I'm battling some ANTZ from Cali with edits to the wikipedia page on e-cigs

[Jman8]

So how does this whole Battle of the Wiki Edits work?

Can you get banned from Wikipedia if you were to post something like the following every day...
Or even every 20 minutes...

This Wiki page is under siege by Anti-Nicotine and tobacco Zealots who are posting false and misleading information in an effort to keep people from using electronic cigarettes.
They are afraid that electronic cigarettes will end smoking as we know it, and also end their careers and take away their jobs.

How does one go about fighting something like this?

Wiki page about eCigs ought to be general information about what it is. Editing it with information that amounts to trolling means the editor's IP (account) could be forbidden from further editing.

Another wiki page might be created that deals with (something along lines of) "ecig Controversy." And then on that page, it would likely need to be quote of someone prominent for it to stand on the page.

I see this Wiki page intellectual battle as interesting, though similar to other Wiki page battles. With this one, I find it more fascinating as the science does appear, on the surface, to be up in the air, yet digging a little deeper, you realize some (so-called) scientists are looking to spin 'uncertain data' as 'likely dangerous or very risky' and others are presenting scientific data indicating 'very low risk.'

Kinda hard to edit a Wiki page when one side is cooking data to match an agenda. The "tobacco smoking" wiki page faces the same predicament.

 

[DrMA]

With some unexpected help from a Canadian ER doc, I'm making small progress. He is not an ecig advocate, rather appears to hold a relatively neutral view, striking out strong opinion equally from my and ANTZ's edits. If you look carefully you'll see the traces of real scientific fact starting to trickle in throughout the page , such as the Burstyn study and results of the ASH surveys. A lot of the "poisonings" propaganda was also removed and replaced by more accurate statements as to "calls to poison control centers." Mostly minor items, but I'm inclined to call it progress.

 

[Berylanna]

One thing I do know is Wikipedia will not let you cite your own research. This created a problem for us because a competitor was trashing our product and the only people who had published research on our side was....us. (The other side wasn't citing papers either as far as I can tell so it's very very weird.)

But that means Drexel and Burstyn and Dr. Farsalinos are not allowed to post their stuff, but others can post it.

 

[Uma]

How's it going?

This seems to be a rampant hobby with propagandists. http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/05/what-congress-edited-on-wikipedia-today

 

[DrMA]

There's an ongoing heated debate on the "Talk page" related to this article. This will likely go on for a while...

 

[Uma]

Where's the "talk page"?

 

[DrMA]

Where's the "talk page"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette

 

[Jman8]

Yeah, the lead of that article is way too controversial.

I wonder if it is possible to start another page for "eCig controversy" as that is pretty prevalent in American culture (right about now) and then suggest much of what's on this page get moved there?

Or at least have a section on this main page that deals with trends and/or controversies. But there's no reason to cite use among high school students in the lead.

 

[Luisa]

I'm trying to remove unsubstantiated propaganda regarding 2nd hand vapor, and he keeps adding it back.

• (cur | prev) 06:40, 13 July 2014‎ 198.144.208.145 (talk)‎ . . (60,386 bytes) (+247)‎ . . (corrected factual inaccuracy and lack of NPOV) updated since my last visit (undo)
• (cur | prev) 06:24, 13 July 2014‎ Mihaister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (60,139 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Second hand vapor: spelling and punctuation) (undo) (Tag: VisualEditor)
• (cur | prev) 06:23, 13 July 2014‎ Mihaister (talk | contribs)‎ . . (60,139 bytes) (-246)‎ . . (→‎Second hand vapor: corrected non-encyclopedic language and redundancy introduced by 198.144.208.145) (undo) (Tag: VisualEditor)
• (cur | prev) 23:12, 12 July 2014‎ 198.144.208.145 (talk)‎ . . (60,385 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Second hand vapor) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 23:11, 12 July 2014‎ 198.144.208.145 (talk)‎ . . (60,386 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Second hand vapor) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:28, 12 July 2014‎ 198.144.208.145 (talk)‎ . . (60,386 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (context for literature reviews) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:23, 12 July 2014‎ 198.144.208.145 (talk)‎ . . (60,289 bytes) (+151)‎ . . (update to reflect recent research reviews) (undo)

Check it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_cigarette&action=history
198.144.208.145 IP Address Location, City: Menlo Park, Country: United States | Whois

Is there a way you can make him substantiate his remarks or make him look the fool?

 

[DrMA]

Not as long as the Grana study stands. We need to wait for Dr. F's critique of that junk to be published...

 

[aubergine]

I have some idea of how time consuming a wiki war can be. Kudos, DrMA.
It actually is really important, as everyone turns to wiki first, not always for definitive final fact but at least for orientation to supported consensus. It's actually a brilliant thing, but it needs dogged and persevering editors (like your dogged and persevering self) to keep bias from settling in.

 

[DrMA]

The debate rages on. Check out the latest developments in light of the new WHO position paper and the critique by McNeill. Basically, the problem is that, in spite of the evidence, nobody is willing to concede that such an prominent body as WHO would maliciously pursue an agenda contrary to public health; that it would intentionally distort scientific facts and flat out lie in an effort to protect the tobacco markets from competition by vaporizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette

 

[Nate760]

The debate rages on. Check out the latest developments in light of the new WHO position paper and the critique by McNeill. Basically, the problem is that, in spite of the evidence, nobody is willing to concede that such an prominent body as WHO would maliciously pursue an agenda contrary to public health; that it would intentionally distort scientific facts and flat out lie in an effort to protect the tobacco markets from competition by vaporizers.

Wikipedia is a losing battle for us and will remain so for quite some time. One of its guiding philosophical principles (and the one that makes it far too often a dubious source of information) is that consensus outweighs truth. In the Wiki worldview, an idea can only be correct if over 50% of people subscribe to it. And history furnishes no shortage of stupid, wrongheaded ideas that have been accepted, unquestioningly and for great lengths of time, by a majority of the populace.

 

[DrMA]

@Nate760 - your critique of the "consensus" approach for wiki articles is accurate and relevant. However, and as I've written before, I do not think it's a good strategy to offer an unconditional and unchallenged surrender to the ANTZ of a platform with huge visibility and PR impact.

Regardless of the quality of Wikipedia articles in general, and this one in particular, the fact remains it is a primary source of information for many people, and a lost PR opportunity for us, if the ANTZ get to peddle their lies using that platform. I think it is our duty to try to provide some accurate information by all means possible, including Wikipedia.

 

[Nate760]

@Nate760 - your critique of the "consensus" approach for wiki articles is accurate and relevant. However, and as I've written before, I do not think it's a good strategy to offer an unconditional and unchallenged surrender to the ANTZ of a platform with huge visibility and PR impact.

I didn't mean to suggest that the effort was less than worthwhile. Bad ideas and false assertions should be challenged, strenuously, wherever they present themselves. In fact, I'd submit that doing so is a moral imperative for every rational person of conscience.

However, in terms of practical implications, I don't see any scenario in which an objective, non-ANTZy article about e-cigs is going to pass muster amongst a majority of Wikipedia editors at any point in the immediate future.

 

[DrMA]

I disagree. I think the current version of the article is far less ANTZy than a few months ago. I and a few others managed to remove or rephrase much misinformation and propaganda.

For example all of the "poisonings" lies have been scrubbed.

Usage stats among youth and children non-smokers have been correctly cited, downplaying the "gateway" hypothesis.

Many references to vaping-positive literature have been added, such as Burstyn and Hajek.

Just look at the article history from 3 months ago and compare.

 

[Jman8]

Every time I visit the eCig Wikipedia page, I am amazed at what is allowed in the lede. It is authors of that page inserting politics (and controversy) where it need not be presented. It ought to be in subheadings on that page, and perhaps, as evidenced by the 'talk' page, merits creating another page just to handle 'eCig Controversy.'

If I click on the links from this page to:
- Vaporizer
- Tobacco smoking
- Nicotine

most of these do not have lede's that are riddled with this problem. Tobacco smoking has some of it, but in world we live in, I would be pleasantly surprised if that were not the case. And even then, I'd prefer that controversy stay out of the lede.

Really, everything after the first paragraph of the eCig article page is not needed in the lede. The very first sentence of second paragraph has the word 'uncertain' in it and lots of 'they may' type of assertions in that paragraph. IMO, that is nonsense for a go to source for information on WHAT this product IS.

 

[DrMA]

Agreed about the lede. If you go to the Talk page linked above you'll see there's a specific proposal for modifying the lede.

 

[csardaz]

Mixed in the references too. Many of the Anti references have a quote attached - a summary of the conclusions? or just the most anti quote from it?
I don't recall that in other articles. The outside links section could use some good links One of the 2 thats there now goes to a smokefree place that didn't say much about ecigs.

Of course most people read the first paragraph and few would make it to the end bits.


I.e. references ( I bolded the excess quote )

5. Harrell, PT; Simmons, VN; Correa, JB; Padhya, TA; Brandon, TH (4 June 2014). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems ("E-cigarettes"): Review of Safety and Smoking Cessation Efficacy.". Otolaryngology—head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. doi:10.1177/0194599814536847. PMID 24898072. "These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking."

 

[Nate760]

If you guys think the e-cig article has a controversial talk page, you should check out the nearly decade-long argument (still going strong, consensus not yet achieved) over whether AC/DC is heavy metal.