User talk:Atsme/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Atsme. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Don't let the drama run the project aground

Judging from the picture, I think the expression "that ship has sailed" is apt. BD2412 T 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the captain of that ship lost his sea legs! Wbm1058, thanks for sharing!! And you're absolutely right about the drama! I also just noticed that I misformatted the link to (my made-up word) vitriolograph in the section above and just now fixed it. Gotta get back on track. Atsme 💬 📧 00:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Get back on track and

Ride the C-train to see the C-suites on the ship that's been to the mountaintop – wbm1058 (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Funny how they built that hotel to look like a cruise ship, and it probably feels like you're on a cruise with the ocean around you. I'd want a balcony suite. Nothing wrong with putting our imagination to good use. Atsme 💬 📧 14:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving articles in April! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, sweet Gerda. Your tidbits of kindness and pretty pictures are a bright spot in an otherwise gruelling day. Atsme 💬 📧 09:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, - and is the gruelling a bit better? I have a soft spot for active members of the cabal of the outcast. More memories on the Main page today, Psalm 115 thinking of Yoninah, Christa Ludwig and Milva, - voices that made the Earth a better place. Sad that the psalm hook didn't appear on Earth Day as planned, but better pictured and late than going unnoticed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The gruelling comes in waves, the force of which can be measured on a vitriolograph used for measuring vitriolic waves that radiate throughout the project. Right now, the graph indicates a low peak, for me at least. As to your post, Gerda, I say Amen...Aaaa-men!!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Today: Charmes recorded ;) - one hook, 3 women, should have been 5, but two had too long names --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sweeeet!!! You're amazing, Ms Gerda! Atsme 💬 📧 16:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Read the 'DS reform' thread

Your comments were excellent and exactly correct. A few years ago I was of the opinion that Wikipedia was without exception the easiest and best way to inform myself, in broad strokes, about a well-known topic that I knew little to nothing about. That was until one day I decided to find out what [redacted] was all about, since I really had no idea and had heard it mentioned in a few different contexts. What I read that day utterly shook my faith in this website as a purveyor of NPOV content. Even though almost by definition I had no prior views on [redacted], the POV-pushing in the [redacted] article was so hamfisted, so blatant, so self-indulgent, that even as someone who didn't know anything about the topic I could tell it was written from an extremely, extremely skewed perspective. The article was locked into this miserable state by DS (or perhaps something else back then; these days it is definitely DS), so I could not change it even if I wanted to, indicating that various individuals with power had frozen the article in that horribly written state on purpose, obviously to lock in their preferred POV. I went off to Google in disgust and found other, less biased sources (which nearly all of the Google results were, including most of the sources cited by the Wikipedia article) and found much better reading on the subject. It would not surprise me at all if "stability" has indeed been achieved on that page, but in my view it would (and I mean this quite literally) be materially improved if a vandal blanked it and nobody noticed, it's that bad.

I was gratified to find your points in the DS reform discussion which very precisely matched my thoughts on how this fiasco came to be, particularly when it comes to good-faith admins who simply don't have the ability to recognize their own biases yet insist nonetheless that they do. Sadly, you seemed to be one of, what, two? commenters who understood or acknowledged the problem, so I have little hope that this will improve in the near future.

By the way, I have redacted the subject solely because I would fully expect to be attacked and harassed (by others, not you) were I to reveal absolutely anywhere that I do not care for the Wikipedia article concerning [redacted]. One perceives certain similarities to how you have been treated recently for being viewed as arguing for the wrong side of certain political issues. I commend you for speaking out nonetheless.

Anyway, hopefully it will help to know that there's someone else out there who sees it this way.

ShashakiroSH (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Atsme,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly recommended

Member of the Broadcasting Hall of Fame, former ABC News anchor Ted Koppel is interviewed on PBS. His explanation about today's news media not only supports most of what I've attempted to explain on WP, and at times have been challenged or castigated over, he presents it much more eloquently and with much more detail. He isn't under the pressure of getting dragged to AE for telling it like it is, which in the days of yore, was an admirable characteristic...long before the emergence of "political correctness", and censorship on Facebook & Twitter - you know, when US citizens were able to fully enjoy their 1st Amendment rights without offending someone somewhere. Perhaps it's time to rejuvenate some of the old didactic rhymes, like Sticks and Stones. Just a thought... Atsme 💬 📧 12:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I listened carefully to the entire interview, and I too found it very worthwhile. (And he certainly was prescient about January 6!)

I paid close attention to where he talked about what I think you are referring to, in terms of your own experiences on-wiki. Clearly, Koppel, you, and I all agree about the hazards of "clickbait" (and by extension, recentism). But I think that there are other ways in which you are incorrect about the comparison.

I'll start by saying that I've told you before that I wish that you would edit other topics and not American politics. But since you've raised the subject here, I'll be honest, as you know me to try to be. Koppel discusses the political beliefs of "mainstream media" in terms of maintaining the confidence and respect of the public. He is concerned about the potential loss of public trust. He finds fault with putting "news analysis" on the front page, but he does not fault the quality of journalism at the Times or the Post. He makes quite clear that he continues to see what he regards as excellent journalism, but laments the ways that journalists present themselves. In other words, he isn't saying that those mainstream journalists are doing sloppy journalism, but rather, that they act in a manner that undermines public confidence when they allow themselves to be interviewed.

What I've seen you post on-wiki tends to be about WP:RS, about whether mainstream news sources, the factual news reports in those sources, as opposed to their opinion pieces and analyses, should be cited by WP as factually reliable, and whether such sources should be treated as being equivalent to, for example, Fox News. You are talking about factual reliability, whereas Koppel was talking about professionalism and sensitivity to public perception. These are different things, and it is misreading Koppel to construe him as saying that mainstream news sources have become misleading. He very clearly rejects the idea that there should be equivalence between the versions of news coming from the likes of Fox and coming from the Times or Post. I've repeatedly seen you post the opposite of that. If that's not the way you intended it, then please understand that other editors have read it that way, and that is why they get angry at you.

Making a 180-degree turn, if we're talking about highly recommended, please let me recommend My Octopus Teacher, which just won an Oscar. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I learned early on that POV is the vantage point, for example, an article written in first person or third person whereas perspective is shaped by the reader's/writer's personal experiences, much of which is influenced by culture, one's physical traits, and overall, one's view of the world or idealistic epistemology. You and I obviously have different perspectives, and there's nothing wrong with that - it makes the world go round, and it's how we achieve NPOV on WP. What you gleaned from the interview is far different from what I gleaned. The following key points summarize my perspective and what I gleaned from the interview (excerpts without the hem-haws):

On the other hand, I think it is too easy for people to quite literally divide the press down the middle, uh, and establish quite easily who’s for and who’s against. And I think that is troublesome because it means that we have lost our capacity to be viewed as objective observers of what’s going on.
Yeah, I mean, it’s not as though, we’ve never had the opportunity to express opinions before. It’s just in the past we’ve limited those opinions to the op ed pages, and that’s no longer the case, and that I think is a step in the wrong direction.
...and it is only when the folks over at NBC decided that they were going to turn MSNBC into a liberal counterpart to what Fox was doing, that they started really improving their ratings and therefore also improving the amount of money they were making. I mean, let’s not kid ourselves. Donald Trump has been very, very good for the business of journalism.
You can’t watch MSNBC or CNN for that matter without seeing a whole bunch of spear carriers from the New York Times, from the Washington Post. I must tell you, and I say this to you and I, I see you occasionally on Morning Joe. When a reporter from the New York Times or the Washington Post ends up on one of those programs sitting next to Mika Brzezinski, it’s very hard for that reporter at that point to lay claim to absolute objectivity.
I don’t think democracy is being strengthened by it. Is it being undermined? Yes. I think that a democracy requires desperately needs what are widely perceived by people of all political stripes as objective sources of news. Otherwise, it’s too easy to dismiss what is being said by one side or the other simply because they don’t share your political point of view. Uh, you know, that doesn’t mean that network news or cable news or the major newspapers cannot be very tough in terms of the reporting they do. But I don’t think their reporters should be perceived as siding with one group rather than the other. I think that’s, I think that does undermine democracy. Yes.
I think the internet is, on one level, one of the greatest gifts to mankind that we can imagine; on another level, it is a weapon of mass destruction, and is being used as such.
And, and if you think the democratization of journalism is a good thing, I disagree with you. I don’t think it is.
...we are not immune to the laws of history and if we give up our protections, if we no longer value the rule of law and the appropriateness of journalism that is much heavier on objectivity than it is on opinion, if we don't value those things appropriately, then I fear not that we’re going to become Nazi Germany or fascist Italy, but it’s not going to be a happy place. And we have seen periods like that in this country. The McCarthy era in this country in the early 1950s was much closer to that; people lived in fear. People lived in fear of expressing honest opinions out loud, so we’ve, we’ve come dangerously close in the past and I think we are at least in a position today where it’s not beyond the question.

Tryptofish, I meant to post this weeks ago but...oh well, here it is now. Atsme 💬 📧 15:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

And that sums it up for me. Yes, I saw My Octopus Teacher, and in fact, have had similar encounters with squid. Atsme 💬 📧 21:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

My reason for commenting was to address the fact that other editors sometimes react to you with hostility, and as a wiki-friend, I hope that I can be helpful to you in understanding how that happens and how to avoid it. That's where I was coming from.

Those were lucky squid!

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel that I want to add something more. You are quite correct to quote him in #4 about "spear carriers", and he certainly did say that. I think that's at the nub of where you and I both hear him saying the same things, but we draw partially differing conclusions from it. I can see your point, that he is implying that the Times and Post have POVs and those reporters are going to MSNBC and CNN to spear-carry, to crusade on behalf of, a political agenda. That's not unreasonable. I hear you there. And I'll even agree with you that, when those reporters express personal opinions on cable channels, those are actually their opinions. But I think that if you take Koppel in context, he isn't saying that news pieces in the Times and Post used to be reliable in the good old days but now are biased and inferior journalism. What you quote in #2 isn't him saying that opinions that used to be on the Op-Ed page are now inserted into news stories on Page 1, but rather, that they are being inserted into news analysis pieces that are now on Page 1 but didn't used to be and shouldn't be now. And that the spear carrying on cable is being done in the capacity of talking heads on cable, but not that there is spear carrying in news stories (as opposed to news analysis). He is saying that this is a bad thing for journalism because, as in #5, it harms public respect for the journalistic profession. But I don't think that one can go from that, to claiming that Koppel now regards news stories from the mainstream press as being unreliable. Indeed, he says explicitly that he still sees excellent journalism. And he clearly does not say that the solution to the problem is to equate conservative sources with liberal ones. Indeed, he says explicitly that he deplores the kind of coverage that gives equal time.

I'm not going into that kind of detail because I want to argue about what Koppel did or did not say. I'm doing it because I think it's asking for trouble to take what he said, and use it to argue on en-wiki that mainstream news media fail WP:RS or that every mainstream report needs to be balanced with a right-wing one for WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A different venue for Ted: Koppel described how the 1987 abolition of the fairness doctrine – a policy that required licensed broadcasters to present controversial issues in an “honest, equitable and balanced” way – allowed for opinion to be normalized into the news cycle. Under the auspices of free speech, partisan and bombastic political commentators have been able to broadcast nationally, Koppel said. In addition, networks framing news by political affiliations have also emerged.
Meanwhile, market pressures increased, newsrooms shrank and a 24-hour news cycle emerged. As news came faster, the speed to deliver information mattered more than fact-checking its accuracy.
Disrupting traditional news media further was the public expansion of the internet in 1991. For the first time in recorded history, millions of people had direct to access to a tool for mass communication, said Koppel.
He is saying what I've said time and time again, Tryp. I guess it's more obvious to me because I was in the throws of the paradigm shift starting with the transition from analogue to digital, broadcast to cable, and printing presses to the internet. I was asked to write a craft improvement article about where things were headed in an effort to help prepare my colleagues in the industry. In today's echo chamber, are we even dealing with the types of executives and managing editors who reflect the same journalistic ethics as an Abe Rosenthal or a Ted Koppel? Is that how you perceive Bezos, or any of the big 6? I certainly don't see them as passive investors. One doesn't invest that kind of money into media to be passive. Anyway...I am quite pleased that Koppel is making the rounds and teaching. I hope a lot of what he is saying will stick in the impressionable minds of aspiring young journalists, and hopefully some of our editors. There's no question that there are good journalists out there but knowing the difference requires some level of experience, or at least knowing the difference. Some of our editors are young enough to not have that type of experience in order to recognize the difference - the kind of opinion journalism we see now is all they've ever known. How could they not become, as Koppel put it, "predisposed to favor facts that confirm existing biases"? It is not easy to enter into the "neutral zone" and become a politically detached pragmatist with the snap of your fingers. I liken it to an actor getting into character and like actors, some journalists are just better at it than others. Atsme 💬 📧 01:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you completely with regard to the "Big 6". And everything Koppel says in the Stanford source is something I can also agree with. And I agree with you on many points about the changing nature of the news media. (You were also there for Gutenberg and the Bible, weren't you? Just kidding.) What I'm trying to get across isn't really about that, but rather, about navigating the editing environment at Wikipedia. To get from what Koppel says, to saying let's be careful about recentism at Wikipedia, that's fine. To get from what Koppel says, to saying let's avoid relying on a single news source for something that is subjective, that's fine. But to get from what Koppel says, to saying that mainstream news sources should collectively be regarded as unreliable sources, to saying that Fox News and The New York Times are equivalent in terms of reliability, to saying that for each example of a conservative who has done something wrong we must give a balancing example of a liberal who has also done so, down that road lies a topic ban or even a site ban. If it's a hill you want to die on, that's your choice and I cannot stop you, but I worry for you, out of friendship, and I don't want anything bad to happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I said those things or are you saying it as generally speaking? Do you have diffs of me saying such things? It will help refresh my memory. I recall saying to exercise caution, and that I don't know of any news source that is flawless - stuff along that line. I may have quoted a source that said something close to what you're saying about Fox & the NYTimes (jokingly) but again, show me the diffs. My comments have consistently been taken out of context with accusations that I said things that were actually misinterpretations of something I said. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

To some extent, I'm saying it as generally speaking, but what I'm definitely not saying is that I'm accusing you in the manner of making charges to be used against you at a noticeboard. So let me say, loud and clear, that nobody reading here should take what I said as justifying a claim that "Tryptofish said that Atsme said..." in some kind of complaint. Make a complaint like that, and I'll respond: "No, I didn't say that."

What I can say is that I've seen, as you have, other editors accusing you of stuff like that. And I'm not at all certain that diffs of you saying those things do not exist. Offhand, I do remember quite recently when I commented here that it would be "a false equivalence to include a Democrat to balance out a Republican (or vice-versa), and doing so simply for balance would, in fact, be a BLP violation, and would be a false NPOV." And I think that you had made those edits. I'm pretty sure that I remember you arguing against the "mainstream media" and defending Fox News in various other settings. If you were joking, it may not have been clear to other editors that that was all you were doing.

I'm definitely not threatening you. But I'm worried about you, as a concerned friend, and you opened the door to this when you began this discussion by saying in part: "most of what I've attempted to explain on WP, and at times have been challenged or castigated over". Had you not related Koppel's comments to that, I would not have raised any of this. But that's what I'm concerned about, not about what Koppel did or did not say (which really doesn't interest me that much). If – if – diffs exist, then someone who is hostile to you can always find them, and if they are not obvious jokes, use them. And I don't want you to make it easy for someone to try that. If stuff can be taken out of context, then be careful to make things very clear. It can be better to understate than to overstate a case.

I'm flashing back to when I used to warn Jytdog not to keep acting like Inspector Javert. And we both know how that ended up. I'm not trying to scare you or upset you (or piss you off at me!), but I am trying to caution you. It ain't worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and as you know, I do so appreciate your input - and that includes the diff you mentioned above. I actually do read and study various views - it's inherent in my nature. And with that in mind, I ask that you relate to what Koppel said about front page (our lead) vs a page further back (body text) - which is what I believe to be relevant to the diff you mentioned. And then there's this which supports RECENTISM. There are lots of variables and options when editing, as you well know, and perspective plays a very important role. Aside from that, what I remember most about our interactions is how well 3 editors collaborated when we worked on a particular biography. I wish there were more of those instances - it was as close to perfect collaboration as one can get on WP, and still have opposing views. It was incredible! I will also never forget your knowledge and insight to the unfortunate case about Javert. As a woman who felt under attack, I cannot put into words how much I appreciated your intervention. I chose correctly when I went to you for help...and here we are today, nearly a decade later. I can't fault you without taking all of the aforementioned into consideration. Atsme 💬 📧 22:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What a beautiful and thoughtful reply! I truly appreciate all of that, and I send all those kind words right back at you. (Goddam, a decade later! That's true, and I'm beginning to feel like we both were there for Gutenberg. But maybe that was just Steve Guttenberg.)

A thought that crossed my mind as I read that, is that it can look misleading if you end up defending one "side" more often than the other. In isolation, there's nothing wrong with cautioning against BLP violations regarding Whitaker, but one should be careful not to appear to always caution on behalf of conservatives and never on behalf of liberals. Even if that means throwing out the occasional "me too" in a discussion that is already going that way. It's an odd thing about Wikipedia, but arguing for NPOV in something where the overwhelming majority of other editors have a POV tends to come across as the opposite: the "consensus" is NPOV and the WP:1AM editor is POV. I'm not saying that this characterizes your experience, but I do think it's something to be aware of.

Let's talk instead about cephalopods sometime.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And this is the kind of editing we deal with just about everywhere. I considered it more than just trivia, and obviously lead worthy but consistency of presidential age which is well covered by media is suddenly not important? Being the oldest elected president in history is not important? Also keep in mind that articles about Democrats don't usually need fixing for BLP vios. They tend to be subject to scrubbing as noted by media. Atsme 💬 📧 13:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that cephalopod. I don't think that's an NPOV issue, just a due weight one, and not a big deal one way or the other. It could be argued to some extent that the editor who reverted you was actually seeking to put less emphasis on something that might be regarded by some as reflecting negatively. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Negative? Why? It's in the lead of Ronald Reagan. I think what I added was informative, and I also believe that it's DUE - those are things our readers want to know - but I'm not going to edit war over it. If it's negative as you perceive, then it doesn't belong in the Reagan bio or with reference to Trump, either - and that has nothing to do with being liberal, or mistakenly thought to be something else. It's rather ironic to think that an editor can be neutral everywhere else on the project except in AP; that makes no sense to me. I'm clearly not a SPA, although early on, I've been accused of that, too. It's being used as an excuse in the absence of a better argument. You already know my involvement as a reviewer, GA/FA/NPP/AfC. I participate on the lead improvement team - that's what I do. Strong biases in AP are an indication to me that we might be dealing with COI issues, or editors who should not be editing AP at all because of their strong political views, especially if they're launching PAs against other editors (and referring to someone's political affiliation to denigrate them is a PA). I live on Bonaire and to hell with American politics, although I do have some financial interests and family in the US. It may be that we ignore such issues when they align with the ideological bias on Wikipedia and our own perspectives, but that doesn't make it right, Tryp. Good collaboration not only requires neutrality, it requires an open-mind and some social skills. Good editors should not avoid editing any topic on WP out of fear of being t- or site-banned. That, in and of itself, goes against everything WP represents, leads to bullying and eventually homogenization of the project, and that will surely lead to a loss in revenue and readers.
All the over-the-top negative material in our AP articles will not change anyone's ideology which is deeply rooted epistemologically. In fact, it will more than likely have the opposite effect as The Atlantic ascribed in How Rhetoric on the Left Fuels Bigotry on the Right. I probably wouldn't have gone quite that far or used those particular examples, but it's close enough. I also noticed that they quoted Bari Weiss, a former journalist with The NYTimes. I actually enshrined what happened to her in my quote section above. I just hope WP's political articles won't be the cause for the rest of our articles to become a laughing matter. We've worked too hard at getting articles promoted to GA & FA for them to be seen in such a bad light. But then the reality of WP is that we are considered an unreliable source, and while I consider Project Med the type of project we should all model after, it's highly unlikely others will see it the same way. Robert Fernandez pretty much nailed it in his article The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta. And life goes on. Atsme 💬 📧 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
My tldr: meh.

My full answer: If you are using President Alzheimer as the counter-example, you are asking the wrong fish. (So there!) And if you think that Wikipedia (or the real world, for that matter) is about right and wrong, you are bound to be perpetually disappointed. I find it amusing that you referred to WP:MED that way (although I understand what you mean about RS). It was dealing with the pains-in-the-medical-anatomy there that led me to my quasi-retirement from Wikipedia last year. Wikipedia is chock-full of difficult people, and I think it's getting steadily worse. One option is to take a stand and fight where one can, and I've done that sometimes, but another is to blow it off – and I can say from experience that the latter is a lot better for one's peace of mind. It's only a goddam website. Having Donald of Orange's age in the lead is what I regard as no big deal, and having uniformity amongst other presidential bios is even less so. I don't care. Ain't worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that you don't necessarily have to entirely avoid editing AP out of concern over possible repercussions, but at a minimum pick your fights carefully, and consider carefully how you say things. And for what it's worth, Jytdog used to think that no one should have to step back from fighting editors he regarded as violating policy. Just sayin', as they say. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

And if I may engage in a bit of mugging: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Atsme for posting the video of the squid, a lovely video that I can highly recommend! In my opinion, when humans cause so much planetary damage that we create another massive extinction event, it will be the cephalopods that evolve into dominance the way that mammals did after the dinosaurs. Insects, jellyfish, and cephalopods will be the survivors on a hot planet, and cephalopods will come to have the brains: already intelligent, sort-of prehensile limbs, and very fast reproduction times so they can evolve fast. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I took a look at a few of your recent edits, out of curiosity, and I hope that you don't mind that I did. I saw what you said at the Bannon talk page, specifically about hydroxychloroquine. And it upset me, a lot. You cited one paper, and I looked at it, and yes, it is a MEDRS-compliant systemic review. But if you look at the references cited at Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic, you can see that there are multiple equally MEDRS-compliant systemic reviews that come to the opposite conclusion. So MastCell was correct that you had chosen one source, but that source was not representative of the preponderance of reliable sources. If you are going to talk about scientific consensus, that's something that I do take very, very seriously. Providing "both sides" of a story is not a valid excuse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
First of all, there is nothing to be upset about. If you want to be upset about something, be upset with Elsevier and the authors of that systematic review (and keep in mind, I live in the Caribbean Netherlands which explains my choice). I simply mentioned that review, keeping in mind that it is not my place to pass judgment on a systematic review and it is certainly not any editor's job to judge all the systematic reviews for a Steve Bannon article, for Pete's sake. I was more concerned over what was being said about Dr. Yan, and I will say quite frankly that there is no love lost between me and the CCP. Secondly, you took the entire situation and everything I said out of context, which reminds me of a few others who do the same thing repeatedly. Thirdly, had it been a medical article, I would not be editing it. And finally, a conclusion is the place where one gets tired of thinking (to quote Martin Fischer), and you have obviously drawn the wrong conclusion about me, yet again. I'll simply respond by saying exactly the same thing I said to MastCell. You be who you are with your science background, and I will be who I am with my journalism background - and that's probably why news sources aren't medical journals and vice versa. It was never my intention to argue the efficacy of any drug for any reason...at least, not beyond cannabis being a potential sleep aid. Atsme 💬 📧 20:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, I went back and reread what you said, taking this into account. And here's the thing. It sure sounds like you said it the way that I interpreted it. If you intend to be understood one way, but find that people are taking what you said to be something different, and it happens repeatedly, then that's a good time to reconsider how you are saying it. Nobody wants you to judge all the systemic reviews for a non-science article, but there was no need for you to even raise that part of the issue, and you left yourself open to MastCell and me taking what you said, the way that we both took it. This is what I was trying to say earlier, about choosing your fights. And I'm not upset with Elsevier (well, actually, I am, but for an unrelated reason: they vastly overcharge university libraries for print copies of their journals), because that's how science works. And that's why MEDRS does not only call for reviews instead of primary studies, but calls for evaluating the preponderance of sources in cases where there are multiple conflicting reviews. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, whatever. My comment there was about a news article originally dated Nov 20, 2020 and I doubt the authors of that piece have medical degrees, or even come close to being experts about medicine, but I could be wrong. NYT provided short bios at the end of the article. I also noticed Amy Chang Chien (based in Taipei) contributed to the research, and interestingly she covers news in mainland China and Taiwan for NYT. From 2017 to 2020 she worked for The Time's Chinese website in Beijing, where the CCP is headquartered. Anyway - the systematic review I mentioned was published online 2020 Oct 5 which is about a month before the NYT article. What are the dates of the syst revs you're talking about? There's also a Cochrane Database Syst Rev. dated 2021 Feb 12 wherein the authors' conclusion in their Abstract (to which I limited my reading) stated the following: These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results. Perhaps you, & whoever else agrees with you that multiple equally MEDRS-compliant systematic reviews came to an opposite conclusion, should contact both Elsevier and Cochran for daring to publish material that is clearly in opposition to all those other syst revs, and for not excluding that drug entirely. Ironically, the sys rev I cited did state: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. They said "all reports"!! Perhaps we should remove that journal from MEDRS, and maybe even the publisher? Isn't that what we do on WP when RS publish fake news or do we handle it differently for medical stuff, like maybe downgrade them as publishers of fringe? I'm also wondering if maybe "less likely", "not excluded entirely" and "probably sensible" are what one would call medical speak? Just curious...since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, ~~and~~ that language may confuse even some of our highly intelligent editors. Atsme 💬 📧 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I think "OK, whatever" is about where I'm at too. The reason that, no, I'm not going to fault any scientific publisher for "daring" to publish differing interpretations is that science does not work by saying that whoever published the most recent study is The Absolute Truth^TM until that absolute truth gets completely upended by the next study that comes out. And WP should not regard that as a reason to label something as "fringe". It's quite true that something like the COVID 19 pandemic, which is playing out in real time, is something where the scientific understanding thereof is also playing out in real time, and therefore changing over time. But a common mistake made by non-scientists, including Wikipedia editors, is to think that it's clever to draw the conclusion from that, that we should engage in the false equivalence of saying that nothing is settled yet, so we should treat every new publication as equally valid. It's quite understandable that some people would think that, because superficially it sounds like it makes sense, but it's actually not clever at all.

There's a way that scientists, working inside of science, work with this, and a somewhat different way that the public, and Wikipedia editors, would be best advised to work with it. For scientists, there are tons of arguments that go on, behind the scenes. It's entirely possible that, when the systemic review you cited got peer reviewed before publication, one of the reviewers said "this thing is junk, so don't publish it", and another reviewer said "I have my doubts about this, but I'd recommend publishing it, because we ought to get a dissenting view out there where other specialists can debate it", and the editor at Elsevier decided to publish it for that reason. And it's quite likely that letters to the Editor or follow-up scientific analyses will take this review to task for various flaws. (The Cochrane piece you quote sounds like it's saying something like that, and saying that there isn't yet enough data to justify using the drugs, although studies should continue.) Rinse and repeat.

So what should the public do? Decide that scientists have their heads stuck up their butts and shouldn't be trusted? No. (At least I hope not, wink, wink.) For Wikipedia, this is where MEDRS comes in, so long as one understands MEDRS correctly. If there are only primary studies, we avoid including that content in mainspace, at all, until it gets more settled. If there is one good review, we go with that, at least for the time being. If there are multiple reviews, we try to examine them as a whole, and try to go with the preponderance of reliable secondary sources. Yes, we prioritize newer sources as they emerge over time. But I said newer sources (plural), not newer source (singular). If there is a preponderance of MEDRS sources saying one thing, and one new MEDRS source comes out and says the opposite, it's best to wait and see before turning the ship around. If, perhaps, what emerges over time is that the preponderance of newer reviews are agreeing that the older reviews got it wrong, because of newer data emerging or newer ways of better interpreting that data, then Wikipedia should update our content to reflect that. But if one review emerges that later looks like it was just a momentary "blip", then it does not deserve much weight. For how MEDRS is playing out right now, see Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I must confess...I was being facitious, but it paid-off; your response was enlightening. It's amazing how much one can learn by making a simple comment on an article TP about an article in the NYTimes, or by simply citing a systematic review in a quality journal published by a quality publisher. Why go to Harvard when one can learn so much right here on my front porch? And speaking of the NYTimes, this article was recently brought to my attention. You can posit on the science if you've a mind to, but my focus began further down the page beginning with the sentence, "To these serried walls of silence must be added that of the mainstream media." And in the next paragraph came, "Science reporters, unlike political reporters, have little innate skepticism of their sources’ motives; most see their role largely as purveying the wisdom of scientists to the unwashed masses. So when their sources won’t help, these journalists are at a loss." I think it's a good thing when journalists keep digging whether scientists or politicians like it or not. I was very fortunate to have had wonderful interactions with scientists back when I was active. I even got a chance to work on a NOAA research vessel in the Great Lakes, (off-hours it was more like a party boat), but we still got our work done. I haven't done any investigative research on my own about COVID and quite frankly, I don't have the energy or desire to do that anymore so I simply read what others have researched. My mind is like a sponge...unfortunately, there are those times when it can be more like one that sat out in the sun too long. Atsme 💬 📧 00:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
My mind increasingly feels like a sponge that got left in the kitchen sink too long, but I'm always happy to try to enlighten. And that article by Wade is a great example of something where we just don't know yet. It's still evolving. From my perspective, there has been a perennial problem with how scientists communicate with journalists. Partly, it's because most scientists are bad at communicating to anyone who isn't a fellow specialist. Part of it is the deplorable practice of science by press conference. And part of it is how some media organizations tend to seek stories that will interest readers (or bait clicks), so that when a science reporter comes across something that sounds catchy or quirky, they will gravitate towards that, as opposed to something "boring" that is really solid science. (And university researchers are constantly pressured by deans and provosts to do research that will get press coverage for the university – a dirty little secret.) That's why we incessantly get stories on how "red wine is good for you", followed by "red wine is bad for you", followed by... you get where I'm going. (I've decided it's good for me, and anyone who disagrees can go eff themselves.)

Getting back to Wade's piece, I skimmed it, and I think he did a very good job with it. I've been following news reports about "lab escape versus food market", but I haven't been reading the scientific literature about it. And I, too, believe that we don't know yet, and either is possible. And the Chinese government's control of what investigators do or do not see sure doesn't help. And Science reporters, unlike political reporters, have little innate skepticism of their sources' motives; most see their role largely as purveying the wisdom of scientists to the unwashed masses. So when their sources won't help, these journalists are at a loss.: that's exactly what I was getting at in the first paragraph of this comment. It's true, and in fairness, it's at least as much the fault of the sources as the fault of the journalists. The paragraph that stood out to me, however, was Science is supposedly a self-correcting community of experts who constantly check each other's work. So why didn't other virologists point out that the Andersen group's argument was full of absurdly large holes? Perhaps because in today's universities speech can be very costly. Careers can be destroyed for stepping out of line. Any virologist who challenges the community's declared view risks having his next grant application turned down by the panel of fellow virologists that advises the government grant distribution agency. At universities, speech can be costly. Yup. Nice, huh?

If you ever get interested in reading a book that includes a balanced examination of how the scientific profession interacts with journalists, I can recommend The Secret Life of Science by Jeremy Baumberg. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds interesting; I'll give it a read. I'm sure it will provide a totally different perspective from my own first-hand journalistic experiences with scientists/researchers, some of whom would ramble-on nonstop, whereas others were either quite guarded, or extremely entertaining but those are stories to be told at the pub or at the next WikiCon, if there ever is a next one. I did work closely with scientists in academia (molecular geneticists, and other related disciplines) but had more opportunities to work with government employees (earth sciences, oceanography, fisheries science, etc.) and occasionally with a few corporate-types who worked for Dow Chemical, and other industrial giants. All-totaled, government scientists were the most fun, both male & female, young & old! I made a lot of friends back then, and I'm happy to say most are still friends today. Some were much older than I and are now deceased but their memories live on...like Serge Doroshov, and my longtime friend Kim Graham, whose widow & adult children are still friends. Of course, I will never forget the sweet and personable Charles Herzfeld, who was once my neighbor, and I think positive thoughts everyday for my other neighbor, Dominque, who is battling cancer; those are a few of the names that quickly come to mind. You know, Tryp - when all is said and done, the only thing we leave behind that really matters and surpasses the material things in our lives, is our character. Atsme 💬 📧 20:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
"We just don't know yet". Heh, if you still think it started at that wet & wild animal market, I have a bridge to sell you. It, as Wikipedia, just isn't finished yet. But take a look at the list of highest bridges to behold some of China's engineering marvels that are taming their vast mountainous backcountry. Colorado's Royal Gorge Bridge was the highest for decades, but now it's fallen to the lowly rank #24. wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG, I just noticed there's a whole Wiki for that! http://www.highestbridges.com/ wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
About where COVID comes from, I, for one, never said that I thought that it came from the market. I didn't say that I thought it came from there, and I didn't say that I didn't. If you are not in the category of "don't know yet", well, let's pin a rose on you. As long as you don't claim to be a reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh my, Tryp..."never said" doesn't matter on WP - it's how it is interpreted that matters, remember? Per your advice to me: "It sure sounds like you said it the way that I interpreted it. If you intend to be understood one way, but find that people are taking what you said to be something different, and it happens repeatedly, then that's a good time to reconsider how you are saying it." I can relate to that in it's entirety but then your response makes me think, "Do as I say, not as I do." ^[FBDB] On the other hand, while I understand & sincerely appreciate your concerns about being misunderstood, I am of the mind that I have been purposely targeted (and HOUNDED by editors whose only purpose on WP is to RGW and those who like to flex their might) along with the occassional WP:POV railroad via the use of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #13, which is traditionally used in politics. (PS: it makes me cringe when you compare my actions to those of Jytdog's. I exercise restraint relative to profanities, I have done my best to be polite, never vengeful, and certainly have never doxxed anyone.) Of course I'm not including you because I truly believe you are an exception and are being sincere, and I actually do appreciate your input because it keeps me on my toes when I become the target of PAs by those who show ill-will and wish to cause me harm. As for the root cause of many problems we face on WP, anonymity takes the lead - it emboldens people - and it opens the door to WP:POV creep, ideological biases and gender bias on Wikipedia - all of which could arguably be considered inherent in a male dominated topic area, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL, Atsme, you got me! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Your reply made me smile, even blush a little , but above all it supports everything I've ever believed about your character.🍻 Cheers! Atsme 💬 📧 16:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
That's me, a real character! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Good'un, Tryp. Here's one back at ya from W.C. himself! "You can't trust water: Even a straight stick turns crooked in it." ~ W. C. Fields His persona is what made his jokes, and he played the part well. "Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people." Atsme 💬 📧 21:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I LOL!

A much better approach would be to put the POV warriors to use productively by my making them attend WP:NPP school under the guidance of NPP teachers who have promoted and/or reviewed GAs/FAs.

I laughed out loud at this and woke my cat up from his 18th hour of sleep. I'm not kidding, but I actually proposed this idea many years ago. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

- I wondered if anyone would catch it. Often, my levity is either overlooked, not understood, or unappreciated. When the thought of NPP school first hit me, I spewed coffee and just had to share it. I'm sure the additive in my coffee may have helped provoke it. Bailey's makes all the difference in a cup of coffee, and on one's outlook for the rest of the day. Atsme 💬 📧 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You know we disagree about almost everything politically, but hot damn, that's actually some really good advice. I'd !vote for making it a requirement for editing in AmPol. 6 months experience doing NPP and extended confirmed rights would cut the bickering down by a good chunk. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 17:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants -

Just curious...does "hot damn" have the same meaning as "dammit to hell"? Atsme 💬 📧 19:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's actually in the dictionary! It means the same as "damn", but in a good way. And has no relation to Hel (which only has one L) because hel is cold and dark and my niece runs the joint. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG! So we've actually seen Hel freeze over! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, every winter. It gets cold near Niflheim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Hel - you don't say!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Niflheim is the noise I make when I sneeze. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Gesundtheit.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

04:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think MPants just cussed at me in Norse. Atsme, judging by those two images, I can only imagine what you think of me. But you left out the one with the tin-foil hat. (All of the preceding is ^[FBDB].) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What a fish sneezes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I was not. But if anyone ever says "Gamla vis Hruga uskit'r," to you, feel free to start throwing hands. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Gesundtheit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I can only take credit for one of those images, Tryp. You'll have to thank MPants. I'm just sitting here thanking my lucky stars that all the models in the pictures are fully clothed. Atsme 💬 📧 01:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The models are grateful for that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What's that? Atsme wants loads of pictures of nude, muscular men on her page? I'll get right on that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

New WaPo headline: Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Talk page of blonde Wikipedia female editor ~~adorned~~ plastered with images of muscular nudes by anonymous editor who wears pants. Atsme 💬 📧 20:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Atsme: get off your lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG!! Dinner went all over my laptop I was laughing so hard!!! Atsme 💬 📧 22:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's cute that you assume I'm wearing pants. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I just about lost my dinner when Atsme posted that photo of MPants (left). Seriously, how do I un-see it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I wish I had abs like her... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

May thanks

Thank you for improving articles in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank YOU, sweet Gerda! And THANK YOU for all the effort you put into building the encyclopedia and making WP a better place. Atsme 💬 📧 00:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

See my talk today, - it's rare that a person is pictured when a dream comes true, and that the picture is shown on the Main page on a meaningful day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyediting Request

I recently stumbled upon an article on the New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, and my god is it horrible. All it took was a couple of editors and the entire article turned into mess. I think this article needs huge cleanup, and it would be kind if you copyedited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Saffron (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NPP request

Moved to User_talk:Atsme/NPP_trainingPS

– Moved to proper venue. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to request training for the NPP academy. Best regards, Pink Saffron (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, Pink Saffron!! We need good patrollers. I will ping you when I get everything set-up. Atsme 💬 📧 22:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)