From USRTK Journalists Failed to Disclose Sources’ Funding from Monsanto (11.24.15):
- Following a Columbia Journalism Review article on whether science journalists should accept money from corporate interests, and whether there is adequate disclosure of sources’ corporate ties and conflicts of interest, U.S. Right to Know reviewed recent articles to assess how often journalists and columnists quote academic sources without stating that they are funded by the agrichemical giant Monsanto, which produces pesticides and GMOs. Our review found 27 articles quoting (or authored by) university professors after they received Monsanto funding, but without disclosing that funding.
- This is a collapse of journalistic standards. When reporters quote sources about food issues such as GMOs or organic food, readers deserve to know if the sources have been funded by Monsanto or have other conflicts of interest.
- The principal effect of failing to reveal these conflicts of interest is to unfairly enhance the credibility of Monsanto-funded academics, and their support of GMOs and criticism of organic food, while detracting from the credibility of consumer advocates..
- Many of these journalistic failures occurred at influential news outlets: newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune; science publications such as Nature, Science Insider and Discover; magazines such as the New Yorker, Wired and The Atlantic; as well as broadcast outlets like ABC and NPR.
From Cornell Daily Sun [1] Pro-GMO Article Penned by Cornell Professor Linked to Monsanto (11.14.15):
From Cornell Chronicle [2] New Cornell Alliance for Science gets $5.6 million grant "to depolarize the GMO debate" (08.21.14)
"Wikipedia has the possibility of being both the greatest informational source in human history, or the most corrupt propaganda dissemination tool imaginable." (source)
"But perhaps even more insidious [than cases such as the WifiOne] are clever editors with an agenda, some paid, some with socks. I believe such editors are likely to be working for various interests. I will be happy to watch and perhaps comment on your proposal, but again, I don't believe it can get past a group of determined and in some cases deeply hostile (lol) editing interests who will make it their continuing work to shame, blame and otherwise shout down any such proposals, and for reasons ranging from completely innocent and well-meaning to the darkest imaginable. Certainly, I hope to be proved wrong, but I believe TOU enforcement is going to have to come from the top down, and that all paid editing needs to be banned." (source)
"Wikipedia is at a crossroads ... in my view there are trucks of corporate and military/intelligence owned editors barreling down on concerned unpaid editors from all directions. The 'pedia is increasingly functioning as corporate/political PR, and those in the way are targeted, just as Scientologists target "Repressive Persons." There are times I can't believe my eyes and have to walk away." (source)
- Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, April 2015:
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
"(Medical) journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry."
Contents
sad
i am sad to read you retired, site banned yourself, since ARbcom couldnt do it! i share what I sense is frustration. i completely understand how strenuous editing is, especially in those areas we both edit. know this and that it isnt an accidental feeling, the disappointment, it is intentional. (Read Zersetzung, -I am still working on improving that page- and you'll see that 'retirement' is the goal).
I've not edited much myself lately, and if so, I've avoided confrontational articles (the pesticide suite, 2,4D and glyphosate of course, teh Enlist Duo page is totally combobulated), because I am there "by myself" and NPOV edits are so easily overruled by the tendentious editors you may or may not know (see the talk pages!).
I still need to clarify things with Drmies, remember, you explained to me that my twice reverted questions to him could be understood as gravedancing. since he quite clearly is no longer in the grave but running for arbcom, i should be able to ask that. although we havent edited much together i will miss you.
I wish you would just take a vacation to recharge yourself. you are much needed.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The truth is that I didn't consider how rude it was to leave without a word to you all. I don't like drama-inducing public posts like this, and don't really have anything else to say, besides thank you to everyone ~ if we were at a pub, I'd buy you all a few rounds. Thank you so much for the kind things written about me recently, and for the effort put out on my behalf. I feel the love. Thanks. Really. Backatcha.
My hat is off to you for hanging around and trying to fix things. Many blessings, Petra (Sarah) 174.71.67.48 (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I do hope that you remain. Arbcom, unfortunately, behaves less like a panel of arbitrators than as a kind of phony split-the-baby mechanism, and I am sure that anyone who has come anywhere near it has lost confidence in the ability of Wikipedia to regulate itself. It certainly is broken, and lamentably there are no viable outside watchdogs that can serve as a useful backstop. I agree also that Wikipedia can be a terrible waste of time as well, which is why many people, myself included, don't contribute at the rate they did previously.
- I realize also that I've just argued for you not to remain, but do keep in mind that the paid advocates and shills will always be here, and would just love having the kind of outcome that you just had at arbcom. They don't care about arbcom, split decisions or slights. They have no hurt feelings because they are here to protect their employers, just as some editors are here to protect articles about themselves and their friends. They wear down the opposition because they aren't going anywhere, and those of us who are not conflicted need not to be hounded off the site by them. Coretheapple (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- Are there any independent editors left? I suspect that half of the users here edit on behalf of a government agency, while the other half edit for private companies. Even people who work for educational institutions are subject to highly biased agendas. Take a look at the business school web pages for the top universities. They are so out of touch with reality it's like peering back in time. Public policy is at least fifty years behind, and watching these toy soldiers fight over the scraps of bread they are thrown so they can pay their mortgage is as boring as it gets. So it goes. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I wonder sometimes. In vandal-fighting I see one COI edit after another, to the point that I've pretty much dropped that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'd not go that far. There are certain areas where people get along harmoniously and write about stuff that interests them, pleasantly and doing the right thing. In fact, as I recall, you functioned in a very valuable way yourself, helping me along, rigorously but skillfully, with my first GA nomination. It was a good experience. Such things do exist. But yes, there is a subset of Wikipedia, a big one, that consists of editors pushing their own personal interests, writing about their companies, fellating their pals, providing them with promotion. Administrators are sometimes the worst offenders, though I hasten to add that the majority are conscientious and fair, just as most editors are. But yes, overall the experience is discouraging, often a waste of time. I hate to see Petra leave because she got a bad rap, and the corporate interests she often made unhappy are not going away.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I first encountered Petra on the page of a particular petrochemical company that was dominated by the company through a paid official. No less a figure than Jimbo himself lauded this paid editor for adhering to the criminally lax COI rules. The community reacted not by taking Jimbo to task but by chiding him for acting against paid editing, which has given him untold grief and that he has acted against only sporadically. The COI rules should be policy, instead they are a guideline, like spitting on the sidewalk. Yes, it sometimes seems as you describe it. I would like to be more convincing in responding to you but I can't. Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Idiots Rule. ""This is dedicated to all the motherfuckers of this world who think they run things. Fuck them!" Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Nooooo
I totally understand why you would retire, but I wish you wouldn't. I'm also thinking about packing it in. Sigh. Minor4th 00:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)