It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait. Who knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it is assigned to women's health project. Does Wikipedia recognize no difference between gynecology and pediatrics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health worldwide.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just look at health care. It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public health topics are relatively neglected. This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism of the start by the librarians.
On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait. Who knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it is assigned to women's health project. Does Wikipedia recognize no difference between gynecology and pediatrics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health worldwide.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this. In any case, the disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App, or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as much information as is already in Wikipedia.
Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have been adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to be well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow. There is a category for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the navbox to tie everything together? What if you want to know something about standard vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence of polio in war zones. What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of articles around a central theme, or you want information to care for your own children?
Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas. Compare also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves to an article about a Rodale publication of that name. A note at the top of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has sported an incomplete tag since 2015. The "men's health" article only has a navigation template for "reproductive health". There is a Rodale magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to Wikipedia's naming conventions. It has the secondary topic title format of "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues (journal), or Journal of Women's Health."
And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health roster? Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is "prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:58 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just look at health care. It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public health topics are relatively neglected. This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism of the start by the librarians.
On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait. Who knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it is assigned to women's health project. Does Wikipedia recognize no difference between gynecology and pediatrics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health worldwide.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Most health articles on Wikipedia are about men's health. I think you will find lots of stuff still covered by good 'ol 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, except for the work done by the Medical Project, which needs more volunteers and is of course ongoing. In cases where articles get lots of traffic, they tend to be pretty good, but quite a long read. A friend was worried about having her daughter vaccinated for HPV, something that is done at school in my area for girls aged 13. My friend's doctor, a woman, said off the record that she would not allow her daughter to get the vaccine. Reading the Wikipedia article, I am not sure what to decide, and it certainly doesn't seem at first glance to be at all a controversial topic. I am not sure this article gives my friend all the information she needs to make a decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this. In any case, the disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App, or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as much information as is already in Wikipedia.
Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have been adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to be well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow. There is a category for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the navbox to tie everything together? What if you want to know something about standard vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence of polio in war zones. What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of articles around a central theme, or you want information to care for your own children?
Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas. Compare also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves to an article about a Rodale publication of that name. A note at the top of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has sported an incomplete tag since 2015. The "men's health" article only has a navigation template for "reproductive health". There is a Rodale magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to Wikipedia's naming conventions. It has the secondary topic title format of "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues (journal), or Journal of Women's Health."
And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health roster? Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is "prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:58 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just look at health care. It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public health topics are relatively neglected. This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism of the start by the librarians.
On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait. Who knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it is assigned to women's health project. Does Wikipedia recognize no difference between gynecology and pediatrics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health worldwide.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It looks like some sort of controversy section was started, "Opposition in the United States", but it contains nothing more than a link to the "Vaccine controversies" article where, somewhere above the Spanish-American War, there are two rather dated links related to APV virus [1] [2] Just looking at what's available in a quick online search, it looks early opposition centered around the compulsory nature of vaccinations for school children before there had been extensive testing of the vaccine, while later opposition to mandatory vaccination was diminished once a certain level of voluntary vaccination was reached in a particular community. This reminds me of the microwave/plastic/cancer thing a few years back, where every published source said there was no link, but medical professionals were warning people privately. Wikipedia can only go by what is published, so maybe this is just an example of the limitations of what Wikipedia can be expected to do.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140543977/hpv-vaccine-the-science-behind-the-... (2011) [2] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/erv.10.36?journalCode=ierv20 (2010)
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Most health articles on Wikipedia are about men's health. I think you will find lots of stuff still covered by good 'ol 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, except for the work done by the Medical Project, which needs more volunteers and is of course ongoing. In cases where articles get lots of traffic, they tend to be pretty good, but quite a long read. A friend was worried about having her daughter vaccinated for HPV, something that is done at school in my area for girls aged 13. My friend's doctor, a woman, said off the record that she would not allow her daughter to get the vaccine. Reading the Wikipedia article, I am not sure what to decide, and it certainly doesn't seem at first glance to be at all a controversial topic. I am not sure this article gives my friend all the information she needs to make a decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this. In any case, the disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App, or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as much information as is already in Wikipedia.
Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have been adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to be well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow. There is a category for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the navbox to tie everything together? What if you want to know something about standard vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence of polio in war zones. What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of articles around a central theme, or you want information to care for your own children?
Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas. Compare also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves to an article about a Rodale publication of that name. A note at the top of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has sported an incomplete tag since 2015. The "men's health" article only has a navigation template for "reproductive health". There is a Rodale magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to Wikipedia's naming conventions. It has the secondary topic title format of "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues (journal), or Journal of Women's Health."
And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health roster? Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is "prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:58 PM, J Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just look at health care. It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public health topics are relatively neglected. This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism of the start by the librarians.
On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait. Who knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it is assigned to women's health project. Does Wikipedia recognize no difference between gynecology and pediatrics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health worldwide.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
Risker/Anne
On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap