User talk:Rap Chart Mike/sandbox

I wrote a bunch of stuff here but lost it in an WP:Edit conflict with this useless edit.

Frustrating.

This page is a copy of Repressed memory. I don't know what the intention is so will treat this as its own thing.

The first thing I do is look at sources.

The sourcing here is terrible. Way too many primary sources, way too many old sources. this needs to be completely worked over using sources that are;

independent

secondary

relatively recent (say the last 5 years)

I already didn't have time to write the much longer thing I wrote. I don't have time to write more now.

The history section for example should be driven by multiple (at least two, since this is a controversial field) high quality sources that themselves are aiming to trace the history of this. Instead Freud and Nietzsche are directly cited, as is some work from the 1970s. Some editor decided those things were worth mentioning here. That is not how WP works. We summarize high quality, recent, secondary, independent sources that are themslves aiming to present accepted knowledge in whatever field they are in.

The psych sections are terribly sourced. For these MEDRS sources are essential.

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this draft for structure and style within about 1 week. Aerkem (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rap Chart Mike: I have started modifying this draft. But I feel it would be better to do it after it is moved to Wikipedia proper, where the edits are more visible, more easily traced, and more easily reverted if need be. I would encourage you to replace the existing article as soon as the draft is better, which might be right now. Aerkem (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was ready to take live already but @Jytdog Jas expressed concerns with primary sources vs review articles, although there were few suggestions. When time allows, perhaps Saturday, I'll give a thorough once over for content and references. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add badly sourced content to Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A) I got that part. Hence this being in a sandbox and not dumped into wikipedia proper.

B) You say that, yet, nearly the entire article as it stand is sourced poorly based on the current standards. Why has nothing been done before me? Particularly by you since you seem to have an interest in this page.

Should I just pop onto to the current page and eviscerate the thing by deleting the 80% of it that is a primar source? Because that seems counter productive. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Jytdog is saying is that you should not add badly sourced content. As far as I understand, this does not prevent you from reorganizing and otherwise improving existing content even if it is badly sourced. Nothing obliges you to solve all the issues with this article in one go. Aerkem (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is accurate. I originally thought this was a complete workover. But I just dug into the history. As far as I can tell, the whole article was pasted into this sandbox in this diff. It appears that six edits were then made diff series, tweaking the lead, fixing a typo, tweaking a citation, and removing a "main" link.

This is a very strange way of working -- this pasting into a sandbox and then proposing to paste back into the main article, especially when the changes are so minor. I have, very occasionally, seen editors propose drastic revisions to articles in a sandbox. I took this, as though it were that. It isn't.

Please just make these minor edits in the article itself. Folks will agree or disagree with them there. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The six edits that you mentioned are indeed minor, but the text that was pasted in the sandbox in this diff did not come straight from Wikipedia: it has been very much reworked by User:Rap Chart Mike. The question is whether and when to copy the sandbox version to Wikipedia. Aerkem (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I back burnered this project because I seem to be getting a hard time from someone full of criticism and no help other then to repeat that badly sourced content should not be added and also doing nothing to correct the badly sourced content in the existing page. I didn't put the article here and spend a bunch of time on it for nothing. Frustrating. Also, @User:Aerkem I will be getting to this during the week. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I looked further and you are correct. Rap Sheet Mike (RSM) appears to have copied the page, then pasted it somewhere and changed some things, then pasted the changed version back into a sandbox (it might be that they did the initial paste into the sandbox and then made changes, and then saved all that in one edit)), then lightly further edited it... and the proposal is now to paste this over the existing page.

This is a bad way to work, as the thread of WP:ATTRIBUTION gets completely broken, which causes problems on multiple levels, including copyright and licensing. This is not how people normally work in WP.

I also see no benefit to pasting somewhat-crappy over somewhat-crappy. I would consider it if this were a completely new version with sterling sources and content, but not with this poor content that also has issues with ATTRIBUTION.

So my answer to the question is "no".

Am pinging User:Diannaa who works a lot on copyright/ATTRIBUTION issues, and who had tried to call RSM's attention to these issues in this diff Looking at RSM's contribs, they are a fairly new user and appears to have somehow worked their way into editing in this strange fashion. RSM you should not continue working this way in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tap Sheet Mike, I believe that you reached out to me to review this, after you made this series of edits to Fecal microbiota transplant, after which I made this series cleaning that up and fixing other problems, and then left this note at your talk page. I had never edited the Repressed memory page nor its talk page. It would be unhelpful if I started massively editing that page directly when there is this strange stuff going on here in this sandbox. Your approach to others, and to editing, is going to lead you to an unhappy time here. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]