e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help
- Thread starter Wallace_Frampton
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have read (or more like skimmed) through this thread after this post. But as this is your focus for this thread, I'd like to address it as someone that is concerned about how it reads.
I would like anyone reading this to justify why the lede needs the words found in the opening sentence of the second paragraph. Those words are: "The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain."
To me, that is what is bad and what is around 95% the problem with the lede and with the main article itself. Taking out that one sentence wouldn't change much, but taking out that theme from the page would drastically alter the topic page and for sure the lede. Bye bye 2nd paragraph. Bye bye 3rd paragraph. Bye most of the 4th (and final) paragraph.
If I go look at Wikipedia entry for Spoon, or Drinking Straw, or Cereal, there is none of this in the lede. Show me this other product on Wikipedia that needs to touch on benefits / health risks in the lede. You'd think Cereal would as that is something that is ingested and as it sometimes contains high amounts of sugar, it would make some sense. But that topic article does not. I tried thinking of topics that would be similar to what an eCig does at the most fundamental level, which is deliver something into the human body.
What I recall running up against is how eCigs are treated as a type of topic within Wikipedia framework. From what I recall (and I may be hazy on this point) is that they are treated as medical devices. Therefore, whatever all other medical device topics look like on Wikipedia in terms of article structure, that is what the eCig article must follow. Thus, the justification for why benefits / health risks are needed in the lede. Obviously, this whole tangent has so many sub-tangents to support to detract from why it must follow medical devices in structure, but as long as that is the prescribed structure, I don't know if the lede can ever be changed.
And I for sure think that it will be biased because of that prescribed structure. Thus, I conclude that the article will be an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and that editors for that page can only really hope to address claims that are not actually supported by source material and/or provide countering assertions that provide weight to certain claims (i.e. that are trying to influence reader to see eCigs as very risky).
First, and perhaps foremost, people who are pro-vaping and are anti-tobacco are people I eagerly debate with, and generally enjoy countering their anti sentiments. I see it as a very BAD thing to be anti tobacco while being a pro-vaping enthusiast. If it is only for personal reasons, then okay (or more like, whatever). But if it is for political reasons and/or you want to openly discuss why you think being anti-tobacco is helpful to vaping, I say prepare to debate. Depending how ignorant you show up on the issue, I may go very easy on you. I may even let you walk away thinking you "won."
But with regards to the Wikipedia article, being anti-tobacco and wanting to present as neutral as possible a topic page for eCigs is to me like being anti-cereal and wondering if you'll be accepted as an editor for that topic page. IOW, it really shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with what your job as editor is. If you are going to let your bias shine through and raise points on the page about "what is an eCig" by framing that around just how awful it is for people to use tobacco, then IMO, you really ought to not be editing that page. You ought to be restricted to only talking on the talk page and not be able to touch the editing page, or if you do, and you just can't help bring up your anti sentiments, you ought to be banned from the talk page and warned to not do that on any other Wikipedia page or you might be banned from Wikipedia altogether.
In similar vein, if you are vaper who is oh so happy that your first eCig got you off of smoking and you really think the Wikipedia article is great place for that to be known, that thousands of people have used this in similar fashion and are now smoke-free, then you too ought to be disallowed from editing the topic page and restricted to the talk area only.
For me, the article ought to be as simple as possible for "what is an eCig" and invite the reader to want to know more, to explore more topics. Those other topics could be (along lines of): newer devices (i.e. 2nd generation eCigs), health / safety risks, history, vaping culture, politics, legal, and so on and so forth. But keep the main article page simple, short and to the point. A 30,000 word essay is not very inviting, especially when some idiot editor is compelled to say, out loud mind you: "The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain."
I'll just let this be the last statement from you that I acknowledge.
To everyone else:
I set out in this thread with the goal of responding personally to everyone that posted, with the idea that it would foster a sense of "community". I've also mentioned a couple of times about "toxic elements" both as an informative measure as as a bit of a warning of "who to look out for". Their "win" comes at a lost for everyone else. It's their special place in life. No matter what happens with regard to this particular project, I recommend that people keep an eye out for these personality types and avoid any contact, social or otherwise, as they never beget anything other than failure, not just of themselves, but also of those around them.
I have found a parallel project that involves similar dynamics as the Wikipedia Article on e-cigarettes. Both situations could share a common solution and both involve working on wikipedia articles "off-site". While this attempt might have been better in terms of having direct contact with "grass roots" personalities, two off-setting negatives make this less than ideal. The first is obvious and the 2nd involves the ability to assert control when the dynamics are thrown into edge conditions. When the one person in the entire group that is doing the most work has the least amount of power, there is a problem. However there is no reason why both options can't run simultaneously. I haven't made a final decision yet, as the leadership of the 2nd project has not yet given me the green light, however if they do things will probably change in how I approach accomplishing the goal. I will post updates as they are available.
That's one of the reasons why I feel it's so important to get the discussion regarding changes to articles off that horrible wikipedia "Discussion Pages" interface and on to something more manageable like a forum thread. While it's true that some, and maybe most, average people off the street will read a thread until they get bored, or decide the HAVE to post something, and skip right to the end, more experienced forum participants instinctively know how to deal with this. First they don't do it themselves, second if they DO do it, they openly declare something like "I didn't read the whole thread, but..." and third when they see someone else posting that obviously hasn't read the entire thread, they will immediately post-up and correct them and head off any kind of spiraled conversation based on a false understanding.
My point is that, even "average folks" can self-regulate a thread (with help from moderators, etc...) but a team of experienced Editors are going to care too much about the estimation of their peers to do that too often. Eventually the team starts cracking down on the chronic offender (that doesn't read entire threads) and then it's a choice of "change or leave". So, while your concerns are valid, I think the solution will solve all of that and a lot more too, since a team of equally-informed Editors will not waste a lot of time over fighting over things that they haven't bothered to read, which is what can easily happen on Wikipedia. I do it myself. I hate, HATE reading those stupid "Archives". Seriously. Someone here wants to judge me on that, fine, but first go to Wikipedia and dig around in the Discussion Pages of any article and then ask yourself a question like "I wonder what they were talking about 2 years ago?" and then go try to answer that question. Guarantee it's at least an hour or two, and much more than that if you are looking for something substantive, like "Which Editor included THIS stupid comment?"
Why Wiki insists on forcing their staff to use outdated 1990's era technology is beyond me. The only theory I have that makes sense is "the crazy one", which is that they want to run-off anyone not willing to learn how to use that stupid GUI, in order to maximize their level of control and influence.
I stop taking the article seriously at exactly that point. As far as I'm concerned, I'm reading trash and drivel after that moment. (Good post and point, btw.)
My first answer is, When trying to bias an article it's important to not overplay your hand. Example if you are trying to persuade people away from Vaping, you don't come up with something HUGE and inflammatory and easy to spot like "Vaping CAUSES CANCER!" because people will know it for what it is: Manipulative Propaganda. Just not very effective propaganda. So, the smart play is to first make the situation uncertain, with a statement just like this one. So then, the dig through all the authoritative references and find a statement with the most "U" and "D" (Uncertainty and Doubt) in it, and that's your 1st sentence in the 1st paragraph in the Lede. The most important part of the most important part of the most important part of the whole article.
Feel me here? It's not an accident; that's an ON PURPOSE.
Someone went to a lot of trouble to make sure that anyone that reads that article has as their 1st impression that there's nothing about e-cigarettes that clear or easy to understand.
And so you have, on a psychological level, just exhausted someone's interest in reading, understanding the subject matter, etc... So they go outside, have another cigarette, and never think about vaping, or e-cigarettes again.
I was thinking of calling the "Umbrella Term" "Personal Vaporizing Devices" because it conveys the 3 most important points. They are personal, and for one-person only (vs. the sick-room "vaporizers" with camphor oil and eucalyptus, etc...), they are "vaporizing" something (and not necessarily just nicotine), and they are a "device" meaning a gadget, a small thing you hold in your hand, not a window-unit air conditioner, and not a respiratory apparatus like an oxygen mask and tank, etc...
And then, under the "umbrella term", c-cigarettes, "cigalikes" and other variations on the idea of vaporizing something could be included. This would serve to create distance between the thing (the device) and a cigarette, and in terms of PR, I would think that is desireable. I think in the beginning the marketing was necessary to convey that they were a cigarette alternative, but that association has boomaranged and back-fired as the metal toxins etc... have made the term "e-cigarette" as toxic in the minds of people as "cigarettes". It's easy to explain how a change in industry standards fixed the problems of metals in "vaping devices", but "e-cigarettes" will always be dirty and dangerous no matter what the industry does to try to influence people otherwise.
Thing for me, though, is that it's not my place. I'm just talking as a guy with an opinion here. I would think that whatever representative body(s) exist would have to come to some consensus on this idea, then publish something so that it could be included in the Wikipedia. So anyways, that's just my internal way of perceiving the "big picture".
E-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful than tobacco: UK study| Reuters
E-cigarettes: an evidence update - Publications - GOV.UK
Obviously this is a huge game changer. There's discussion on the Wikipedia article's "discussion pages" right now. Most of the editors involved are arguing in favor of doing NOTHING with this new report, saying things like wikipedia is "not news" and sitting on their hands. Pretending to be concerned about being "premature" and saying all sorts of other nonsense.
Bottom line, the article isn't going to change. It's going to sit there and sit there and sit there and sit there, just as it is, until these editors figure out a way to minimize the effect of this news to the greatest extent possible. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the pro-vaping crowd takes the advise and leadership from "one of their own" to ALSO do nothing and patiently wait until the perfect editor, with the requisite level of "maturity" comes along.
What I think people should do right now is read the article, at least the first few paragraphs, then read the article's discussion pages, and note who is trying to do things to improve the article, and who is trying to make the article remain as bad as it is.
Then, come back and reread this thread, and note who is trying to do things to improve the article, and who (here) is trying to make the article remain as bad as it is.
If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.
E-cigarettes: an evidence update - Publications - GOV.UK
Obviously this is a huge game changer. There's discussion on the Wikipedia article's "discussion pages" right now. Most of the editors involved are arguing in favor of doing NOTHING with this new report, saying things like wikipedia is "not news" and sitting on their hands. Pretending to be concerned about being "premature" and saying all sorts of other nonsense.
Bottom line, the article isn't going to change. It's going to sit there and sit there and sit there and sit there, just as it is, until these editors figure out a way to minimize the effect of this news to the greatest extent possible. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the pro-vaping crowd takes the advise and leadership from "one of their own" to ALSO do nothing and patiently wait until the perfect editor, with the requisite level of "maturity" comes along.
What I think people should do right now is read the article, at least the first few paragraphs, then read the article's discussion pages, and note who is trying to do things to improve the article, and who is trying to make the article remain as bad as it is.
Then, come back and reread this thread, and note who is trying to do things to improve the article, and who (here) is trying to make the article remain as bad as it is.
If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.
It's standard etiquette on any forum to read the entirety of a thread. 12 pages is not that long if English is your 1st language and you are proficient in it, particularly if you are interested in the subject matter and want to participate in a constructive and intelligent manner. However, reading the entire thread is not necessary if the only intent a person has is to cause disruption and remove focus from the topic to something that is not relevant to the thread. Usually, these types of attempts become more and more obvious, the more frequently they are attempted, and also usually, the best way to deal with those disinterested and non-constructive personalities is to ignore them.
As some other Posters in this thread have clearly demonstrated, almost nothing is about what it REALLY is, it's about what you can make people THINK it is. So calling it "overblown" does not mean it is "not believed". Personally, I fear the idea of toxic metal dust in my lungs. Before I read that study, I might have taken-up vaping, if I was also willing to risk becoming re-addicted to nicotine. However now, I'm not so sure I'd be willing to do it, and if I did, I'd not be happy or comfortable while doing it. Sure the danger is almost non-existent, but the IDEA is what is scarey, and not necessarily the metal particles. People are afraid the ideas of things and not so much the thing itself. So the fact that the danger is "overblown" only means that it's a more effective way of keeping people from using vaping devices. That's taking something bad (presence of metal particles) and making it WORSE (over-exaggerating the danger of metal particles).
So your statement isn't an argument in diminishing the possibility that government someday may regulate all vaping devices, it's an argument in favor that it's more likely that it will happen. The more they hype the danger, the more likely government will get involved.
Vaporizer is already in Wiki, and many of us know vaporizers for what they historically and presently refer to, which is not the image many vapers probably want to be associated with. They have been around long before e-cigarettes- mainly in California, Amsterdam, Prague...
A few comments on this.
On the technical side, you can't aim for zero metal content in vapor. It could be reduced I'm sure. But reduced to what level?
Some metals are very dangerous, some not so much. What we could hope for in a "safe" vape would be levels below some chosen limit for each metal. That's how safety standards work, not by a decision to not release metals. And those chosen limits would need to be based on a whole bunch of research which hasn't been done yet. I don't think we even know the current levels of the different metals in vapor, outside of some dubious experiments with cigalikes.
On top of that you have a chaotic, somewhat immature industry. Most of the hardware is built in the wild west of China. There are some large serious companies, and a lot of smaller shadier ones. A weird unregulated cloning segment that nobody really understands. Etc. How on earth do you think this industry is going to self-regulate? Who would come up with the regulations? How would you persuade 1000 Chinese companies who are developing new products at a dizzying pace in a country with few rules to conform to those regulations? And who would monitor conformance?
If it's an absolute requirement for our survival, and it's unattainable in practice, the outlook is rather glum.
My dear friend, I hesitated whether I should reply on your immature attack, but being at times alienatingly well intentioned I should point on two (just two) of your mistakes:
1. You were taught wrongly on "standard etiquette on any forum".
2. You write too long. Wikipedia (as well as forum readers) does not like excessive wordiness.
P.S. I am a proud alien, and English indeed is my second language.
I'm not sure if you are entirely correct with your second point seeing as you are the only one to point it out, and point number one, well i wouldn't know.
there is a reason that those who use electric forced air heating
are not dying in groves.
mike
Jman8's above post got me thinking.
someone should start a e-cig hobbyist page on the wiki.
it would be quite entertaining to watch all the editorial
bias and shenanigans going on right from the start.
from DIY juice to coil wrapping and, a cigalike wonk section.
no health related issues allowed.
mike
someone should start a e-cig hobbyist page on the wiki.
it would be quite entertaining to watch all the editorial
bias and shenanigans going on right from the start.
from DIY juice to coil wrapping and, a cigalike wonk section.
no health related issues allowed.
mike
I stand by the notion that the article, and its talk page, is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. If I were to go in and add something to the talk page today, it would be a statement that I as previous editor on that talk page find it very embarrassing. As that would likely be ignored or downplayed, I feel it best to just note that here.
Go click on the page for "nicotine patch" and witness to something that is at least a little similar to eCigs be treated to a main article page with under 500 words. I've already noted other entries, in this thread, where the topics include either items that are put into a human body or tools used to put things into a human body. All of them are short and to the point of "what is this."
But for some odd reason the eCig page is allowed to be a huge mess of "benefits and harms" noted in lede and then expounded upon throughout the main article page, as if that is standard practice on Wikipedia. Perhaps another Wikipedia reader/editor can find some other article page that has gone through the convoluted justifications for inclusions/exclusions that this article has, but I rarely see it. Global Warming topic comes to mind as another convoluted mess, and yet, that one makes sense to be a mess, while also makes sense to have the fork that currently exists called "Global Warming Controvery." And there are other forks such as "Climate Change Denial."
Heck, after typing up the word "Denial" in last paragraph, I'd be interested in creating a Wikipedia page just for the "ANTZ" topic. And as long as the eCig topic page remains a convoluted mess, I'd have zero issues linking the ANTZ page either to the eCig page or to the talk page for examples of what an ANTZ might do to delay progress in the everyday world.
But also do see that part of the inherent problem with the eCig talk page, and thus shortened main article, is when an editor is compelled to say something like this (found on the talk page - Public Health England section): "Cigarettes kill people every single day, and every day this article fails to provide necessary information about a safer alternative, it contributes to those deaths. The hand-wringers here should be thinking about how many people might be dead or dying as a result of being unable to find a safer alternative than smoking."
As long as benefits are seen as needing to be touted on the main article page, then I can understand why other editors are prone to weight that with risks / concerns. So again, I can't even decipher where I'd fit in on the talk page, other than as "actual Wikipedia editor." Yes, I have my own bias when it comes to eCigs, but currently see no reason why the main article page for eCigs needs to present an agenda, other than describing what is an eCig. Those who care about benefits and risks ought to have their own forked off page where they can argue over minutiae for another hundred years. And justifying statements like, "The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain."
You could literally apply that same assertion to every other article where something is put into a human body. Such as:
- The benefits and health risks of nicotine patches are uncertain
- The benefits and health risks of cereal are uncertain
- The benefits and health risks of using Wikipedia are uncertain
Go click on the page for "nicotine patch" and witness to something that is at least a little similar to eCigs be treated to a main article page with under 500 words. I've already noted other entries, in this thread, where the topics include either items that are put into a human body or tools used to put things into a human body. All of them are short and to the point of "what is this."
But for some odd reason the eCig page is allowed to be a huge mess of "benefits and harms" noted in lede and then expounded upon throughout the main article page, as if that is standard practice on Wikipedia. Perhaps another Wikipedia reader/editor can find some other article page that has gone through the convoluted justifications for inclusions/exclusions that this article has, but I rarely see it. Global Warming topic comes to mind as another convoluted mess, and yet, that one makes sense to be a mess, while also makes sense to have the fork that currently exists called "Global Warming Controvery." And there are other forks such as "Climate Change Denial."
Heck, after typing up the word "Denial" in last paragraph, I'd be interested in creating a Wikipedia page just for the "ANTZ" topic. And as long as the eCig topic page remains a convoluted mess, I'd have zero issues linking the ANTZ page either to the eCig page or to the talk page for examples of what an ANTZ might do to delay progress in the everyday world.
But also do see that part of the inherent problem with the eCig talk page, and thus shortened main article, is when an editor is compelled to say something like this (found on the talk page - Public Health England section): "Cigarettes kill people every single day, and every day this article fails to provide necessary information about a safer alternative, it contributes to those deaths. The hand-wringers here should be thinking about how many people might be dead or dying as a result of being unable to find a safer alternative than smoking."
As long as benefits are seen as needing to be touted on the main article page, then I can understand why other editors are prone to weight that with risks / concerns. So again, I can't even decipher where I'd fit in on the talk page, other than as "actual Wikipedia editor." Yes, I have my own bias when it comes to eCigs, but currently see no reason why the main article page for eCigs needs to present an agenda, other than describing what is an eCig. Those who care about benefits and risks ought to have their own forked off page where they can argue over minutiae for another hundred years. And justifying statements like, "The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain."
You could literally apply that same assertion to every other article where something is put into a human body. Such as:
- The benefits and health risks of nicotine patches are uncertain
- The benefits and health risks of cereal are uncertain
- The benefits and health risks of using Wikipedia are uncertain
No, the article is not an embarrassment to Wikipedia, it is pretty usual article on controversial topic: opposing views are represented. And, sure, it is a mess. But take a look at alcohol (another publicly demonized source of enjoyment). It is well established that abstinence from alcohol shortens life; yes, non-drinkers live less than moderate and heavy-moderate drinkers. Try to find this info on Wikipedia… (hint: look for article “Impact of alcohol on aging”, but nothing in article “Alcohol and health”).
So, article on e-cigs is not exception but a rule for Wiki. Wiki is edited by society and reflects current opinions, i.e. mostly widely accepted opinions. As I understand reading “Talk” section of the article, current editors are engaged in war, a lot of things are going through Arbitration Committee and simple editing is not allowed. Anyway, the article is locked for casual editing, you have to be confirmed (autoconfirmed) editor to make changes, but the changes easily could be reverted. It is can of worms… So, to have some success new editor should get confirmation (means to edit 10 other articles without reversions), be patient, diplomatic, devoted to subject and has plenty of time. I have only one of needed requisites (confirmed editor), so I am not good for a task. I avoid editing controversial subjects.
Well yeah, you're right. Tried to point this out earlier. It's not about the truth of the matter, it's also the perception that's being discussed here that's actually more important, and I think it's important to differentiate between the two in order to recognize that sometimes the perception is a more important topic to discuss than the truth. A lot of what I say about the metal toxins is exaggerated simply for effect, and I use myself as an example in order to endorse my own point, i.e. "I feel this way about breathing poisons.", instead of "They feel this way about breathing poisons."
I'm not really freaked out about it, but "they" are. Whether one person chooses to take up vaping or is frightened off is statistically irrelevant, but when hundreds of thousands of people choose to continue smoking cigarettes because of a biased perception of vaping devices as created by limited studies and a Wikipedia Article crafted to scare people away from Vaping in general, that's an entirely different matter. I think it's important to remain clear on what the subject is, and of all the subjects that are being discussed, to remain clear on which is more important than the others. It's not a simply matter of saying "This subject is important and that one is not.", it's a matter of saying "All of these subjects have a level of importance, and in order to be effective at accomplishing a goal, we (collectively) need to achieve some kind of consensus on arranging those subjects in order of relative importance. So it's "analog" and not "binary". Where does the real level of danger presented by toxic metals in vaping devices fall on a "danger scale" and how does that compare to the very real and artificially manufactured levels of fear being used to drive people away from it.
My answer: 6 for the 1st and 9 for the 2nd. If someone else thinks that the real danger is more important than the broad and sociological consequences of the perceived danger, then there will always be internal conflict within the conversational thread, because the subtext of any discussion is always going to be "Ignore that guy because he's wasting our time. THIS is what's REALLY important." So, in order to avoid THAT, I propose to simply put it out there for discussion: What's More Important to Discuss: The REAL danger of metal toxins in Vaping, or the PERCEIVED level of danger in vaping.
And anyone that wants to participate in a constructive dialogue on how to improve the quality of the Wikipedia Article could quote that question right there, and offer commentary on it. My first inclination will be to immediately evaluate how constructive that comment is, or if there is some other agenda behind it.
I say that information that misleads people into continuing to engaging in an activity with a decades-long and proven history in causing cancer, other diseases, and death instead of describing a dramatically better alternative that might save thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of lives is more important than anything else. Some people disagree. They think that the subject that is more important is "something else", and from my perspective they're wrong. Problem is, trying to set people straight about being wrong is almost always doomed to failure, and almost always derails the conversation. I hit things a couple of times because I recognize that the writing "style" does have a tendency to get a bit dense, and things can get missed the 1st or 2nd time they are mentioned, but after the 3rd time, it's time to get off the side-road and get back to addressing the main topic, which is how to improve the Wikipedia Article on e-cigarettes, particularly the Lede.
Jman8's above post got me thinking.
someone should start a e-cig hobbyist page on the wiki.
it would be quite entertaining to watch all the editorial
bias and shenanigans going on right from the start.
from DIY juice to coil wrapping and, a cigalike wonk section.
no health related issues allowed.
mike
I like the strategic intent here, and would support the idea if the article itself could be legitimately created within the constraints of Wikipedia policies and practices. New articles are frequently challenged and perfect strangers will show up to your article and say "Hell no" and nominate it for deletion. Then, other strangers will show up and, usually based on completely stupid and oblivious reasons, vote one way or the other.
There is a conflict that I've noticed on the subject of e-cigarettes. The debate is whether or not to make the article more "medical" based or to make it "something else". I think you are advocating for the 2nd option. That would solve the problem they've already discussed, and would then provide an opportunity to start telling the accurate and topical truth about vaping and how it has evolved to this point.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of "Splitting" the article. One section could be "The dangers of vaping".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
