gluten sensitivity and a hundred more points about IBS, but I wouldn't expect it to because it is a brief introductory video. I reverted not because I disagreed with baleena's specialist opinion that it was incomplete and lacked new findings, but because the video was only meant to be a brief introduction to the topic. I guess we need to form consensus whether the videos are a brief introduction or a full length mini feature film covering all aspects of a disorder which is what baleena's revert seemed to imply. I reverted baleena's deletion because his edit summary implied that the videos need to be indepth mini feature films on the subject matter, which is silly because a brief introductory is suffice. I favour brief overviews of a subject matter. I do know a lot about IBS but obviously baleena's is an expert and I acknowledge that, but he should have communicated in more detail on the talk page instead of just deleting in the middle of a consensus forming discussion! Experts should be respected and I do respect them but they don't get dictatorial control over editing. In any event, you are attacking multiple expert general physicians quite aggressively in this dispute and reverting them, so WP:KETTLE.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you reverted athe second time, which shows no respect. BRD. James was bold and added. Ballena reverted. It is now up to James and others to discuss prior to putting the material back. Instead you just reverted. This kind of "argument via edit summary" is disrespectful and not collaborative. If you had respect for Ballena, would would have said "Hmm, I don't agree with that but they are an expert so there's probably something to it. Perhaps they didn't put all their argument in the edit summary". So you'd open a discussion and chat about it. The same goes for when James and others have reverted me multiple times yesterday. No respect. If you look at my contribs you will not see me edit war with anyone. One revert rule is me. All I did was the BRD middle step and I opened up a discussion on each article talk page when I did it. The huge behavioural problem with these videos is they are being forced on editors via edit warring like you did, which grinds people down, makes them feel disrespected and ultimately makes people leave. With an issue like WP:V, it is absolutely by policy that James must show the material meets WP:V prior to reinsertion. He does not do that. He's a bully. He uses his authority here to just revert anyone and everyone wrt to these videos, and his worshippers have learned from this and do the same. Wrt "experts don't get dictatorial control" -- if only that were true here. I'm not asking you to give Ballena dictatorial control, and I don't think they are the sort of person to behave that way, unlike James. I'm just asking you to respect them and when they do the BRD revert, you don't immediately revert back. Yesterday, we saw four of my edits reverted by people who were breaking policy to do so. Absolutely against policy and all editing guidelines for them to do that. There's no grown-ups around to stop them.
Wrt KETTLE, and experts, well I have a great respect for actual experts, as Graham will testify for example. James might be an expert on ER medicine. He's not an expert on epilepsy, gastroenterology, Tourette syndrome, autism, virology, etc, etc. You only have to read the Epilepsy article (mostly written by him) to know that. It is awful. When he reverts others to push these videos, he's not citing some medical fact to do so, merely asserting his authority on this site to bully others. I did not remove those videos from Epilepsy and the Autism articles because they had medical issues where James and I disagree, I removed them because they fail WP:V and that is not a medical matter. I hope you agree James has no more authority wrt WP:V than me. He is wrong. He chooses to edit war on this with everyone else. Others do not. The difference, is respect. -- Colin°Talk13:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes you have as much right to revert; Doc James's expertise is thoroughly irrelevant if it conflicts with policy and guidelines or, if relevant, consensus. If the epilepsy article and Doc James' edits to that article can be improved upon, then why don't you improve upon them, Colin? With respect to Doc James being wrong about the videos, that is your POV. We need to wait until a consensus, on the way forward, has formed before videos start getting deleted. The community is split down the middle on these videos with different flavours to those splits.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?14:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for your post about me reverting "twice", you should strike all of it. Firstly, I didn't revert twice, that is grossly misleading. Baleena deleted the video, I reverted ONCE to restore the video, no one else did any deletions or reverts, so where did this "twice" business come from? I did nothing like edit war, even if a 1 revert rule to an edit was in place I wouldn't have broken it. I reverted Baleena's deletion because it was out of order because there is an ongoing RFC and baleena is disrespecting the ongoing RfC by pre-empting it's outcome. The appropriate place for discussion right now is this RfC not the IBS talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?14:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, my POV is he is wrong. His POV is I am wrong. But who are the ones edit warring? James, et al. Who's the bully asserting his authority with no consensus? James. Who writes on article talk pages that other people need consensus to revert him but he never gained consensus to make his edit? Sometimes, he didn't even add an edit summary to make his edit. Wrt consensus, there's the sham RFC but that doesn't overrule WP:V. People can shout "More videos" all they want, if those videos don't meet WP:V they ain't going to get them on Wikipedia. Actually, currently, there's an overwhelming consensus against keeping the videos in option 1 and a feeling that James has to go back to square one on this. He's damaged his reputation with the community here, with all the dishonest claims and COI editing on behalf of private firms.
I didn't say you reverted "twice". I said you made the second revert. Ok, I see I wrote "a" instead of "the". I've fixed it. It isn't BRRD. Baleena's deletion of the video is the first revert (of James). Sorry, but edit warring is when repeated reverts occur without discussion or seeking consensus. It happens as soon as you make the second revert (not, your second revert, the second revert). The 3RR is only about blocking people. You, James, CFCF, you are all edit warring. You really need to go back to collaborative editing school 101 :-) And what you are edit warring over is truly lame. We're not talking encyclopaedic content, but a freemium training video for medical students. -- Colin°Talk14:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Baleena reverted in one direction, I reverted in the other direction and I brought, or should I say continued, the overall discussion of these videos in the correct location, this RfC. Baleena should not have done that first revert of that error free (but brief overview) IBS video when there is an active RfC. No one else reverted anything, so you accusing me edit warring and not being collaborative is just silly and arguably disruptive. You raise some important concerns about these videos, some of which I admit need consideration but your approach is toxic and drama filled, and you make baseless accusations. It is hypocritical to accuse me of not engaging in collaborative editing, if you have a mirror, look into it and reflect.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?15:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that editing on wikipedia is suspended while James conducts his RFC. Baleena's edit was good faith and you said "F*** you" to it, and treated them like a common vandal. My recent edits to four articles are totally conforming to policy and guidelines on collaborative editing. In fact, wrt editing articles, I'm a model citizen. But then, I've only made four edits in four years :-). -- Colin°Talk15:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why bring foul language into it? On talk pages are you a model citizen, which is what I was referring to? I'm not a model citizen, everyone makes mistakes.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?16:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What we need are better guidelines for videos. Even just looking at medical articles, Osmosis is not the only player. Simpleshow is another company that creates explainer videos and shares them on Wikipedia. The issues (taking for granted that they are "issues"), especially with regard to the ones I've seen, are even more pronounced in that case. See for example this thread on the abortion article's talk page from October, regarding this video -- basically text-to-speech lead section with cartoony clip art and fun music/sound effects. IMO the issue is when a video does not supplement an article but instead stands in for the article in a way that is not subject to the same fundamental editing principles as the rest of Wikipedia. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those videos were verbatim creations of the lead using clip art. Sort of like the spoken Wikipedia project but with images. I was not involved with there creation in any way but am supportive of the concept in general. These videos are not as nicely produced IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with with Rhododendrites that we need better guidelines. It also looks increasingly to me that editors are not willing to come together and do the collaborative work that would be needed to develop such guidelines. We have two entrenched opposing camps of involved editors, and as the rest of the community has been coming in, the answer increasingly looks to me like "no" to the whole thing. It's very unlikely that this RfC will lead to any sort of consensus to keep using the videos, but it could well devolve into so much shouting that there could eventually be an ArbCom case. Myself, I don't see much value in spending more effort on these discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am ever the Pollyanna, @Tryptofish: but I disagree with you that "editors are not willing to come together and do the collaborative work that would be needed to develop such guidelines". I don't think we should rely on responses in this RFC as an indicator of willingness to solve the problem. I remain eternally hopeful that Doc James will recognize that the problem here is the way he launched this RFC, as a solo venture exactly like the behavior that brought this problem on, when the rest of us were waiting to collaborate on a neutral RFC that would have been more aimed at how to solve the problem. In short, Doc James desire to "win" may have affected this RFC, but that does not mean that something cannot be taken from this, or that others won't work to solve the broader problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, as I see it, Doc James is very far from being the editor who is most standing in the way. There are editors on the other "side" from him who are being far more tendentious, although there's plenty to go around on both sides. And when I said that, I wasn't basing it on the RfC responses as a whole, because most of the editors coming here from CENT etc. are coming with fresh eyes – the "camps" had emerged by the time the topic ban above was proposed. If there is an effort to collaborate on a neutral RfC, count me in. Otherwise, I'm out of here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: But Doc James launched the RFC, and chose the language and format and style, in a way that assured we would not be able to see the progress that IMO everyone wants. Where we could have had cohesiveness, collaboration and consensus, we got a polarizing RFC. Had it been framed differently, I think we'd be seeing a whole different response, from those previously involved, as well as those coming with fresh eyes. On the other hand, since Jytdog just spilled the whole thing over to the circus at ANI, you might be right :) Me, Pollyanna ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: As far as we are aware, one person only framed and wrote the RFC. Just as entrenchment was subsiding. Just as rapprochement was on the horizon. Another 24 hours, and I suspect we would have been all kissing and making up, and we would have had a collaborative RFC. Sorry, Pollyanna reigns here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
James, would you stop deceiving folk that they can be edited. The lack of an -ND in the licence doesn't make them editable in any practical sense. Can you impersonate the narrator so fluently nobody will notice when you change some words or add some? Do you have the graphic design software to modify the on-screen graphics to fix some of the errors or add new ones? No. The only editing anyone has ever done to the videos is to trim a bit off the front and back of them. Add to that the fundamental that the Wikipedia website provides the editing facilities so that "anyone can edit" easily and quickly (which is what wiki means). Whereas videos require a powerful desktop PC and complex software with a huge learning curve. And they are not editable on Wikipedia -- these images reside on Commons, which has strict and limited rules on how files can be edited and revised. See WP:NOTYOUTUBE. The CC BY SA licence imposes a serious burden on editing wrt authorship claims and tracking modifications. That burden is handled automatically by MediaWiki for text. There is no equivalent for media files. This is deception of this highest order, and tarnishes your reputation. Stop it. -- Colin°Talk07:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After reading through this entire page, I am opposed to Osmosis videos in all forms for multiple reasons:
The argument that the videos are editable is very misleading. Sure, it's technically possible, but it's not nearly as simple to edit a video as it is to edit wikipedia. If wikipedia had some kind of inline video editing capability where you could instantly edit it and see a record of exactly what was changed, it would be different, but as it is, saying everyone can edit it is an oversimplification. Editing a video requires that one downloads the video, has the appropriate editing software, is able to change the information in a way that still fits the video, and re-upload a new video. This is very different to editing an article.
Osmosis, and those involved in it have been deceitful. In the first discussion above, someone lists several times that Osmosis has claimed to be officially part of Wikipedia and claimed benefits from this partnership, even saying "Our current library of videos are the official medical teaching videos on Wikipedia". There are no official medical teaching videos on Wikipedia. They also state that they are a split-off from Khan Academy, which been shown to be untrue.
I think we should remove the videos from all articles and make clear that there is no official agreement between Wikipedia and Osmosis in support of for-profit business. Natureium (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because Doc James failed to attempt a neutral or accurate RFC, and did not ask for input from all sides, or attempt to reflect all sides, a full rebuttal should be posted. Because he framed a biased RFC, it is difficult to respond neutrally.
Full evidence of just how biased his solo write-up is can be found by reading:
Point by point to the background section written by Doc James
We at WP:MED have been collaborating with the Khan Academy, that split off into a group called Osmosis, since 2013.
"We" seems to be self-appointed Doc James. Another Wikipedian who was involved, Ocaasi, expressed that he had problems with Osmosis (see discussions above).
With advertising for Osmosis (who has prime products for sale), these videos were never discussed outside of the 15 people (not all in favor) who talked about them on one WikiProject Page, and yet Osmosis was given a preferential position in Wikipedia articles. These videos were not placed in External links: Doc James agreed to place them in leads, and edit warred to keep them in leads.
The videos they produce provides (sic) a basic summary of a medical condition using easy to understand language. They are released under a CC BY SA 4.0 license and uploaded to Commons by members of this group.
That they are at Commons is not the en.Wikipedia problem. Doc James unilaterally placed them in articles, without edit summaries, without consensus, and repeatedly edit warred across various articles and with various editors to keep them in, even when editors point out problems, is an issue.
The initial videos lack references while the most recent videos contain references at the ends of the videos.
They have been forced and edit warred into leads and infoboxes of medical articles, in spite of errors, in spite of many (most?) of them having no sources, and in spite of many of them using sources that are inadequate for MEDRS or inadequate for Featured Articles (they have been installed at almost every Featured article).
They are working to up date the older videos with references.
They were posted on a Wikipedia page no one knew about. We were also told there were scripts. There aren't. Doc James was also encouraged to notify top contributors. He didn't. There were no article talk page posts.
As there was not much feedback from Wikipedians via this platform and due to internal staffing changes at Osmosis this has not occurred recently but there is willingness to reactivate this process and continue accepting feedback from this process.
They didn't do what they said they would do once, but we are supposed to believe they will now. Why wasn't Doc James making sure they were holding their end of the bargain. We gave them prime real estate for free advertising.
One can see references at the end of this script as an example.
WP:V is policy that says our readers need to be able to verify references. These videos, with inaccuracies, are installed in lead (as a substitute for text). Our readers can't verify. And our readers/editors can't easily or quickly correct errors.
The reference formating is bar urls which can definitely be improved. Unfortunately, the references are not formatted as "inline references" and it is unclear if Osmosis is willing / able to create inline referencing. If the community felt this was critical they would be happy to look at collaborating to see if it can be done. Much of the content, however, is fairly basic in nature.
Strange detail for an RFC.
Additionally, these videos are created / reviews by physicians before being made.
The errors speak to the quality of the medical review. They are not topic experts. See sample errors throughout the discussions posted above.
The videos also exist on Youtube were they receive positive reviews and millions of views.[21] On Wikipedia the videos have been watched more than 8 million times.[22]
Did we mention that you can get a subscription for hundreds of dollars? And that the videos posted on Wikipedia included the osmosis.org website, which has links to their store.
Concerns recently raised have included that the intro includes a link to "open.osmosis.org" (the Khan Academy videos do something similar) and end with credits and non functional social media links. If the community feels this attribution of Osmosis is too great they are willing to remove and upload versions without it.
So, the community can fix the problems, because Doc James/Osmosis want to keep the videos in articles (not as External links subject to WP:ELNO. It is not clear how we are to address factual errors in the videos, at least one NPOV issue, or that these full topic videos that do not meet WP:V or WP:NPOV. In many cases, they would not even be accepted as External Links.
Discussion below (do not chop my post). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the first question is, is the community interested in this sort of content in any form? If they are not there is no sense in further efforts to collaborate with Osmosis. Thus the starting of this RfC.
Can you link to were User:Ocaasi says he had problems with Osmosis? As you can see on my talk page efforts were mentioned both in the 2016 and 2017 year end report for WPMEDF. Yes the organization in question is mostly funded by grants from foundations, not sure the issue with that? Sure they also sell subscriptions to additional teaching material for medical students.
I disagree with everything stated in this rebuttal by SandyGeorgia. The RfC is exemplary, and it is very pointy to suggest anything else, seeing as the suggestion to draw up and RfC was made 10 times. We can not have an RfC on how to write and RfC, and it was up to anyone of the opposing view to also write an RfC. Carl Fredrik talk05:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an editor who has followed (and written more than a little of) WP:RFC for years, "exemplary" is not a word I would choose to describe this RFC. That is, compared to other RFCs, it is neither a particularly bad example, nor a particularly good example, of how to begin an RFC. As the respondents skew heavily towards people with significant experience with discussions in this tone, I don't think its imperfections actually matter that much. However, if subsequent RFCs are wanted, then perhaps someone with more experiencing in structuring large and potentially divisive discussions (e.g., User:Beeblebrox) should be consulted at that time. A well-constructed RFC is more likely to get a usable result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc, if "the first question is, is the community interested in this sort of content in any form", it would have been respectful to all (including community members who have to come read this) to attempt to frame an RFC that would get an answer to that question. We do not have that. You did not give either the community who must come read this mess, nor the participants of this project, the courtesy of putting together a viable RFC, even as we waited and allowed you that very courtesy. @CFCF, you don't know what you're talking about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "Should Wikipedia contain video summaries of diseases?" with "Delete all display of these videos on EN Wikipedia." being a fairly clear answer. That will end the partnership with Osmosis and get all the videos removed.
There are many issues at stake here including that community permission to use this kind of video potentially and eventually impacts most of Wikipedia so discussion should probably include a direct notice to the entire community. (For example: How many articles contain MEDRS content within a non-MEDRS subject. What comes to mind is Pilates which is an exercise form often used by dancers and others, but also has possible related health information. Once these videos are allowed can they be added to such an article and where, within the article). At what point is any article deemed MEDRS related enough to deserve a video or is that an issue. Perhaps a larger, preliminary, community-wide discussion, breaking down the issues in small steps, would be useful before an RFC or Ivote. I realize this path could take a while. I assume James means well here but the impact of these videos is extensive and implementation needs more information and discussion led by a non-involved editor. I'm not a regular on MEDRS articles so will bow out now, but I did feel concerned by the use of these videos even with my limited experience.Best to all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I have to agree that this RFC is bit confusing to an outsider just arriving at it. It’s only been open a day but is pretty sprawling already. Since my input was solicited, I would refer to my essay on policy RFCs if there is any appetite for rebooting this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who recently has noted (to little effect) what appears to be inappropriate introductory wording of an RfC, I can't pretend that this one isn't problematic. Honestly, if an uninvolved editor can't be found to draft neutral language for what's bound to be a contentious RfC, then it should be incumbent upon the drafter(s) to scrupulously avoid framing the issue in a way that's likely to affect the outcome. (This can sometimes be achieved just by keeping it very short and simple.) I find it odd that we have a strongly worded guideline about canvassing but nothing comparable to prevent loaded wording from prejudicing participants in RfCs. RivertorchFIREWATER17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the net effect of prejudiced wording is lower in RFCs compared to the net effect of bringing in an unrepresentative set of respondents. Especially for an RFC (such as this one) that gets a large number of responses from highly experienced editors, the exact wording can be pretty much irrelevant. People who've played this game long enough usually know when someone's telling only part of the story. It may even be cleaner in those cases to let the biased person write whatever seems natural to them, so we all know what their biases are. (In such cases, you will have to put up with complaints about non-neutral questions from editors on the "other" side, if they think that they're "losing".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In practical terms, you may well be right. As often happens, I'm sort of hung up on the principle of the thing. In my opinion, a well-crafted RfC should be worded so as not to lead anyone toward any conclusion until they've either looked into the matter themselves or at least until they've read a broad sample of comments from earlier participants of various opinions. In my experience, not everyone who participates in an RfC is diligent in that way; sometimes they just read the intro and come to an unwarranted conclusion. And let's face it: while !votes aren't supposed to be votes, the closer usually does give considerable weight to the numbers. RivertorchFIREWATER03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"In practical terms", I (as one example) am not actively participating here because the RfC is such an unholy mess. There are other causes for the messiness too, but the hasty and improper framing bears the main blame for that. It encourages knee-jerk reactions from everyone who become aware of the issue through the RfC; it escalates the situation by making those in disagreement with the position of the framer feel marginalized; and by giving the appearance that the framer and those who support that position are not acting constructively and in good faith (which includes a willingness to compromise and discuss). And in addition to this, prejudicial framing does influence people, even those who believe themselves above such petty details of human psychology, in various ways and degrees. If I were to pick one single thing in this whole debacle to drop a bucket of trouts on someone for, it would be the over-hasty framing of this RfC. It has caused dysunction that we will be struggling with for years to come: bad blood, originating here, that will hinder or outright prevent, constructive discussions on future issues that crop up. Process matters! And it matters because we all individually are humans with human foibles, and they are only magnified when we come together in a group. One ignores human nature only at one's very great peril. --Xover (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xover, thank you for those words, and I agree with your assessment that it would have been good with a more balanced RfC — but I don't think that would have been possible. Prior to the framing of the RfC, there was discussion on at least 10 pages regarding this issue, nearly all of it started by a single individual who unlike the majority of those involved had very much time to start and engage in discussions immidiately and for a sustained period of several hours. The hasty drawing up of the RfC was based upon a willingness to guide discussion to a single page, and to an actionable outcome, avoiding WP:BLUDGEON, and among other things, to avoid edit-warring.I honestly do not think that the situation would have been better if we had waited with the RfC. Carl Fredrik talk14:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF: I see your reasoning here, but I disagree with the conclusion you reach. The editors who raised this issue, when told that an RfC was the appropriate way to address it, signalled pretty clearly that they wanted to collaborate with those of differing opinions to craft a neutrally worded and well-structured RfC. Their reasoning—which, admittedly, was not directly articulated—appeared, to me, to be that hasty and poorly structured RfCs tend to 1) not result in clear and actionable outcomes (i.e. they do not serve their intended purpose), and 2) tend to exacerbate rather than de-escalate conflicts. I also observed them attenuating their efforts in the many discussions you refer to, once an RfC was on the table.And in light of that, I would encourage you to consider what may have been the reason for opening the discussion in multiple venues, since you emphasise that aspect as an indication that a collaborative RfC was doomed to fail. You invoke WP:BLUDGEON—and WP:FORUMSHOP was brought up on Jimbo Talk—but the WP:AGF interpretation of it is that they simply saw this as a wider issue than could be addressed at any one narrowly defined forum. You may not, and need not, think that their handling of it and choice of venue(s) was particularly good: but this is not ipso facto a reason an effort to collaboratively craft a neutral and well-structured RfC would have failed.And I harp on that point because I believe the exercise of crafting the RfC in that manner would have forced those on every side of the issue to identify their common ground (of which there is, appearances aside, very much) and to articulate their actual, objective, differences in a way that does not ascribe motives to those holding them. A hasty RfC squandered that opportunity. And, of course, led to an RfC that is messy, hard to participate in, and harder than necessary to rely on to guide future decisions. --Xover (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have summed it up precisely, Xover, except for a couple of things: re: "admittedly, was not directly articulated" see Jimbo's talk, Colin at 20:42, Me at 21:15. Pretty well articulated, from the start, by editors who knew this all along. As to "told that an RFC was the appropriate way to address it", I was the first to bring up an RFC and how to frame it (just above the Break 2 section); but because I know nothing of Commons, and because there are so many issues in play, it was from the outset not even clear where to present the RFC. I was shocked to see this RFC launched in the way it was. It is not an example of a compromise-seeking approach. I encouraged CFCF to take the weekend off to reflect and come back with a clear mind; I do wish he would have taken up that suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with both your assessments, and whether a wish to draw up a collaborative RfC was expressed somewhere, it was lost due to the sheer volume and multiple locations of discussion. I will also admit that I no longer assume good faith for everyone in this argument. Based on the WP:NOTYOUTUBE essay written in response to the videos, I can state that many of the arguments presented and issues raised were not factual and were merely raised as a cover to drive a WP:NOTYOUTUBE agenda. If you dislike videos, that should be your argument, making up other points as a smoke-screen is not acting in good faith. That is especially considering so many of the other points are just unconditionally fallacious and based on rhetorical and logical fallacies. The primary reason an RfC was needed quickly was the cases of edit-warring that it avoided. I also disagree that this RfC is tilted in any direction and find it thoroughly neutral, and the argument that it is not — is precisely such a smoke-screen that is based off dislike of videos (and of an unconcealed and clearly articulated dislike of the person who posted the RfC) rather than anything substantive. Carl Fredrik talk13:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF:, please take my advice and take some time off from this, for your own good. Admitting that you cannot AGF, and claiming that an RFC is needed for an admin to avoid edit warring are extremely detrimental things to be putting in to print. Admins are desysopped for editing warring. Please, it is time for you to stop filling this page with things that are not going to work either in your favor or towards calming this issue. You are not helping either yourself, nor Doc James, nor WP:MED by making posts like the one above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia — I am not admitting an inability to assume good faith, but rather that there is strong indication of bad faith here and that as our social policies are not a suicide pact, I will not assume good faith when confronted with evidence of bad faith. This is not regarding the arguments against videos, or dislike of videos — but the use of arguments that focus on other things in order to strengthen the position of "let's get rid of the videos". Additionally, using RfCs to avoid edit warring is not in fact bad at all, but rather a very useful aspect of RfCs. The goal of an RfC is to determine the state of consensus, and by doing so we can avoid edit wars. This was not about a single person edit-warring, but about a number of people on various sides of the debate edit warring — hence an RfC is perfectly suitable. I'll also point out that I'm not interested in influencing this debate in any direction, as the the outcome seems evident. Rather I wish to clear away accusations of wrongdoing that are baseless and very unfair. With the amount of assumption of bad faith towards anyone supporting the Osmosis initiative here — I find it utterly necessary to counter such accusations. No Wikipedian is perfect, and what I'm seeing here is a case of holding some people to unreasonable standards, moving the goalposts and arguing "this was bad", "this should never have been done" — despite no indication that it was wrong, apart from now-apparent opposition of it. Everything in the Osmosis collaboration was done in good faith, and the fallout here should absolutely not be interpreted as a failure of process. Wikipedia needs to define its processes, and sometimes that means doing things that people later find out they don't like. Carl Fredrik talk13:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"It has caused dysunction that we will be struggling with for years to come: bad blood, originating here, that will hinder or outright prevent, constructive discussions on future issues that crop up." Another possibility is that the dysfunction existed first, and is what led to the video predicament and the poorly framed RFC-- that it did not originate here, and the RFC is the end result of dysfunction rather than the cause. I remain hopeful that people learn from their mistakes. If the poor framing of the RFC serves to illustrate the one-way direction the Medicine WikiProject has taken into a walled garden, then I hope yours and Tryptofish's fears are not realized. I remain optimistic that the Medicine WikiProject can be channeled back into a more balanced position, including article improvement at its center, and better consideration for en.Wikipedia's core purpose, policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note here, that I disagree with your interpretation that the Medicine WikiProject is any type of walled garden, and that there is any current lack of balance that disconsiders Wikipedia's core purpose, policies or guidelines. I primarily do this for future reference and will not respond further. Carl Fredrik talk14:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Well, whatever dysfuncton was already in place could hardly be cured by a new disagreement, so I chose to focus on the current situation and its likely future fallout. And what I'm observing are editors who clearly feel put upon, and editors who feel marginalized, and editors who feel others have acted either in bad faith or at least in very poor judgement (y'all will note, I hope, that I specify no names or indicate any points of view). If there is a systemic problem at WP MED (and I am deliberately not expressing any opinion on that), this RfC has made it harder for WP MED to see and admit that (which, I assume you'll agree is a prerequisite for change). I think this RfC has led to one point of view "winning" this issue, where a more measured and collaborative crafting of the RfC might have led to mutual understanding and an identification of issues on which community guidance would be beneficial to reach a common conclusion. Those who have "lost" on this issue are highly unlikely to have been persuaded that there is a systemic problem at WP MED, and consequently are highly unlikely to take efforts to address such a perceived problem particularly well.In short, I think this has, needlessly, turned into a situation where the respective sides have "won" and "lost"; and, as I'm sure you'll agree, once that is the case, nobody is convinced of anything except the poor judgement of those on the other side of the question. --Xover (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as the following: getting MEDRS going was important to us back in the day. In medical editing, while WP:V and MEDRS were entirely overlooked in the way the videos were (not) handled, MEDRS has become a bludgeon for editors to mistreat other editors, often newbies. And the very behaviors that have become typical for some editors in here, the MEDRS bludgeon, reflect a lack of engagement with or failure to understand how the rest of Wikipedia works, and are the same behaviors that prevent this from turning into a discussion from which solutions can emerge. The failure to grasp how the rest of Wikipedia works can be seen in how Osmosis had their way with us, getting prime real estate, while we had not a single process, procedure or policy in place for dealing with the videos in the way, for example, Spoken Wikipedia or the Wikipedia CD did. (Everything that was not done and could have been done to have resulted in a policy-compliant video partnership is a whole 'nother dicussion, and I see very little reflection on the part of some WP:MED folks about just how they got themselves into such a position.) We are seeing little introspection in here, but I still hope that tendency will turn around. Again, I think the behaviors and the mindset that led to the RFC are the illness, and the RFC is the symptom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable introspection as to the issues underlying this RfC, but there are a number of factors in the debate that hinder it from being articulated. In part the accusation that something is wrong with WPMED, or that actions have been wrong. The project was heavily advertised, and there was never any attempt to silence opposition or to prevent review of the project. Large portions of the community was invited to participate, but only a few did — that doesn't mean that those that did were action poorly, or wrong. In fact this RfC is the result of doing something experimental, and as any time something new is tried — it may be the subject of controversy. I find this isn't wrong, but actually very much right, and very much in line with Wikipedia's most important policies, including WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS & WP:BOLD. The major reason WPMED is insular is because it is difficult to edit medical topics, and most editors understand that. We also have a large number of editors that are very knowledgeable in their fields, and sometimes coming across them and being proven wrong can feel like a "MEDRS bludgeon", but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If this RfC finds that the videos should be removed, that is fine — but I wish you'd stop arguing along the lines that the RfC will find the entirety of WPMED as evil. Carl Fredrik talk13:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the dishonest claims that these videos are editable (in any practical sense that we, as Wikipedians, understand the word to mean), there have been repeated claims that these videos are exempt from WP:V per WP:LEAD. Two contributors have repeatedly stated the videos are "near-exact copies of the ledes" or are themselves leads.
It is a weird claim that a video can be a "lead". This is by all definitions a piece of writing at the top of an essay that summarises the contents. There's no such term as a "lead video". In addition, WP:LEAD clearly defines it as "the section before the table of contents and the first heading." It is a piece of writing: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style". Also "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". Hmm, paragraphs. Then we get to what a Lead contains: Disambiguation links, tags, info boxes, lead image(s), table of contents, and most importantly introductory text. Note the word "text".
These are in fact medical-student training videos, adapted somewhat, and which happen to cover the same or similar topic to the article they are inserted. Let's compare the transcript for the Measles video with the lead of Measles. The lead of measles is four paragraphs and 450 words. The transcript of the video is nineteen "paragraphs" and 1155 words. Oh, sorry, my bad, he final paragraph is "Thanks for watching, you can help support us by donating on patreon, or subscribing to our channel, or telling your friends about us on social media."
Let's compare another article to its video. Epilepsy and File:Epilepsy video.webm. If the video was a summary of the article, I would expect to find all the terms defined in the video within the article, but in more detail. Here's the first two minutes:
Open here
"Epilepsy means seizure disorder". No. They are synonyms; one does not mean the other any more than "car" means "auto-mobile". The article does not claim this meaning, and in fact does not define the word at all (it used to).
"A seizure is a period where cells in the brain, or neurons, are synchronously active, or active at the same time, when they're not supposed to be." -- "when they're not supposed to be"? Who wrote this? No, that's not in the article either.
"Now, when I say neurons are active, I mean that they are firing, or sending a message using electrical signals relayed from neuron to neuron." -- The article does not use the word "active" nor define the term "firing" or talk about electrical signals.
"And if you look at a neuron under a microscope" -- nope, not the the article either.
"each electrical signal that passes through it is really just ions flowing in and out through protein channels [screen shows Na+ and Ca2+ ions]" -- no explanation of "electrical signal" in the article. No mention of sodium and calcium ions either.
"The way this ion flow is controlled is through neurotransmitters" Neurotransmitters are not mentioned in the article.
"a type of signalling molecule" no mention of signalling molecules
"and receptors" no discussion of receptors wrt electrical signalling and ion flow
"Neurotransmitters bind to the receptors" Not in the article they don't.
"And basically tell the cell to open up the ion channels, and relay the electrical message, (called Excitatory neurotransmitters), or close the ion channel and stop the electrical message (called Inhibitory neurotransmitters)." Would you be surprised that excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters are not mentioned in the article.
"During a seizure, clusters of neurons in the brain become temporarily impaired, and start sending out a ton of excitatory signals, over and over again" Nothing about "temporarily impaired". The article says "excessive" but apparently these signals are weighed in tons. Who knew?
"And these are sometimes said to be paroxysmal" Well the article mentions "a wave of depolarization known as a paroxysmal depolarizing shift." but since the reader isn't told what "paroxysmal" means, or "depolarization", or why it should be "waving", who knows if this is equivalent.
"These paroxysmal electrical discharges are thought to happen due to either too much excitation or too little inhibition, which are kinda two sides of the same coin, right?". Not in the article. Coins aren't mentioned either.
"The main exitatory neurotransmitter in the brain is glutamate, and NMDA is the primary receptor" We already know "exitatory neurotransmitter" isn't in the article and it comes as no surprise that "glutamate" and "NMDA" aren't either.
Per WP:V"any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." These videos do not contain any sources, nor any means to tie sources to specific facts and claims made. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"
So if these are not WP:LEADs, then full requirement for inline citations by WP:V remains. Not "some reference URLs stuck at the end", or in a Google Doc somewhere, but inline citations. Readers/watchers need to be able to perform fact to source checking on any material in the video. If I challenge "The main exitatory neurotransmitter in the brain is glutamate, and NMDA is the primary receptor" and require a source, one should be provided inline so I can verify this particular fact is sourced reliably per WP:V. You may have noticed in fact that File:Epilepsy video.webm has no sources either within the video or on the file description page on Commons. Not a single source. The File:Measles.webm video has eight sources listed on the file description page, one of which is a Wikipedia article! I don't think it would take one of our medical FA experts long to find that those sources don't adequately cover the video per WP:MEDRS.
This RFC is a sham. Whether you want articles-as-videos in the lead of medical topics is rather beside the point if they fail one of our core policies, and really have no effective way to meet it -- there's no interactive button on the video where you can stop it and ask "what's the source for that fact?". They are educational and they do have a free licence. A such they belong on Commons. But they don't belong on Wikipedia. We we are volunteers who collaborate to edit, via MediaWiki, the world's greatest encyclopaedia, quickly and easily -- these videos are made by a private firm and you cannot collaborate to edit and improve them at all. If you care that our content is reliably sourced, and can be seen to be reliably sourced by our readers, who can follow links to the sources and verify them for themselves, then you must reject these videos.
Lastly a small appeal from authority, if you will forgive me. We have
User:Slim Virgin, very long-term Wikipedian and probably the major contributor to WP:V as well as a writer of featured articles, claiming these are not WP:LEADs and fail WP:V.
User:Colin (me!), long-term Wikipedian (mostly retired), creator of WP:MEDRS, writer of one medical FA and collaborator in others, claiming these fail our medical sourcing requirements.
JFW, founder of WikiProject Medicine no less, and vice-chair of the Wiki Project Med Foundation stating "The videos do almost consistently not match the content of the articles and aligning them in real time is a nightmare.", voting "Support for removing all [the] embedded videos from articles".
User:Graham Beards, the finest writer of medical articles IMO and long-term participant at FAC stating these "clearly violate WP:V"
User:SandyGeorgia, another fine writer and collaborator producing medical FAs and participant at FAC, stating these full topic videos do not meet WP:V or, in some cases, WP:NPOV
Of course you should determine for yourself what you believe, but I ask you to consider that if these people are deeply and fundamentally troubled by these videos, you should take care to investigate the issues and not take the claims by Doc James at face value. Please read WP:NOTYOUTUBE. Thanks. -- Colin°Talk07:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, an appeal from authority is like taping a sign to your back saying "Kick me". Actually stating at the start that it is an appeal from authority is like adding flashing lights and a siren. If your logic and reasoning holds up to scrutiny then no appeal should be needed. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 12:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peter yes I know, which I why I ask for forgiveness. However, I think you'd be surprised that authority works regardless. Checkout User:Doc James and User:Colin pages. Which user do you think generally feels the need to assert his authority and status on Wikipedia? Which user has been laughed at: "Who the *** is this amateur questioning a doctor?", "Who is this user who isn't writing articles any longer?" I've experienced the joy of having my own guidelines quoted back at me by misguided and ill motivated people don't know that I actually wrote them many years ago. Do you think that James' authority and status has had no effect on his ability to push these videos onto Wikipedia for the last few years? Which user has used that authority to edit war to retain the videos, even when subject-experts remove them? Yes, I know all about how authority works on Wikipedia. You might think people are alert to it and watch they don't fall for it, but they do. So, forgive me for noting that there are other authorities on WP than James. I might happen to know a thing or two about sourcing medical articles. -- Colin°Talk12:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unreasonable to demand inline citations in a video, but it is not unreasonable to demand a transcript with inline citations in the associated text/talk page, with a direct link to that section in the figure caption text. Wnt (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm minded to agree with most of Sandy Georgia's rebuttal. However, I wish here to put forward an alternative approach, which should have been included as an option in the RfC:
Instead of long, narrative videos, simply include short illustrative clips. For example, from the Abscess video, just include the documentary footage of an abscess being drained. But don't watch it while eating! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits11:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this RfC is about the long-form Osmosis videos, I don't think a "no thanks" result would preclude your suggestion. Indeed, your suggestion would seem to already be agreed to by those supporting WP:NOTYOUTUBE. BethNaught (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed Osmosis that we are ending this collaboration. As such I imagine they will no longer be uploading these videos to Commons or uploading updates to current videos. We are of course free to remove the front and back bumpers or alter their videos that currently exist as we would any other CC BY SA content. We did not discussion whether or not they would continue to release future videos under an open license.
I have removed all their videos from Wikipedia which you can see in my edit history over the last day or two. If I missed one or two others are more than welcome to remove them.
They will be removing any mention of collaborating with Wikipedia or Wiki Project Med Foundation from current documents as they are able and will not mention an ongoing collaboration going forwards.
They have withdrawn the application for funding from the WMF to support the elective at UCSF and with medical students generally (which also involve support for creating these videos).
I'm not concerned with attribution of whose feedback it was. But I want to publicly commend Doc James for this action. He has certainly been the target of a great deal of incivility and assumption of bad faith by editors who should know better. This action was not only the right thing to do in light of the emerging community sentiment, but it was the "grown up" thing to do, in spite of the fact that I'm sure he would have preferred not to. Thank you, James. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I concerned with "attribution"; my point - here and in the section above - was that there is still scope for Osmosis to contribute usefully, by providing illustrative video clips for use in Wikipedia articles. Sadly, that baby seems to have been thrown out with the proverbial bathwater. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC was originally set up incorrectly, without a talk page. That has been fixed. Might we move all of this discussion to talk, and leave a link back to here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you think so Pigsonthewing — but this is no longer possible. No entity is likely to wade through a dispute like this without at least considering whether it's worth the effort. If all the videos they've spent years on, collaboratively drawing up together with very active editors on Wikipedia, and slowly rolling out into articles — can be deleted on a "whim", or the mere accusation of ulterior motives — I don't find it surprising they would want to cancel the project. I hope this debacle can be a learning experience for those commenting and voting here: that aggressive interpretation of policy and focus on minor faults, without allowing any room for fixing these faults — is deleterious to Wikipedia. Much of the content on Wikipedia is based on donated materials; or materials not created by Wikipedians, but that is released under CC-licences. If projects that have run for years, based on what most would percieve to be altruistic motives can be reinterpreted as nefarious — upon the crack of a whip; without any opportunity to explain or rectify issues — there is no hope for continued content donations to Wikipedia. Whatever you may think, Wikipedia relies on these, and would be much lesser without it. We must have a critical eye towards any potential collaboration, but when this gaze is cast several years after high-profile attempts to involve the community — we're not being constructive. The handling of this dispute, especially its instigation [23] at Jimbo's talk-page, that is rife with near-deliberate missinterpretation — has been very disruptive and destructive. Carl Fredrik talk14:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of the videos has been deleted. But nonetheless I can indeed see why their being mislead as to what the Wikipedia community considers acceptable, by "very active editors on Wikipedia", has caused problems. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a very important point Pigsonthewing — The community has not deemed anything unacceptable yet (or had at least not before this RfC). The RfC looks likely to end with a community decision to remove the videos, but before that we can not speak of anyone being misled. The community, as well as what it accepts and does not accept, is per definition ephemeral — and its decisions are often neither predictable nor set in stone. To state that the community did not deem these videos acceptable a few weeks ago is false. The fact that the videos were live on a great number of articles, and were widely discussed, including in a positive light, is testament to that. Such implicit consensus is pretty much what all of Wikipedia operates upon (at least everything that isn't subject to an RfC).
That we now have a community decision to remove the videos does not mean that they have always been unacceptable, and to state that they were "hidden" in any sense is especially false. That some editors found these videos recently and objected to them does not mean that anyone was misled about them.
The point is that we can't state that some theoretical majority of the community would have disapproved of the videos if they had seen them earlier — because that is to create a hypothetical scenario divorced from reality.
The current opposition to the videos is also based on a many factors, some of which relate to existing policies, as well as other factors that do not. Some of the oppositions is also based upon factors that have nothing to do with the community or our goals as a whole, but rather the conduct of certain individuals (if this is not so, why would anyone complain about the framing of the RfC?). That does not mean that the RfC is invalid, but the statement that these videos were unequivocally unacceptable before this RfC is wrong.
We may refer to community decisions, but I think we ought to avoid labelling certain things as "questioned by the community", or "bad according to the community", except when there is a clear decision or it is evident that such is the case. When the community hasn't addressed an issue, we can not speak of it as being "disapproved of by the community" — that is hindsight bias at its finest. To express oneself as arbiter or interpreter of the community requires a whole lot of faith in a single individual's understanding of the community, which is not very helpful, in part because it necessarily excludes anyone who disagrees with that individual.
I see too many people hiding behind "the community" — they should keep in mind that the community also includes the people who support the videos, and while a majority may not, the supporting faction is by no means trivial. It is very likely that the community will come to the conclusion that the videos should be removed, but before that we should not invoke "the community", and to do is is akin to adopting a royal "we", making it out that one is a representative of the community at large. The fact is that none of us are, nor is anyone of us entitled preferential judgement over the communities wishes.
TL;DR — Don't say "the community this", "the community that" — We don't have any oracles with exclusive rights to interpret the community.
Pigsonthewing, most of this message was not directed towards you, nor your above statement, which is not at all as problematic as the things I'm referring to.
That is a great analysis, Carl Fredrik, thank you for that. I fully agree with what you say. And I am sorry User:Doc James that this situation evolved in this way.
However, the thing here is, that this would have been largely avoidable. It is not that we have not been here before. These situations do happen on a regular basis with GLAM organisations as well, and similar with specialized WikiProjects which have collaborations with outside organisations. Outside organisations can be (tempted to simply use the word 'are') a tremendous resource for Wikipedia, and reaching out to them (or welcoming them when they reach out to us) is a very important part of improving Wikipedia. But it is equally important then to make sure that they (the members of the outside organisation) are fully aware of our policies and guidelines, and our common practices. And when the situation becomes big (affecting a significant number of articles, or applying something that is unknown to Wikipedia), reach also out to the community to gauge whether such changes are fine. I have the strong feeling that here (and I see that happening with elsewhere as well) a local group becomes enthousiastic and boldly rolls out a large number of edits which turn out not to be having the support of the community at large. That results in very counterproductive situations, or fights, bad publicity, and potentially productive new editors walking away. I think that even this situation could have been avoided while it was rolled out, as soon as some major community objections became clear.
As members of the community, we have to take that step sometimes beforehand. Do the analysis 'what would the community think', and if that gives any reason for doubt, consult the community beforehand (yes, I know, it may be a hassle to start an RfC and wait 30 days, and you may feel reluctant to tell that outside editor that they DO have a conflict of interest, and that they should read and understand WP:COI/m:Terms of use). And prepare the involved editors of the outside organisation: make them aware that there is a community out there, which sometimes may, even in hindsight, be sceptical about their material, or how they material is being presented, or how their material is being added. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight, I agree with much of what you said — and there are clear learning opportunities here. My experience of the matter is that this is the first case of any major objection to the project. We've had some minor issues brought forth, which were discussed and I feel were dealt with properly (on a per article basis), but there was never any real objection to the project as a whole, that is until now. I would never have anticipated this backlash, and this is primarily what I meant with the community being unpredictable — and I still don't entirely understand the opposition, even if I accept that it exists and could even be present among a majority of editors.
When I've reached out before to the community at large (either through the VP or other venues) about issues regarding medical articles, or tried to recruit editors to pet projects in medicine I've often been met by either total ignorance, or people outright saying, "we aren't interested in that kind of stuff here". This makes me and I believe most medical editors hesitant to engage in outreach to other parts of Wikipedia, which could be perceived as us being very insular, keeping mostly to themselves. However, we're often very open about what we do, and discuss freely almost all our different pet projects on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine]. I can honestly say I think that part of the problem is that there are too many who entirely ignore WikiProject Medicine, and assume that we should toe the line, instead of asking what innovations could arrise.
It's all good and well to say that we should have performed an RfC at the start of the project, or advertised it across more community-wide notice-boards — but with regards to my previous attempts to do so — I don't know if that would have helped. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have — we will never know now. Just wanted to share this. Feel free to contemplate the issue further — your input, and any input on how to avoid these types of fallout in the future is appreciated. Ping Beetstra. -- Carl Fredrik talk21:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much "we" (speaking as if most of the WP:MED members were in lockstep on this) in everything above, because both Colin and I are long-time, very involved medical editors, and founding or initial editors in MEDRS. Graham Beards, Cas liber and Jfdwolff (founder of the Project) have also opposed the videos. (Just between the five of us, there is represented a good portion of all top content generated by this WikiProject, when you add in the old FAs we saved at FAR.) I have been several times awarded those top medical editor thingies. And I have been at odds with everything going down at WP:MED for quite a few years (not just this video debacle, which is only a symptom of other similar problems). The group evolved to being very centered around one editor, partly because he was so hard-working and well-intentioned, but people stopped hearing warnings and seeing red flags. This was a very predictable debacle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately wrote my latest response in what I believed was a constructive tone, and in the tone of my personal experience. That it was construed to speak for all of WP:MED — makes me question who, in turn, is speaking for others. Besides Colin, the editors you list have opposed the videos, but have so far not expressed anything near the level of criticism towards WikiProject Medicine as is articulated here. I perceive an assumption of general disdain for both Doc James's person and conduct — while I see no such widespread sentiment. This makes me inclined to wonder if this entire thing is an attempt to get back for a recent and very personal content dispute.
Stating how you've: "been at odds with everything going down at WP:MED for quite a few years" makes a very clear case for WP:BADFAITH.
To leave Wikipedia for a period of several years, and come back to say you disapprove of everything that is going on, to only engage in two major disputes, with no other edits, is WP:DISRUPTIVE and indicates WP:NOTHERE.
No other edits? CFCF, you alone are responsible for your perceptions, and your emphasis, but please get your facts right. This has just as much credibility as you continuing to say that the videos were just the same as the leads; it just was never true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't overlookjustmaintenance edits (whatever you mean by that). You overlooked me sorting out the entire mess related to the synucleinopathy suite of articles, including at least four missing articles (which I started, and I'm pretty surprised they were missing), cleaning up numerous errors throughout the suite, completely rewriting (still in process, still a mess) dementia with Lewy bodies, cleaning a copyvio out of PANS, redoing REM sleep behavior disorder, and re-doing the editnotice on every single medical FA. That's one weeks' work. CFCF, you have a habit throughout these discussions of not focusing on verifiable facts, and that makes for disruptive conversations, and faulty conclusions. It's a hard situation for everyone; please try not to make it worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
