User talk:Stringfellows

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, as part of the larger mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Everything starts with the mission - the mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors. (see WP:NOT)
We find "accepted knowledge" for biomedical information in sources defined by WP:MEDRS -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content. We read MEDRS sources and summarize them, giving the most space and emphasis (what we call WP:WEIGHT) to the most prevalent views found in MEDRS sources.
Please see WPMED's "how to" guide for editing content about health
More generally please see The five pillars of Wikipedia and please be aware of the "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" - reside in "Wikipedia space" where document titles are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:"). WP space is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - the document at WP:CONSENSUS is different from, and serves as a different purpose than, the document at Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we editors use them to collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any questions or problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VSA

Stringfellows, the Ukrainian journal you are referring to is a Russian copy of the actual study that I have listed. I recommend you view the study I have listed as you will see that the Ukrainian journal did not do the study.

A: the citation supplied is 'Chapman, J. (2012). "Field Evaluation of Effectiveness of VSA (Voice Stress Analysis) Technology in a US Criminal Justice Setting". Scientific Journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise, Number 57 (2012 Annual Issue), 238-250.' If the Russian version is just a translation, you should be able to show me that this 'Scientific Journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise' exists. Please send me a webpage or something. The Russian copy is from a journal title that translates into "Criminalistics and Court Expertise". So, the Russian version is the original, and the english version a translation. This also explains why your version says 'reprinted from...'

A: Stringfellows, you are confused about which document is the original. The Russian Language copy is just that, a Russian copy of the original document which was done first in English. I know this because I knew Professor Chapman when he was alive and conversed with him numerous times before his study was published. You are obviously jaded to voice stress and are therefore allowing it to affect your ability to read and understand written text. It is also obvious that trying to convince someone who is ignorant about what the truth is, is like giving medicine to the dead... one can expect no change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkr3515 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A: When I talk about the original, I mean the original publication. That would be the Russian version. If the English version is the original publication, please show me that this 'journal Scientific Journal Criminalistics and Court Expertise' exists. It should not be to hard to post a link to the journal's webpage? Also, I don't think that preferring the conclusion of the National Research Council over that of a methodologically flawed study published in a Ukrainian journal would classify as ignorant Stringfellows (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your efforts on the Voice stress analysis article. I am the anonymous coward who attempted to flag it for neutrality check in May 2016, but didn't have the stomach for the fight. I stumbled on it again today and was pleasantly surprised by the improvements (though I see from the history it took some effort). -AC 2A00:2381:1614:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Stringfellows. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are somewhat promotional with regard to Brain fingerprinting which is being commercialized by Brainwave Science, and you have also added negative content to Wikipedia about a competing approach, Voice stress analysis. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Stringfellows. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

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 if you have some connection with Brainwave Science, directly or through a third party (for example, a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. 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) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have no COI, and am not connected to either Brain Fingerprinting nor Voice Stress Analysis. I backed up all my edits with references to peer reviewed journal articles, and fail to see how this would qualify as 'blatant POV pushing'. Stringfellows (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I take it you that you believe strongly that brain fingerprinting is a very good way to detect lies, much better than other methods... is that accurate? Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Brain fingerprinting does not detect lies, it detects recognition of (crime) relevant details. As such, comparing it to other lie detection methods - such as voice stress - is cumbersome. The rationale behind brain fingerprinting - or concealed information testing in general - namely that relevant details elicit a p300 only in guilty suspects, is valid, and accepted by the scientific community. Even the harshest critics write 'Many researchers—the current authors included—share a positive view towards the use of ERPs for the detection of concealed information (see also Iacono 2008). The CIT is regarded a valid paradigm (Verschuere et al. 2011), the P300 waveform is a well-established phenomenon researched in over a thousand peer reviewed publications, and many studies on the use of ERP for the detection of concealed information have been published in leading peer reviewed journals.' (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11571-012-9217-x). It is the specific claims by Farwell (e.g., 100% accuracy) that the community contests. Stringfellows (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave this here, instead of getting into the weeds on content. Please just know that If you continue editing as you have, adding positive "balance" to one FRINGEy approach to "lie detection" and adding negative "balance" to another, this will not end up well for you. See you on article talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the entry is indefensibly positive, adding negative means balancing. If it is to negative, adding positive notes means balancing. As long as the content of what I enter is not disputed, I do not see a problem. And in a nutshel, there are a hand full of published empirical papers about brain fingerprinting showing above chance accuracy, which is a hand full more than about voice stress. So yes, brain fingerprinting is less of a fringe science that voice stress analysis. Stringfellows (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted my note was the kind of poor quality of your edits in conjunction with their very clear expression of a point of view. There is a learning curve in Wikipedia and I and everybody else knows this - you should too. With regard to sourcing please see WP:MEDRS for content about health/medicine/biomedical science, and WP:RS for everything else... and with respect to sourcing FRINGE concepts please see WP:PARITY. "Comment" publications (one of which you added as a source in WP to brain fingerprinting, and another of which you cite above) are not OK here. If you use only strong sources and summarize them neutrally it will help you and everyone else. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not offended, just curious. Which of my edits was of poor quality? Stringfellows (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note... you are just getting started here, and only time will tell how much time you want to devote to WP and what kind of editor you will end up being. There is a big, loose community of people (many of them anonymous) who have worked to create and build WP over the last 16 years, and we become known to each other over time, by what we do here in WP. There are several working subcommunities as well. There is one of people who work on health/medical content, organized loosely at WP:MED. There are people who work on FRINGEy concepts, who often discuss things at WP:FRINGEN. Some people work to help manage COI issues, and often deal with matters at the noticeboard for that, WP:COIN. There are many WP:WikiProjects (WP:MED Is one of them) where people with similar interests discuss issues that arise in the course of editing work.

I do wish you well, and do I hope you stick around and improve Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody gave you a welcome message. I added one above. It has a bunch of useful information in it. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]