e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

Once the coil goes dry, the coil temperature can rise dramatically and stuff starts to burn.

So that sounds like a vote for "Digital" and not "Analog". It's either not-toxic, or it is, with no in-between. So no validity to the statement "as temperature increases, so does toxicity".

I don't really know the history of "ANTZ" but have always assumed the name Stanton Glantz had something to do with it - but perhaps I'm wrong ..... ??

If no one else has thought of that before, that's brilliant, and might be useful at some point in the future.

 

[Maytwin]

So that sounds like a vote for "Digital" and not "Analog". It's either not-toxic, or it is, with no in-between. So no validity to the statement "as temperature increases, so does toxicity".



If no one else has thought of that before, that's brilliant, and might be useful at some point in the future.

As much as I'd like to take credit for something brilliant I really can't - it's something I've seen referred to before so it's not me that came up with it

 

[skoony]

is it just me or........

regards
mike

 

[Jman8]

Can you post any links to any of the "several dozen" previous efforts, names of Members, names of Wikipedia Editors, links to archived versions of articles that were reverted, or any other example of how a "good" version was deleted or otherwise done away with?

I am one who spent a good 3 months (maybe longer) trying to address the issues with the Wikipedia page. I can't say I have given up entirely, but the things that @retired1 speaks of on p.1 of this thread ring more true to me than what you are conveying about the generalities of Wikipedia. I think some of what you are saying and hoping to do really ought to be supported. I continuously found it not possible to edit the Wikipedia page in a sensible way due to the ANTZ factor that is permeating the culture of that particular topic.

If you click on the archive area of the talk page, you'll realize (after a good 2 hours of research, likely more) that really anything you think you are addressing and is something new has previously been addressed.

I think the lede is atrocious. I tried to deal only with that for most of my desire to edit the topic. My solution was to split the article (per Wikipedia policies) into 2 to 4 separate articles. I think the main article ought to present "what is an ecig" and keep it simple. Then have the "see also" type links either at bottom or elsewhere on the main topic page that speak to "health and safety" information and another that deals with "politics / controversies." My attempts at this are all archived. Feel free to PM me if you want to search my info on that talk page.

After I made very little to no headway on the lede, I decided to try to tackle other items, but felt it was not, even a little bit, about laypeople editing this topic page for accuracy and legitimacy. I instead found it to be all about who you know on Wikipedia editorial staff and how much do you really understand the red tape that is set up there and are willing to be patient with the myriad of possible disagreements before a reasonable consensus can be found. I found very instances of reasonable consensus being sought.

As is, the main article that exists combined with what else is around online shows how Wikipedia is set up with inherent bias on some of its topics, and how it is not possible to edit that regardless of the reasons. Even the talk page is set up with bias.

If you are having to ask what ANTZ means and who Stanton Glantz is, then it could take you awhile to get to the place I am now with regards to a desire to edit that topic page fairly. I wish you all the best, but do realize that some of us have been down that road, and see it as fruitless, while also being rather unnecessary, as the actual information for "what is an ecig" can be found elsewhere, and the Wikipedia page is more or less an embarrassment to what Wikipedia says it stands for.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

well in that case i will have to defer to you.
after all you're the professional researcher.

I am an editor working on the wikipedia article ... I used to smoke (20 years) , and I've vaped a couple of times, and talked to the owner of a vaping store twice, and got burned by some scam online selling 1st generation e-cigarettes, and that is the sum-total of my qualifications on vaping, however I think the more senior editors are even less qualified but they've been around for so long they aren't going to hear it from just me.

I'm a layman. I use Wikipedia regularly. I think it's the single-greatest accomplishment of all humanity. I think it gives people that have no other opportunity the ability to lift themselves up from where they are, to where they want to be. And I believe that the Lede is the most critical point in the entire article. A well-written Lede can invite an interested reader to continue on and read the entire article and acquire a substantial amount of information and understanding of a subject, or a poorly-written Lede can convert a motivated and interested reader into someone that no longer cares to learn something about a subject, and then from there they put energy into bad-mouthing Wikipedia and encouraging other people to avoid it, and remain ignorant. Agree with me or not, that's what I think and that's who I am.

As I understand it, there are some paid Wikipedia Editors, Administrators, "researchers" etc... I have no idea about this whole area. I think some work for Wikipedia, and some do not. I am certain that all are required to make a public declaration of their "paid" (and also "biased", whether or not they are paid) status. It's a big deal to Wikipedia. They investigate people and if they find that they are dishonestly trying to influence articles they get banned. Google words like "sock puppet", "meat puppet" etc... to get some sense of the "anti-fraud" infrastructure Wikipedia has in place. Also, somewhere in the thread I mention another Wikipedia Editor's belief that the government of Pakistan is paying people to influence some Pakistan-related article. He's on the hunt to "out" them, and get them banned. There are administrative "checks and balances" in place; the question is whether or not people are willing to do something.

I have another quote somewhere about me declaring my lack of qualifications on this, or any other topic, in this thread, but can't find it. If I run across it, I'll paste it here.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

To be quite honest, I cannot confirm or deny either of it. I am no scientist.
It is my understanding that at low temperatures no formaldehyde is produced and that towards the higher end of the temperature spectrum there may be 'some' formadeldehyde production happening which would largely be irrelevant from a harm perspective. The major concern is certainly the dry hit conditions.

If you (or anyone else) can find a source that says this, I'd appreciate it. During my readings over the last few days, I also read something like that, but it was unsourced. It's a dab of an idea that is toxic.

REALLY toxic.

Once you accept the idea that the relationship between temperature and toxicity is "not digital" the only thing left is this scary unknown analoge relationship between heat and toxicity. Low heat = safe, medium heat = some danger, high heat = danger.

Note in this example that "medium" = danger. The scary unknown word "some" ignored. Saccharine also has "some" danger, and remember how quickly they got that chemical banned? It's critical to nail this question down definitively, as this is where the the fear (and it's resultant paralysis) lies.

How people think:

No one cares about the "largely irrelevant" part. They will blindly accept the scary details of the "some formaldehyde" as if you were the Pope and the Apostle John and the Virgin Mary, all at the same time, but the part where you call that danger "largely irrelevant", they are going to ignore you completely, after all you are just some anonymous guy on the internet.

Both, at the same time. And not even notice the contradiction.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

If you are having to ask what ANTZ means and who Stanton Glantz is, then it could take you awhile to get to the place I am now with regards to a desire to edit that topic page fairly. I wish you all the best, but do realize that some of us have been down that road, and see it as fruitless, while also being rather unnecessary, as the actual information for "what is an eCig" can be found elsewhere, and the Wikipedia page is more or less an embarrassment to what Wikipedia says it stands for.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When FDR was confronted with a Supreme Court that wouldn't do what he wanted, he increased it's size and packed it with people that would do what he wanted. There's some kind of arbitration and sanction status on that article right now, that I don't understand, but one advantage is that the "official sanctions page" lists all the Wikipedia Editors that have ever contributed to the article, by name, in order to give them some kind of "Notice" of the article's "sanctioned" status.

Perhaps some, most or all of those Editors could be contacted again, in some way.

Tactically, on this "battlefield", when presented with superior firepower and intelligence, the off-setting two factors that you can create in your favor is time and numbers. Technical expertise etc... can be acquired, however on this issue, once the case is made plainly, the volume of (untrained, inexpert) numbers will occur naturally.

Most evil occurs in secret, and in the dark.

Look at the passion here, and then look at the determination to do nothing but complain about it. Q: How hard would it be to move people from angry paralysis to passionate constructive action? A: Not very. Show a dab of progress and a sliver of hope and they will go from A to B. Or at least stop carping and complaining, lol...

If this is a representative sample of the community overall, if I/we can get 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, how long will it be before I/we acquire 50 (untrained, inexpert) Wikipedia Editors to out-vote the opposition.

Note no mention of violating any rules, policies, etc... No sock puppets, no meat puppets, just organizing a group of volunteers willing to put their time and energy into creating a workable, unbiased, interesting and informative Wikipedia Article.

Who could possibly object to that?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

I think that's it for today. Housework and other duties to perform. Might be back later this evening. Thanks again to all, for all the substantive help that's been given. It WON'T be going to waste. The wheel are spinning and the crankshaft is turning.

 

[skoony]

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When FDR was confronted with a Supreme Court that wouldn't do what he wanted, he increased it's size and packed it with people that would do what he wanted. There's some kind of arbitration and sanction status on that article right now, that I don't understand, but one advantage is that the "official sanctions page" lists all the Wikipedia Editors that have ever contributed to the article, by name, in order to give them some kind of "Notice" of the article's "sanctioned" status.

Perhaps some, most or all of those Editors could be contacted again, in some way.

Tactically, on this "battlefield", when presented with superior firepower and intelligence, the off-setting two factors that you can create in your favor is time and numbers. Technical expertise etc... can be acquired, however on this issue, once the case is made plainly, the volume of (untrained, inexpert) numbers will occur naturally.

Most evil occurs in secret, and in the dark.

Look at the passion here, and then look at the determination to do nothing but complain about it. Q: How hard would it be to move people from angry paralysis to passionate constructive action? A: Not very. Show a dab of progress and a sliver of hope and they will go from A to B. Or at least stop carping and complaining, lol...

If this is a representative sample of the community overall, if I/we can get 1 out of 10, 1 out of 100, how long will it be before I/we acquire 50 (untrained, inexpert) Wikipedia Editors to out-vote the opposition.

Note no mention of violating any rules, policies, etc... No sock puppets, no meat puppets, just organizing a group of volunteers willing to put their time and energy into creating a workable, unbiased, interesting and informative Wikipedia Article.

Who could possibly object to that?

don't get me wrong.
i am getting the distinct impression you are not listening
to anything anyone is trying to tell in this thread.
all you seem to be doing is critiquing our responses
to your questions and asking redundant questions
when good links have been pointed out to you.
if you think you can do some good on that wiki page
by all means have at it.
do the prerequisite study of the issues involved and give it a go.
get back to us in about 2 or 3 months and let us know how
things went.
right now you seem to be more interested in pontificating
than actually trying to learn something.
just one last thing. that FDR thing was a nice bit of
history. it shows me how far afield you are roaming
without actually accomplishing anything.

good luck and regards
mike

 

[evan le'garde]

As i understand it the FDR post was Wallace asking you people who have tried and failed to edit the wikipedia page to help. Obviously a single editor fighting against the established opposition doesn't work. A team of volunteers could make a difference. If a team of pro vaping volunteers worked together against the established opposition editors then real positive changes could be made to the page.

 

[Jman8]

As i understand it the FDR post was Wallace asking you people who have tried and failed to edit the wikipedia page to help. Obviously a single editor fighting against the established opposition doesn't work. A team of volunteers could make a difference. If a team of pro vaping volunteers worked together against the established opposition editors then real positive changes could be made to the page.

It would take a good 15 of us that are somewhat committed, or for sure 7 to 8 that are totally committed to address the vaping topic. Totally committed means hours every day (maybe 2 days off at most) and in it for at least 6 months. Those who are committed would be wise to read the 50 or so archived talk pages, otherwise we would show up as uninformed. Also helps to know Wikipedia policies backwards and forwards, but most helpful editors will link to those policies as they may come up. On this type of topic, they come up a lot.

 

[evan le'garde]

Sounds like a plan !.

I have read this thread throughout and i know Wallace knows absolutely nothing about vaping, but wouldn't you agree that he sounds pretty dedicated and is fully focused on what he wants to accomplish. He keeps on mentioning the lede and not the entire page so a few dedicated editors could just focus on that. He certainly needs some help with understanding exactly what the vaping world is all about though, but maybe that won't matter. If he is as determined as he sounds then why not help him out. He obviously wants to do it, but he knows he can't do it on his own which explains the name of this thread. He wants a few people to give up some of their time to make it happen. And i think that if he can't find anybody then he will probably do what you guys have tried before and he'll fail.

For someone who doesn't even vape you should maybe give him some credit for trying to help. Regarding the multidude of quetions he's asking i'd say he is interested in learning about vaping but is obviously starting at the very beginning. Finally i'd like to say that i think he has come to ECF because he thought he would find some people here to help him, and if he can't find anyone in ECF, of all places, then where else is there ?.


I admire and appreciate what you are trying to do for the vaping community wallace. so i'd just like to say thank you

 

[yuseffuhler]

@Wallace_Frampton, first off I'd like to welcome you to the forum! This really is a great place, and I've personally found it to be a nice point of discussion for all things e-cigarette or vaping related. It seems a lot of people have contributed enough information to keep you busy for a while. I'd like to add a few points that should help your understanding. I'll try to answer any questions my statements bring up; either tag me or quote this post and I'll do my best. That being said....

1: The study people have been talking about in the New England Journal of Medicine on formaldehyde is inherently flawed. There have been quite a few people speaking out against it, some of them qualified researchers in their fields. This article
Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies « The counterfactual contains a selection of their statements and responses and also an open letter sent to the authors before publication. These guys did their homework and explain the flaws much better than I can.

2. "Vaping" is pretty complicated. It started out with these things we call "cigalikes" (cigarette lookalikes).

There were some major problems with these cigalikes. Not a lot of battery life and not enough vapor production to were pretty big problems. Buying the cartridges was expensive as well. People modified other electronics to serve their purposes as an electronic cigarette, hence the term "mod". All you really need to make an electronic cigarette is a power source (battery) and a way to deliver e-liquid to a heating element. Things really took off from there, but the basics haven't changed.

3. People get way too hung up on "volts". Volts are only a part of the equation. If you said high voltage vaping causes formaldehyde, you'd be dead wrong. If you said high heat caused formaldehyde, you'd be right. There are electronic cigarette "mods" that can use as high as 12 volts without a single problem. Sounds crazy, but just keep in mind that this equipment has a designed range that it works great in. Go outside that, you'll have problems.

Please let me know if anything I said can be clarified.

 

[Jman8]

Sounds like a plan !.

I would also add, and forgot to mention, that it would have to be coordinated plan. I think opposing editors would highly despise that if they knew it was coordinated, but if it were within Wikipedia policies, then not sure if they'd have leg to stand on.

For me, the lede (and main article page) ought to mention nothing about smoking cessation. Doing so just invites opposition to bring up all the points they want to regarding comparisons to smoking, hence the controversy. I say this cause I don't see myself being part of coordinated effort unless that sort of thing was agreed upon from the get go. But if vapers are wanting to edit it so it is written in vein of THR piece and clearly noting it is effective means to quitting smoking, then I'd possibly lead to disorganization from within coordinated effort to make the lede more effective in helping to understand what an eCig is.

Really, everything after the first paragraph of what's on the topic's lede currently, is IMO, not necessary for the main topic page. Once benefits are mentioned, there are likely going to be editors that feel it must also include harms / cautions / ANTZ rhetoric. And that results in such nonsense like, "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear, but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy," which has almost nothing to do with what an eCig is, but what purpose political types would ascribe to them. Controversy and all.

I think that controversy ought to be presented on Wikipedia, but not on main topic page.

 

[evan le'garde]

Here is the "vaping power chart" wallace. It illustrates the answer to your question about too much or not enough power.

 

[evan le'garde]

I would also add, and forgot to mention, that it would have to be coordinated plan. I think opposing editors would highly despise that if they knew it was coordinated, but if it were within Wikipedia policies, then not sure if they'd have leg to stand on.

For me, the lede (and main article page) ought to mention nothing about smoking cessation. Doing so just invites opposition to bring up all the points they want to regarding comparisons to smoking, hence the controversy. I say this cause I don't see myself being part of coordinated effort unless that sort of thing was agreed upon from the get go. But if vapers are wanting to edit it so it is written in vein of THR piece and clearly noting it is effective means to quitting smoking, then I'd possibly lead to disorganization from within coordinated effort to make the lede more effective in helping to understand what an eCig is.

Really, everything after the first paragraph of what's on the topic's lede currently, is IMO, not necessary for the main topic page. Once benefits are mentioned, there are likely going to be editors that feel it must also include harms / cautions / ANTZ rhetoric. And that results in such nonsense like, "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear, but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy," which has almost nothing to do with what an eCig is, but what purpose political types would ascribe to them. Controversy and all.

I think that controversy ought to be presented on Wikipedia, but not on main topic page.

I think if enough ideas can be bounced around for long enough then you could all eventually agree on what exactly should be done.

 

[philoshop]

The wiki-masters have received their marching orders, and any sort of approval or even non-biased opinion of vaping is apparently not among those orders. I can only guess at the reasons why this is the case, but it's a very sad state.

 

[englishmick]

I would also add, and forgot to mention, that it would have to be coordinated plan. I think opposing editors would highly despise that if they knew it was coordinated, but if it were within Wikipedia policies, then not sure if they'd have leg to stand on.
.

I never dabbled in Wiki and this is all new to me.

So, if a committed team got together, with a plan agreed in advance so they didn't start fighting amongst themselves, and assuming the opposition didn't just call in reinforcements, you think a decent Wiki page could be forced through.

If that happened would it stick, or could another group come along in six months and "correct" it? Is it an endless war?

 

[evan le'garde]

I never dabbled in Wiki and this is all new to me.

So, if a committed team got together, with a plan agreed in advance so they didn't start fighting amongst themselves, and assuming the opposition didn't just call in reinforcements, you think a decent Wiki page could be forced through.

If that happened would it stick, or could another group come along in six months and "correct" it? Is it an endless war?

It would have to be maintained, that would be the whole point of the team of volunteers.

 

[philoshop]

I'd want to know exactly who I was fighting against before I ever volunteered. Many have tried, and many have died. So to speak.
For whatever reason, wiki is never going to change their position on this matter until they're told to.
Find out who's behind that curtain and I might give it a shot.