[WikiEN-l] How's our coverage of medications?

[geni]

2008/11/25 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
> DE has it, and it's still ticking away.

De's default is that you don't see the sighted version. So their
current results are fairly useless.


> Well there is only one way to get *proof*, so we have a Catch-22.
> Sure, persuasive evidence... we can get that, as far as I can tell,
> we've always had it: If things were so fragile that twiddling a knob
> will irreparably ruin it over night we would have been screwed long
> ago.... but you're pretty much right on in saying that people are
> demanding *proof*. But we can't have proof without doing it.
>
> This is also true for any other change. Unexpected stuff happens. I'd
> argue that for much of what we do or could do the unexpected results
> are more numerous and significant than the expected ones.  So the
> argument you expressed is basically saying that we can't change
> anything ever.

Nope. Everything I listed is a known potential problem I'm not asking
you address the possibilities of unknown problems. Doesn't help of
course that since IP page creation stayed off (we probably need to
turn it back on unless you want to get used to saying second largest
encyclopedia) without a proper review people have little trust in
claims that something is experimental.


> I wonder what aspects of EnWP culture contribute to the audacious
> solipsism of believing that its members can "no-consensus" away forces
> as universal as change.

Schoolwatch would be the first group to use it effectively.

-- 
geni