Hi all,
Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam#Dosagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr…
Even with a general site disclaimer, the above information may be non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a pharmacist, a drug buddy, the FDA, or an informational insert packaged with prescription drugs. Wikipedia is simply a bad place to get medical advice. A section done well, however:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Dosage
Please let me know what you think, or any links to pre-existing discussion.
Thanks, George
en: [[User:GChriss]]
> From: Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca>
> Seems to me that having people trust information from Wikipedia about
> drug dosages at face value _at all_ is the scary prospect.
I think many Wikipedians have enough of an academic background to
know that it is not necessarily true just because I Read It In A
Book." And they are familiar enough with Wikipedia to use it cautiously.
I do _not_ think this is true of the general public. The general
public takes advice from the Reader's Digest, pharmaceutical direct-
to-consumer advertising, and paperback books in racks at health-food
stores quite seriously.
I think the whole medical-advice business is potentially quite
dangerous to Wikipedia's health.
I worked for an extended period of time with the spiny black
Caribbean sea urchin, Diadema antillarum. During that time I got
innumerable spines and bits of spine stuck, embedded, etc. in my
flesh and regarded them as no more than a nuisance. I didn't do
anything in particular about them, and in a few days they would
apparently dissolve or get absorbed or go away, leaving not much more
than a purple tattoo-dot. They never got infected or caused much
pain. On a scale of 0 to 10, where a bee sting is 5, brushing lightly
against fire coral is 4, and an ordinary wood splinter is 3, these
were about a 1. These are of course _my_ results. Your pain and
suffering may vary.
I knew that the locals "treated" sea urchin spine injuries by
urinating on them, but, well, that was gross, and I didn't bother.
I also knew that a Diadema spine injury plays a role in Ian Fleming's
novel "Thunderball," in which James Bond indulges in what seems to me
to be a bit of sadomasochistic foreplay by biting a sea urchin spine
out of a lovely young woman's foot; in reality I'd think a human bite
would be far more dangerous to a lovely young woman's foot than an
urchin spine wound. But I digress.
In our sea urchin article, over the years people keep dropping in
hints and tips about treating injuries from sea urchin spines. At
first I thought it was the sort of entertaining and possibly useful
folklore that should say in the article.
When I started checking things out, I found that the range of
published opinion on recommended treatment of sea urchin wounds was
astonishing. But what really freaked me out was that the range of
published opinion on their _seriousness_ was even more astonishing.
Thus http://scuba-doc.com/irritants.htm says
"Sea urchin spine injury is usually a benign process that rarely
comes to the attention of a physician. Aside from the transient
episode of excruciating pain which responds dramatically to hot water
soaks, there is usually no residual disability.
Pretty innocuous-sounding, right? I wonder, incidentally, whether
"hot-water soaks" is a euphemism for the folk remedy I mentioned. Of
course, it goes on a little ominously to say "As in any puncture
wound, tetanus prophylaxis and observation for latent infection is
advised. Complications arise, however, when spines are embedded over
bony prominences, within joints, or in contact with nerves. Cases are
associated with sea urchin injuries has not been previously reported
in the literature. When such injuries necessitate exploration,
aseptic surgical technique is required."
And an emergency medicine text (whose online link has, alas, gone
dead) said:
"External percussion to achieve spine fragmentation is
contraindicated" and "Spines within a joint or adjacent to a
neurovascular structure should be referred to a surgeon to extract
all fragments as soon as possible, and surgical exploration for
embedded particles should be delayed until a diagnosis can be made by
soft tissue radiography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)"
And I just Googled a book called "Learning from Medical Errors,"
http://books.google.com/books?
vid=ISBN1857757688&id=3EMWy_Hj9EYC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=sea+urchin
+spine+injury&sig=OdSzTSr7c0_oxp6rjcLAPa33TxM which describes a sea
urchin wound that wasn't properly diagnosed (and, yes, was part of a
biggish laceration), as a result of which the patient "underwent a
long and complicated hospital course of course" involving multiple
surgeries, skin grafts, and ultimately a lawsuit that was settled for
$450,000.
In other words, a sea urchin spine is usually no big deal, but
sometimes it _is_ a big deal. It is exactly the sort of thing for
which it is worth while spending the money for a doctor's advice.
And exactly the sort of thing for which I would hate to have _any_
connection with a Wikipedia page that said "no big deal, just pee on
it."
I'm not saying it's likely that anyone could successfully sue
Wikipedia for the bad consequences of bad Wikipedia advice, but, as
with l'affaire Seigenthaler, the potential for serious unpleasantness
is real.
I intend to make sure that the sea urchin article does _not_ discuss
treatment of sea urchin wounds... or, at the very, very most, if it
says anything at all, says something uselessly vague and CYA like
"sea urchin wounds have the potential for being quite serious, and
advice should be sought from physician or a reliable book on
treatment of wounds from venomous marine animals."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Chriss [mailto:GChriss@psu.edu]
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:00 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rx Dosage Instructions in Wikipedia
>
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diazepam#Dosagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr…
>
>Even with a general site disclaimer, the above information may be non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, a doctor, a pharmacist, a drug buddy, the FDA, or an informational insert packaged with prescription drugs. Wikipedia is simply a bad place to get medical advice. A section done well, however:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Dosage
>Please let me know what you think, or any links to pre-existing discussion.
>Thanks, George
>en: [[User:GChriss]]
I think such information varies considerably in usefulness. In the case of Niacin, which is readily available, but quite dangerous in the quantities used in prescriptions, I think some information would be useful. This sort of information is inherently dangerous when we don't have rigorous fact checking and tight control over revisions. It seems that "The usual dose is..." would often be helpful, as would such drug interactions as Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) with alcohol.
Fred
The tallest true pygmy belongs on that list, see below for a comment on opera.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net]
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 05:45 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated
>
>I am very frustrated.
>
>We have on Wikipedia a list with the following selection criteria:
>
>-----------------
>
>This is a list of notable tall men, starting at 198 cm (6 ft 6 in). In
>several cases these men were among the tallest in their profession,
>their province, or nation.
>
>The concept of "what is tall" can vary by average height of any given
>population. In the United States the highest percentile of height
>given by the FAA is the 99th percentile, which is 75.2 inches or
>approximately 191 centimetres.[1] Pediatricians place tall stature at
>2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean for age and gender.[2][3]
>In adult males this begins at around 192 cm. An additional 6 cm is
>added to this second figure due to height variation and to assure that
>comparative tallness is a part of the individuals notability or
>significance.
>
>Note: Names placed in this list must have their height be a part of
>their fame or significance. As basketball players are noted as having
>above average height this means they will need to be taller than the
>cut-off point in order to be notable as tall. Exceptions to this is
>members of the Philippine Basketball Association, as heights above 213
>cm are essentially unheard of in their league, and early twentieth
>century basketball players as they lived in an era where player height
>was much smaller.
>
>-----------------
>
>Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
>verifiable definition. After five or six deletion debates, no
>consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced. Average
>height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
>contemporary figures. Average height varies by country, so this list
>favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures. Average height varies
>by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
>name but two. We don't have a place in here for Edward I
>("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
>because he's below the arbitrary criterion. The height has changed
>from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
>resulting list, not any objective definition of tall. We have to take
>special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
>simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
>became.
>
>To me this list exemplifies all that is worst about the worst
>Wikipedia lists. The definition of tall is original research, the
>selection of tall and men is indiscriminate anyway, the list has no
>evident utility, is systemically biased in numerous ways. We might as
>well have [[List of stuff I like]] and leave it at that.
>
>Compare with another list:
>
>-----------------
>
>This list provides a guide to the most important opera composers, as
>determined by their presence on a majority of compiled lists of
>significant opera composers. (See the "Lists Consulted" section for
>full details.) The composers run from Jacopo Peri, who wrote the first
>ever opera in late 16th century Italy, to John Adams, one of the
>leading figures in the contemporary operatic world. The brief
>accompanying notes offer an explanation as to why each composer has
>been considered major. Also included is a section about major women
>opera composers, compiled from the same lists. For an introduction to
>operatic history, see Opera. The organisation of the list is by
>birthdate.
>
>-----------------
>
>Here we have a list explicitly based on external criteria. The list
>has objective validity, and evident utility in identifying the most
>significant composers in a particular genre. Sadly we also have the
>tacked-on section of "major women opera composers", of whom there are,
>according to the sources, none at all, which was added in order to
>appease a soapboxing editor who was absolutely determined to add a
>composer whose work is published by his company. It was asserted that
>the lack of women was "systemic bias". No, it's more that opera is
>ludicrously expensive to produce, and for most of its history women
>composers were vanishingly rare anyway.
>
>Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
>was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it. No
>consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
>- policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
>that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
>rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
>that.
>
>OK, now I'll get off my soapbox.
>
>Guy (JzG)
The opera case was a hard fought arbitration case, mostly over the absence of women on the list. Sources were demanded and provided. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau
Fred
On 17 Feb 2007 at 19:42, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Please do not send *8* messages in a row. If you must write so much,
> consider consolidating messages into, I don't know, something less than
> a power of 2?
Technically speaking, 1 is actually a power of 2 (2 to the zeroth)...
> Incredibly rude to other readers of wikien-l. I hope you get put on
> moderation for this; maybe then you will learn the difference between
> uses and abuses of email.
Yes... and quoting back all of the preceding messages in the set as
part of each subsequent one, and quoting back the whole stinkin' mess
when complaining about it, is also an abuse of email.
(My partial quoting below is for the purpose of specific commentary,
as follows:)
> "Samuel L Bronkowitz" <countpointercount(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
> > me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
> > the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
> > and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
> > them any more.
Actually, when you submit content under the GFDL, they do have the
right to use it, and continue to use it regardless of any changes of
heart you might have subsequent to your original submission.
> > I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
> > Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
> > go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
> > will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
> > thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
> > would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
> > somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
> > since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
> > false accusations are being denied me.
Threatening to vandalize Wikipedia is a great way to convince people
you're a good contributor who's being unjustly treated, isn't it?
> > Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
> > it in this missive any more.
As far as this list is concerned, the first anybody has apparently
heard of you is in your barrage of messages, culminating in your
threats to quit and/or withdraw your contributions and/or become a
vandal... all posted here before anybody has even had a chance to
react to your issues or concerns.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
Factiva is a very large database of press articles
covering many newspapers, magazines, wire services,
etc.. Here are the number of articles that hit the
search key "wikipedia":
2000 - 0
2001 - 13
2002 - 26
2003 - 97
2004 - 543
2005 - 2729
2006 - 9717
This is not entirely scientific since the coverage
of Factiva increases over the years. It gives a
fair indication of Wikipedia's increasing presence
in the press, though.
Zero.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
> From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount(a)gmail.com>
> I will probably start going in
> and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no
> right to
> them any more.
Unfortunately, we do. If you did not intend for your work to be an
unconditional gift to Wikipedia, you should not have contributed it.
You agreed to give your work to Wikipedia when you clicked "save"
under the edit box, where it says plainly "You agree to license your
contributions under the GFDL."
(I wish I could remember what the old wording used to be... to tell
the truth, it used to be much clearer).
Well, the legal threats turned out to be BS, so I'm back. And rightfully so.
In response to the attacks against my "limited admin" idea, I would like to defend my position.
The "demisysop" status (as I have taken the liberty of calling it) would be much like the sysop status. It would be subject to much of the restrictions of sysop; you would have to demonstrate acumen and have responsibility, NPOV, understanding of policy, etc.
So nobody's going to get something they don't deserve. And nobody will be deprived.
The point of this status is so that excellent EDITORS (not vandalfighters, arbitrators, etc) would be able to have special tools that would allow them to easily edit.
The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc. Maintenance is the vandalfighting, blocking, arbitrating, mediating, and policy that provides the framework for the wiki.
Sysop tools are designed for maintenance, and too often, the mop is awarded or declined based on editing.
The "writer" class would solve that.
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
I'd like to invite you to contribute to a little brainstorming
session, to see if we can come up with a better text than "Your
continued donations keep Wikipedia running!" for the site notice shown
to unregistered users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donation_appeal_ideas
Several people have also complained that the text is too small. I tend
to agree and think that it would be fine in normal size, perhaps in a
different color than the main article text.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic