Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck

Comment by Smokefoot

Although the proposal seems well intentioned, my advice is that people paid by a for-profit publishing house should avoid editing that benefit the publisher. If the RSC is sincerely dedicated to enhancing Wikipedia, vs enhancing their image and profitability, they could dedicate their energies to many other themes that present no conflict of interest. If RSC is non-profit, then my comments do not apply as strongly, although a COI remains. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from proposal page to here. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a registered charity (number 207890); in other words, non-profit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work for a non-profit institution (a state university in the US). I would feel uncomfortable contributing content on my university, its people, or its products. I do so on rare occasion, but cautiously. In my view, doing so would be a COI. We can all imagine the deluge if all staff at non-profits kicked into high gear writing about their employer.---Smokefoot (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sense of discomfort is quite appropriate. While a charity may not have an profit motive, staff there could still benefit in job security, remuneration, or prestige when revenues or visibility increase. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So... you have no comments on the merits of the proposal? Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnbod

Yet perhaps they might make a profit on publishing this, I don't know - for Merck it was presumably intended to be profitable. That's not a key issue for me. The three templates have been around since 2005/09/10 respectively, & I see no issue with them being merged and updated, and existing references using them updated. But they aren't used very often. Is it intended to add them systematically as part of this project? And add them to infoboxes? If these were the case, I'd want to see clear support from WikiProject Chemistry. I don't know how widely used the index is so can't judge. A lot of the uses as references seem to be by User:Edgar181, I notice. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have many times used the Merck Index as a reference for content that I add to Wikipedia's chemistry articles. I think it is a valuable and reliable source for information about chemical compounds. I don't believe I have ever used the template though for the references to the Merck Index I have added - there are quite likely many untemplated references that could benefit from standardization. Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the RSC to reformat references to the Merck Index into a single template form. However, I don't think it is appropriate for the template to include a link to a Merck Index web page that requires a paid subscription, as is currently proposed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to subscription-only websites, when we cite them, is common and standard practice. See WP:Highbeam, for example. Furthermore, {{Cite web}} requires a URL parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the end result would be RSC adding many (perhaps hundreds) of links to its own paid subscription service where the links didn't exist before. I don't think that is appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't add any new citations to Wikipedia; only update and standardise those that already exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm ok with that, and of course other editors adding new refs. But if the RSC project were adding new citations, I'd want to see support for that from the project. I don't quite follow Edgar's logic, if he's saying he uses a subscription source as a reference but doesn't want a link there. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I own a copy the print version and have added references to the book to Wikipedia pages. I do not have a subscription to the paywalled online version and have not included references to that. I just don't think it is a good idea for the RSC to introduce external links to a website that requires paying money to the RSC. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. Mind you, you had to buy the book, I presume. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the point of commenting on Edgar's purchase of the book. Usually if one is asking about COI, it exists and special care is indicated (as apparently going on here). As I mentioned to your colleague Mabbett (also paid by RSC for work at Wikipedia), one could imagine negative impacts if other publishers got involved in "helping out" at Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear why linking to a subscription-only source is inherently different to giving a page ref to a book. It's in the choice of sources where open ones ought to be favoured; once you've picked a a sub-only one I don't myself see a template link as a big issue. I always link to JSTOR articles I use, and google book extracts usually. I've expressed myself on adding extra references twice already. Why do you call AM a colleague? Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't see the harm in a link being included where references to the Merck manual already exist. It's more like citing a non-OA journal than a book, in that there's only one place to buy access and we're linking the user directly to it. But I'd imagine that most of the click-throughs would come from people with institutional access anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Merck has books, why not a template that points to them instead? They might be more accessible via public library than an online subscription. On the other hand, I suspect that many readers with an interest in following up on a Merck reference are also members of an academic community that already has an online subscription. In that case, a template pointing online would be useful to many of our readers. Either way, some sort of template would be useful given the number of references. Rklawton (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rklawton: The books do not have the most up-to-date information; only the website is being updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Project Osprey

(Seeing as other commenters have their own sections I'm guessing that's the style we want here).

I have a concern regarding content. Presumably the different versions of the Merck Index are different, and entries on a given topic may be added to, thinned out or rephrased between versions. As such changing all citations to the most current version risks changing them in such a way that they no longer support the statements they're being used to underpin. I don't have access to the online Merck Index and seems that few other editors do either, therefore error checking all of this is going to be difficult. I would however support a drive to convert all refs to CS1 style, potentially making use of the {{Cite book}} template via their ISBN numbers. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal includes this sentence: "Any data from earlier versions will be checked and updated as part of this process." That's the primary reason for the proposal: since the print editions are stale (and clearly not subject to periodic updates), this will ensure that the data concerned is as up-to-date as possible. In other words, the Royal Society of Chemistry are offering, as as service to the community, to carry out error checking on all data currently cited from The Merck Index. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this is being suggested a mutually beneficial arrangement? There'll be no improvement in accessibility to the lay reader but accuracy may be improved and in return all citations will now point to the new subscription service? --Project Osprey (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "in return", but of the citations pointing to the work cited, as required. Frankly, incoming links from Wikipedia are of little interest to my RSC colleagues, who are more concerned to have the correct data available to the public; outdated scientific data is in no-one's interest; indeed it reflects badly on both the Royal Society of Chemistry and Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottom line is whether or not it is acceptable for citation template to point to a non-profit, subscription based resource. I don't see how who actually does the work is relevant. To wit, if Wiki-gnomes get to it before some society does or vice versa, I don't much care. Personally, I prefer references to non-subscription sources, but we already have established that references to subscription based services have their place in Wikipedia. In the meantime, we owe it to our readers to keep our references as up to date as possible (with hopefully as little effort on our part as feasible), and a template to an online subscription reference seems the best way to go (until a satisfactory free source becomes available). Rklawton (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. for those unfamiliar, we have thousands and thousands of citations that point to subscription-only sources; we have a parameter for them built into citation templates (|subscription=yes in {{Cite web}}), and we have arrangements with many such publishers through the Wikipedia Library project, whose terms include making such links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that the RSC acquired Merck from another publisher a few years back. So these changes will involve RSC employees removing references going to the old publisher and replacing them with references going to them. Like it or not, its very easy to see a commercial interest there. I could further point out that the RSC publishes a huge number of books, journals and monographs etc the majority of which have always been theirs, so starting with the less clear-cut case of Merck was always going to raise some eyebrows. Even so; I'm going to assume good faith here. However, I do hope that that where possible some new content will be added and we wont just see (as other editors fear) a mass re-pointing of references. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue of who makes these edits is immaterial; the issue of potential CoI is resolved by discussing whether or not the edits are appropriate. In other words, if a neutral editor made these edits, would they be reverted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, that's just nonsense. The question of who edits what and why is the very heart of a COI case. As I've said I'm going to assume good faith but I'll probably also keep an eye on the changes. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary; our CoI policy opens "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." It continues "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". If it is agreed that these edits are in the interests of Wikipedia, then there is no conflict of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the Gordian knot

I'm inclined to AGF here, that the RSC, Merck and certainly Andy are all trying to improve WP. There are, however, a few distinct activities to be addressed. Most of these are far from automatic:

Check that the cited version supported the existing text;
Check whether the current Merck version still supports the existing text;
Revise the text to reflect any changes in the current Merck version w.r.t. the previously-cited one;
Independently assess that the use of a paywalled source is necessary to support the text (to be done by someone clearly not in COI);

If Merck might be willing either to release (or even to accept as fair dealing / fair use) some brief supporting quotations used to populate |quote= then the problem would become much simpler. Alternatively, a handful of Wikipedians with access could do the verification, then populate |accessdate=. The use of the template {{vn}} would ensure this didn't get accidentally overlooked. It appears here that the Index is licensed by Merck to the RSC only in the US and Canada, but that ought to be sufficient for WP purposes. Is the Index included under the so-far underutilized offer at Wikipedia:RSC_Gold? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible for #4 above to be done as a general thing, I'd imagine. But application might be restricted to those molecule that already use it. The partial license may not be an issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole proposal only extends to articles already citing Merck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LeadSongDog: The RSC Gold offer does not include Merck. AIUI, the RSC licence of Merck is global. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should this proposal be enacted

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to enact the proposal. The majority of the discussion focused on keeping references up to date and condensing multiple templates into one. AlbinoFerret 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the proposal to unify and update Merck citations, discussed above and outlined on the accompanying page, be enacted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. (Discussion has become moribund, and involved few editors, so I've raised a formal RfC). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Seems kind of obvious, to be honest; compared to the rest of the wiki, it's really hard to consider the supposed COI here to be a serious concern. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support consolidation of templates/references into one format, but I oppose including an external link to pages that require payment to RSC for access unless there is clear consensus from editors without a connection to RSC that such a link is useful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Edit: Additional concerns expressed below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Edgar181: For the purposes of COI I will point out that I work for the RSC, but I just wanted to make the point that even if a user doesn't have paid for access to the online product, they can perform a search or follow a link and see some basic information, for example, caffeine [1] --The chemistds (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at a bunch of Merck Index references, they tend to be used to support data (melting point, etc) that is not available without paid access. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pigsonthewing: This reminds me, I think druglead.com (linksearch) and drugfuture.com (linksearch), which are linked from many articles, may contain copies of Merck Index content and may be therefore be copyright violations. I was suspicious at one point and made a note of these two websites, but never followed up on it. Both websites are not responding to me today, but maybe this is something you could look into. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I've alerted the relevant colleagues. It is plagiarism of Merck possibly versions of The Merck Index before the RSC took over the product, so Merck are the copyright owners who would have to take action. There are 60 links to the two sites, in all. The sites should be blacklisted (I'll request that, separately), and the links removed. Are you suggesting that they should be replaced as part of this proposal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, if the links are in fact to webpages that contain data that comes from Merck Index, they should definitely be included in this proposal (and should be retargeted regardless of the outcome of this proposal). -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More information please I am not sure that I understand the proposal. Is the proposal only to replace three different citation templates with a new one? Why is it better to have a new template, "Cite Merck Index", than to add these citations to an existing citation template, like :template:Citation? Why in the examples are there listings of citations that use no template at all - will you also replace those kinds of citations with a template? You show one example replacement right now. Is that the most typical kind of replacement in this proposal? This proposal is to do something like that ~600 times, right? Or is there part of this that is significantly more than 600 actions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is to manually replace all citations (all templates, URLs, raw text) of outdated editions of the Merck Index, numbering below 600, with a new template, citing the latest, online, edition; while at the same time checking and updating the cited data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thinking about this a little more ... in the current proposal, if the reference includes citation to a record in a print edition, it appears that information will not be retained. This will be a net loss in terms of verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core principles. Print editions of the Merck Index are common in labs, libraries, schools, etc. In my experience, they are readily accessible to most chemists. Access to a paid online subscription, much less so. Based on the comment above suggesting RSC doesn't own rights to older print versions and only the online version, this raises additional COI concerns for me. RSC is proposing to remove links to a resource someone else owns (that most chemists have easy free access to) and replace it with links that to an RSC resource that requires paying money to RSC. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any "information not retained" would be outdated information (such as a boiling point refined after more recent experiments) and would be replaced with more up-to-date information, and a new citation. Merck are, of course, willing partners in the transfer of responsibilty for updating the index, to the RSC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The percentage of the print edition data that is actually outdated and replaced with new data in the online version must be quite small. If someone is already going to be "checking and updating the cited data", then perhaps it would be best to retain citation info to the print editions when the data is unchanged and deprecate the print citation when the data has been changed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You prefer us to tell our readers "this was correct in 1989" rather than "this was correct in 2015"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~This was a productive discussion, now you're just intentionally misstating me.~~ If the same data is available in an accessible source from 1989 as in an inaccessible source from 2015, then I prefer not to delete the 1989 reference. If other chemists agree with you that the additional 2015 reference is also helpful, that's fine with me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't my intention to misrepresent you; I asked a question. Thank you for the clarification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Some of the discussion earlier on this talk page bafflingly skirts the issue of whether the proposal makes Wikipedia better. As User:Rklawton says above, "we owe it to our readers to keep our references as up to date as possible (with hopefully as little effort on our part as feasible), and a template to an online subscription reference seems the best way to go (until a satisfactory free source becomes available)." Standardising citations with a template makes it a better encyclopedia- a "proper" encyclopedia wouldn't have that menagerie of citation styles. Linking to the most authoritative, up to date, actively-maintained source of information makes it a better encyclopedia. People using this Talk page to question whether Wikipedia should work with scholarly societies, or whether Wikipedia should cite paywalled sources, should take those discussions to more appropriate venues, because those things are already part of how we work. Thanks to Andy for his immense patience in answering questions about the proposal. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification please: if the proposal is enacted, will it cause citations of freely available material to be replaced by citations of paywalled material? Maproom (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It will replace citations of commercially-available but out-of-date printed resources with commercially-available but up-to-date web resources; while at the same time updating the cited data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.