User talk:Science-vs-Acad

Welcome

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

333 -blue 13:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please read / coi

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, early Editors from academia were confused by rules that are opposite to COI

Within several past hours, I've received emails notifying me that Ozzie10aaaa left this tag and also a message from t. The statement from t says that I 1) created 4 named pages and that 2) I was "heavily involved" in their editing. Re: 1) Indeed, when in 2013 the colleagues who used Rusalov's STQ started wondering if there should be Wikipedia's pages on the STQ, Rusalov and also an explanation of the approach, including FET. The STQ is apparently still most used psychological test in Russia, so the significance is similar to the significance of culture-specific object (like Great Wall in China, even though many walls exist in the world). That was the STQ in psychometrics in Russia. Our only fault was that we assumed that Wikipedia, as encyclopedia, employs the same requirements as used in academic encyclopedias (we are all too much involved in academia and not at all in public social media). Many of us wrote articles for various encyclopedias before and we knew that the authors are chosen on the bases of involvement with the subject. In other words, we expected that (similarly to academic encyclopedias) the author of the article should be either the author of the theory/subject/concept or work closely with the authors. Quite opposite to COI (!) but in 2013 it wasn't so clear. My colleagues in Russia knew that I worked in Canada for many years and proposed that it would be me who presents (submit) the pages to English Wikipedia. They did pages for the Russian branch of it without me. At that point, I wasn't the first person to use English STQ, but I agreed to do it, as I honestly thought that my association with the STQ will help the pages to be accepted. Still, there are 20 language versions of the STQ, with many colleagues around the world working on it - if they are prohibited from editing it, please post this prohibition clearly. In 2014 my colleagues put together drafts of these pages and we have contacted Wikipedia asking for permission and approval (without posting the pages). We didn't even know that we simply could post them. After waiting for a year for a reply, we sent another message and waited for another year. I hope Wikipedia has archives of letters. You can laugh now but we just reacted to the words "online encyclopedia" and used our professional expectations for these settings. I was simply chosen as submitting Editor, exactly because I had published on this matter in English, as usually required by grants and other encyclopedias. So, guys, give academicians some mercy - they didn't know that the same words might mean different (even opposite) rules. Anyway, in 2016 my colleagues suggested that I post it from my name. Just think about it - if I would know about the COI at that time - would I agree to it? Especially since the texts were done partially by other people? I would just suggest them to create pages themselves. Now I am not sure how to fix it. I think Wikipedia should give some slack to people from non-English countries, especially from academia, and especially in early stages of development of Wikipedia. A lot of misconceptions were flying around when Wikipedia was being adapted in Russia, and when I was contacted by colleagues to create pages, I had no clue what I was getting into. Even now I barely do editing or know who does it aggressively. Regardless, the pages that we discuss here represent not my personal matter but the achievement of Russian psychophology that the public would benefit from. It is a core science, based on fundamental psychophysiology, so I suggest keeping the pages. FYI, I am not even psychophysiologist so how can I benefit personally in medicine or psychophysiology if I promote psychophysiological theories?

2) Here comes the reply on the second issue. After posting (creating pages) I didn't edit it much - just look at the history. I checked pages maybe once a year. So, I don't agree with the second statement of t.

Plus, none of people who work with the STQ or FET benefits financially from it as the test is free for use. Plus I, personally, am an Adjunct Professor, and our University doesn't pay me even a penny, allowing me to supervise students and participate in exams for residents. So my participation in these pages do nothing for my career too. I am also retired, by Russian standards and will be retiring soon in Canada - so no personal benefits from this even in the future. Still, I am happy to contribute my knowledge for the public good.

I wonder how Wikipedia plans to have pages related to scientific concepts without allowing specialists from academia (who cannot avoid being involved in the subject matter) to edit pages. The Editor should know the facts about the important figure and the nature of this figure's contribution so some familiarity should be allowed. Still, when it comes to Rusalov, I never worked in Rusalov's lab, moved to another country in 1997 after my PhD in 1995. Out of his 200 and out mine 80 publications we only had two joint publications on the very subject of his Approach, and we lived in different continents when preparing it, so the contact was really minimal. Meanwhile, he had colleagues who collaborated with him on many publications and some of them likely edited his pages, probably several times. It is hard to imagine complete sterility in relationships when Editors should be expert on the subject of the Wikipedia page. I saw so many Wikipedia pages where Editors added their theories or results to the text. Should we open this can of worms or should we appreciate how encyclopedias in academia are being written? Iratrofimov (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

have answered at Wikiproject Medicine/talk, as has another editor, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:FETchemical.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FETchemical.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this note. The file is outdated indeed. Thank you for the cleanup ): ~~ Science-vs-Acad (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]