[Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

[FT2]

Papers are used to back up specific statements, not entire articles - often
many papers are used to back up an article.  We assume an ability to make
thoughtful assessments of cites by our readers - that's exactly why we cite
and why we attribute (apart from copyright reasons). It seems inconsistent
to say that a user can appreciate cites as a way to assess the facts they
back up, but is incapable of assessing funding sources the same way.

A user reading an article on medical aspects of smoking might want to be
informed  which cites were tobacco-industry funded findings and which were
funded by anti-smoking lobbies or government health bodies. A person reading
about automotive and vehicle matters might find it useful to know which
facts were by independent sources and which by sources with some stance in
the matter.  For better or worse, "getting studies published" is a major PR
strategy for  a wide range of companies - think Microsoft's "studies" of
Linux some years back.  So transparency is now important. That we can't do
it for all studies doesn't mean we shouldn't invite it where we can.

Ideally this would lead to increased scrutiny of sources and perhaps
substitution of sources by other sources more visibly neutral in the topic's
debate.

FT2

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:15 AM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com> wrote:

> Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references
> without it are not so funded.
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Works for me.
> >
> > FT2
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive
> it
> >> > in
> >> > the rest of the way.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable
> >> >> knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation
> was
> >> >> built upon. They are also expressly designed to protect and enhance
> the
> >> >> reputation of the publication that provides this information. While
> our
> >> >> reputation will never be able to compare to those of top medical
> >> >> journals,
> >> >> I see no reason why we should fail to take reasonable and feasible
> >> >> steps to
> >> >> protect it to the extent that we can, following the example of the
> best
> >> >> sources.
> >> >>
> >> >> Andreas
> >> >>
> >>
> >> So, disclosure of funding source when available, included in
> >> Template:Cite journal
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>