User talk:Wconard1965

Welcome!

Hello, Wconard1965, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, are you out there? Would you have time to briefly talk about next steps in addressing the issues of the Jonathan Rothberg bio? We are ready to do what is necessary to make it right. -WesWconard1965 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog: I hope this note finds you well. If you are on the east coast like me, perhaps you are enjoying a very feeble spring as well. I'm writing because my boss asked about the biography edit. I told him you guys are very busy and he suggested I check in and see if there's any way that I could help. I doubt that's the case, but if there was anything I could do I would be happy to pitch in. Best, Wes Conard Wconard1965 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Wconard1965 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Wconard1965 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Hi JYTdog. Not sure if you got my previous message. Just writing to see if there's any way I can help the process move forward. Happy to help in any way I can.Wconard1965 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rothberg's biography page

copied here from message left at my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog: I’m writing to you about Jonathan Rothberg’s living biography, which you edited on Oct. 27th. Since 2007 some people have noted that in places the biography lacks a neutral point of view and has un-sourced assertions. I would add that it simply doesn’t tell a very complete or up-to-date story about Dr. Rothberg’s work.

I would like to change that. I’ve made extensive edits, added numerous citations and updated the biography with his most recent work. I think this edit will address the issues that editors have raised in the past as well as provide a more informative biography for Wikipedia readers. Given the extent of the changes I’m not sure what the best way is to put this in front of Wikipedia editors for review. I've put this new version here for now: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u8E1pVIhl0fvd4ZHtuEl0LX3R-jhCodyIlA5zg10jgA/edit?usp=sharing I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any advice you have on how to best approach this situation.

Finally, I have worked for Dr. Rothberg for two years and worked with him previously as well, so I clearly have a COI. However, I was also a reporter for 10 years and understand how to write unbiased copy that sticks to the facts and I believe I’ve succeeded in that. My hope is that despite the COI the copy can be judged on its merits and through the review process with editors we can address any shortcomings and create better quality biography for Wikipedia readers.

Thank you for your time and I would appreciate any advice you have on how to best proceed with this. Cheers, Wes Conard

wconard1965 on Wikipedia wconard@4catalyzer.com Wconard1965Wconard1965 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wconard1965. Thanks again for your note. There are a lot of problems with the draft page, but if we may, perhaps we can go over some of the "ground rules" first. Please see below... Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and paid editing in WP - the two steps

Thanks again for your note and for provisionally declaring a sort of conflict of interest with respect to Jonathan Rothberg.

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

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose the nature of your connection with Rothberg? Am looking for the nature of the relationship - if you are his friend, if you work for a PR or digital marketing agency that has Rothberg or one of his companies or institutes as a client, or if you are being contracted directly by one of those. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog:

My apologies for the delay, I've been traveling and swamped with work. Thank you for your quick response and your offer to help me with this process. In terms of my connection with Jonathan, I work for him as a full-time employee. My title is head of marketing communications and under that falls responsibility for everything from events to writing sales collateral to pitching reporters. While that is a clear CIO, my hope is that since I can reference everything that it will be possible in an open editing process to come to a "just the facts" version of this bio that most everyone can agree with. -Wes Wconard1965 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. (you seem to have that part down)

Indenting and signing, is how we know who said what and can follow discussions (somewhat) easily. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now for the substance. Thanks for your note, and for disclosing your relationship with Rothberg. So you are what we call a "paid editor", which is indeed a form of conflict of interest. So you have a COI for that company and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.

After it is clear that you understand the "ground rules" here I will be happy to discuss the content you want to change, but first things first.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Wconard1965 - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for Jonathan Rothberg and have a conflict of interest with regard to him and related topics" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about Rothberg or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag at Talk:Jonathan Rothberg, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

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

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

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

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

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

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

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

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

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JYTDOG. You mentioned that there are numerous problems in the draft a wrote. Where should I start? Can you recommend some issues that I can address?Wconard1965 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I saw this. Please do review the messages above. Please especially be sure to read User:Jytdog/How and you will get a sense of the policies and guidelines that we apply when we think about Wikipedia articles.... Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. It's like joining the Masons or something ;) Thanks Jytdog for explaining the lengthy process, policies and behaviors, which, I'm sure, are necessary to do something like catalog the knowledge of the entire world. I'll do your recommended reading and start the process. Thanks for taking the time to put all that together, it is very much appreciated. -WesWconard1965 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is kind of funny... but yeah true! :) Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working in WP - sandboxes

OK, don't know if you have read through the Jytdog/How thing, but you would have seen there, that there are various "name spaces" in WP. This page, that we are writing on, is in "user space", and specifcally is in "your" userspace. You are free to create subpages in your userspace, to work on Wikipedia stuff (not to work on other stuff - you cannot use this space as a personal webhost). The common term in WP for pages to experiment and draft is "sandbox" and I set up yours. It is at User:Wconard1965/Sandbox. You can actually get to it anytime via the link way at the top of every page, near the right side. You see up there, going from left to right -- your username, a bell icon, an "inbox" icon, "talk", "sandbox", "preferences", etc... Where it says "sandbox", is a link to your sandbox.

So you can copy that "google docs" document into your sandbox to work on it more.

BUT WAIT! The images in that google doc, appear to me to be copyright violations. WP cannot host any content - including images - that infringes somebody's copyright. This is something that the community takes really seriously.

So before you paste into your sandbox, please make sure any content (text or images) copied from somewhere else, is taken out.

Once it is in your sandbox you can work on the content in light of the policies and guidelines that maybe you are starting to get a handle on, and start to work on the formatting per WP:MOS, etc... Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your note. It has taken me awhile to figure this out, but I think I have found that the correct sandbox page (I set it up through Page Wizard I think) and I believe I have the required COI statements on there as well. I get a little confused as to where I am, so here's a link to it: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Wconard1965&action=edit Does that look right? Also I hear you on the photos and I will make sure that we have the rights to anything we use.

So

this: User:Wconard1965 is your userpage

This: User talk:Wconard1965 is your user talk page

this: User:Wconard1965/Sandbox is your sandbox

this: User:Jytdog is my userpage

This: User talk:Jytdog is my user talk page

this: User:Jytdog/sandbox is my sandbox

is that helpful? Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog: Hugely helpful. I should just be able to see that, but it's much clearer written that way. Thank you. I've finished the first section of the page, but am not sure where my COI goes on the sandbox. It doesn't seem to want to go into any of the text boxes at the top. Here it is: "I work for Dr. Jonathan Rothberg and have a conflict of interest with regard to him and related topics including ultrasound and DNA sequencing.$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by 4Catalyzer on behalf of Jonathan Rothberg for their contributions to Wikipedia." Should I just put it into the body at the top?

It would be great to hear your thoughts on the text and citations. I think everything is pretty well supported. Would it be possible to run this by the editors one section at a time? I read somewhere that this was the preferred way, and after doing this I can see why -- it's fairly labor intensive. It would perhaps also enable me to make save me from making similar mistakes throughout the entire document. What do you think? Wconard1965 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rothberg's biography page

Hi Jytdog: I’m writing to you about Jonathan Rothberg’s living biography, which you edited on Oct. 27th. Since 2007 some people have noted that in places the biography lacks a neutral point of view and has un-sourced assertions. I would add that it simply doesn’t tell a very complete or up-to-date story about Dr. Rothberg’s work.

I would like to change that. I’ve made extensive edits, added numerous citations and updated the biography with his most recent work. I think this edit will address the issues that editors have raised in the past as well as provide a more informative biography for Wikipedia readers. Given the extent of the changes I’m not sure what the best way is to put this in front of Wikipedia editors for review. I've put this new version here for now: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u8E1pVIhl0fvd4ZHtuEl0LX3R-jhCodyIlA5zg10jgA/edit?usp=sharing I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any advice you have on how to best approach this situation.

Finally, I have worked for Dr. Rothberg for two years and worked with him previously as well, so I clearly have a COI. However, I was also a reporter for 10 years and understand how to write unbiased copy that sticks to the facts and I believe I’ve succeeded in that. My hope is that despite the COI the copy can be judged on its merits and through the review process with editors we can address any shortcomings and create better quality biography for Wikipedia readers.

Thank you for your time and I would appreciate any advice you have on how to best proceed with this. Cheers, Wes Conard

wconard1965 on Wikipedia wconard@4catalyzer.com Wconard1965Wconard1965 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note. I am going to copy the message above to your talk page User talk:Wconard1965 and will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog: I'm writing to see if I could engage you on some of your suggested edits to the Jonathan Rothberg bio. I left a note on my talk page as you requested, but perhaps it didn't take. If you can give me a sense of where to start I am eager dive in and get it up to par.

Cheers, Wes ConardWconard1965 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog: Your breakdown of my pages was hugely helpful. I should just be able to see that, but it was much easier to understand. Thank you. I've finished the first section of the page, but am not sure where my COI goes on the sandbox. It doesn't seem to want to go into any of the text boxes at the top. Here it is: "I work for Dr. Jonathan Rothberg and have a conflict of interest with regard to him and related topics including ultrasound and DNA sequencing.$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by 4Catalyzer on behalf of Jonathan Rothberg for their contributions to Wikipedia." Should I just put it into the body at the top?

It would be great to hear your thoughts on the text and citations. I think everything is pretty well supported. Would it be possible to run this by the editors one section at a time? I read somewhere that this was the preferred way, and after doing this I can see why -- it's fairly labor intensive. It would perhaps also enable me to make save me from making similar mistakes throughout the entire document. What do you think? Wconard1965 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Wconard1965 (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like having discussions in multiple places. Please just post here; I will see it. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. -WWconard1965 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog: Hope all is well. In my sandbox you'll find a new version of the Rothberg page that I think addresses all of the issues you raised. Please let me know your thoughts and I can make whatever changes are necessary. Best Regards, Wes Conard

Hi Jytdog, I am having some difficulty figuring out how to create notes under the main photo such as Born, Children, Occupation, etc. Could you please point me to a page that describes how to do this? Many thansks.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan Rothberg (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Jonathan Rothberg instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

And that page needs improvement so please fix it

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jonathan Rothberg and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jonathan Rothberg, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wconard1965! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

About this, see "b)" in the section above. You did "a)" and the submission was appropriately declined - that is only for new articles. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prior review thing

Copied from above...

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

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

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

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

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

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

Right? Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right--my apologies. Wconard1965 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]