User profile:Graham

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Awards
3 of 3
Statistics
Edits 1,239
Personal information
Real name

Graham

About me

I'm Graham#4932 on Discord.

Board
7 of 7
You must be logged in to post messages to other users
posted 1279 days ago
avatar

Thank you so much for you referring me to the anxiety talk page! Extremely fascinating

posted 1603 days ago
avatar

Hi Graham, I'm reviewing the SEI edits you made now and thinking back to the conversation we had. While I still am against 'Literature mentions', I am going to add some of your citations, like the ones for "Unspeakable horrors", under a "Further reading" section.

posted 1614 days ago
avatar

Adding a 'Literature mentions' section is the wrong way to go about it, in my opinion. It would look and feel a bit forced. It would be better if a sentence or two was added into the article itself that the citation could be used as direct evidence for. Either that, or it should just not be used.

posted 1615 days ago
avatar

Hi Graham,

From the sample of edits I've reviewed so far, the quality and selection of your references is not a problem. The collection is quite solid! However, I noticed some effects for which the link between the citation and the claim is somewhat questionable. For example, the use of this citation -- Juszczak, G. R., & Swiergiel, A. H. (2013). Recreational use of D-lysergamide from the seeds of Argyreia nervosa, Ipomoea tricolor, Ipomoea violacea, and Ipomoea purpurea in Poland. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 45(1), 79-93. http://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02791072.2013.763570 -- in the main sentences of articles like "After Images", "Visual Distortions", and others is a stretch. It should have been discussed before being added to multiple pages.

If you could go through your edits to remove it and similar substance-specific citations for generic effects definitions, that would be great. Meanwhile, I'll start reviewing and verifying your other citations.

FWIW, one of our guidelines is that any mass or repeat edit should first be discussed and approved by the staff so as to avoid polluting or introducing confusion to the change log.

I wasn't aware of the Googledoc, which I think contributed to some of the confusion here. That Discord channel is also not an official PW channel.

Thanks for taking the time to gather and add these citations, by the way. Let me know if you have any questions.

posted 1628 days ago
avatar

Thanks for the link. Please note that there is no “PsychonautWiki discord.” The discord server you are referring to is run by the Replications community, which happens to be moderated by Josie. No official communication is done through that Discord, nor is content work, which is facilitated through our JIRA issue boards and the like. All official communication channels are linked from the site menu directly, its contact page, guideline pages or other issue related pages. I’ll forward the link to Chris. - K

posted 1629 days ago
avatar

Hey Graham, thanks for all your edits. There are a lot of very good additions, but also some of which are questionable.

Please note that a manual verification of your edits after the fact is a time-consuming task. As much as I value good additions, being unable to verify bulk edits will lead to me mass reverting them. This project is about collaboration, and more importantly, verifiability by others. We have a clear policy on mass edits and I would like you to coordinate the addition of specific references to many articles with User:Clarity.

Please communicate further steps with Chris.

-K

posted 1636 days ago
avatar

Graham, can you please make sure _not_ to include a space before the references in your previous edits? I’m not currently near sensible infrastructure to revise all your edits, but it needs to be done. Thanks.