Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat inconsistent references to wikipedia. It admits that several studies have found us "almost entirely free of factual errors", though does criticise us for incompleteness, alleging that some drug firms have been removing negative info about their products. But it also finds it disconcerting that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia.
It ends with the assertion that "The Wikipedia of the future, it seems, looks set to become a far more reputable place." Having quoted one pundit who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism is our incompleteness, not our veracity.
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:46 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat inconsistent references to wikipedia.
Here's the article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.500-should-you-trust-health-a...
"More disconcerting is the percentage of doctors who turn to Wikipedia for medical information: 50 per cent..."
"How does Wikipedia fare as a medical reference? Its collaborative, user-generated philosophy generally means that errors are caught and corrected quickly. Several studies, including one examining health information, another probing articles on surgery, and one focusing on drugs, found the online encyclopedia to be almost entirely free of factual errors."
"Better still, the articles improve significantly with time, according to a study Clauson published last December in the The Annals of Pharmacotherapy (vol 42, p 1814). 'Wikipedia's editing policy does work,' he says."
"some drug firms have been caught removing negative information on their drugs from Wikipedia pages."
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
Ben
Ben Kovitz wrote:
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
The good news is that the template {{missing}} exists. The bad news is that it appears hardly to be used (backlinks for [[Template:Missing]]). Could we do more to make clear to the public that there is such a template to add? They have caught on quite well to {{fact}}.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
The good news is that the template {{missing}} exists. The bad news is that it appears hardly to be used (backlinks for [[Template:Missing]]). Could we do more to make clear to the public that there is such a template to add? They have caught on quite well to {{fact}}.
Hmm, I didn't even know about {{missing}}.
One way to popularize it: just use it a lot. When people see the tag a lot, eventually they start thinking to use it, too. Using it also the most direct way to teach others how to use it.
A difficulty: Missing stuff is not there. It doesn't call attention to itself. A factual claim that sounds unlikely sets off an alarm in your head. But missing information doesn't call attention to itself, so it's much less likely to get tagged.
One way to get around this would be a project to add a Safety Information section to lots and lots of articles about drugs. A narrowly focused campaign to consistently add a certain type of information to all articles within a certain category will likely produce better results than a broad campaign to make fuller use of the {{missing}} tag.
Generally speaking, though, do ordinary readers (non-editors) pay attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it. For example, if a factual claim is unsupported b.s., don't insert {{fact}}, just delete it on the spot. If you want input from others before editing the main page, post on the discussion page.
And then again, it does seem like a mass posting of {{missing | safety information}} tags on drug pages would quickly set a lot of editors to digging up the missing information. It would get the attention of editors faster than starting a Project. Despite my objections, that might be the most effective way to go.
Ben
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is "anti-wiki". I can diagnose far more problems than I have time, knowledge or inclination to fix. Fixing is better than tagging. Tagging is better than ignoring.
For example, if a factual claim is unsupported b.s., don't insert {{fact}}, just delete it on the spot.
If you *know* it's b.s.. Of course. Even if it's supported b.s.. But if it's just unsourced, and you don't know if it's true - that's exactly what fact is for.
And then again, it does seem like a mass posting of {{missing | safety information}} tags on drug pages would quickly set a lot of editors to digging up the missing information. It would get the attention of editors faster than starting a Project. Despite my objections, that might be the most effective way to go.
Sounds good to me. In my experience, to get action you need to indicate that just a little bit of information is missing. People who fill an empty page with some huge template structure to fill out are making too much work. But give a small task, and someone wants to knock it off.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
attention to tags? I know it's 2009, and I know tags will never go away, but most tags still strike me as both anti-wiki and page clutter. If a page has a problem, fix it.
That attitude is "anti-wiki". I can diagnose far more problems than I have time, knowledge or inclination to fix. Fixing is better than tagging. Tagging is better than ignoring.
This is a good point. The traditional wiki way is to always be "live": no "under construction", no tags, just a real, functioning product right now. To make an improvement, you just make the improvement. But, as I frequently need to be reminded, "Wikipedia is not typical". While I have seen some wikis degenerate into vast sets of pages that offer almost no content right now, but promise lots of content and fixes in the future, that hasn't happened on Wikipedia. By and large, tagging has worked well.
It sounds like tagging would work well with drug safety information, but as David Goodman has pointed out, the real issue is not how to get the attention of editors, but conscious disagreement about whether that information belongs on Wikipedia. Indeed this might not be best resolved in the usual "just do it" wiki way. Or perhaps there is a "just do it" approach that would address the concerns of the people who have opposed posting the information.
Ben
2009/7/31 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
The good news is that the template {{missing}} exists. The bad news is that it appears hardly to be used (backlinks for [[Template:Missing]]). Could we do more to make clear to the public that there is such a template to add? They have caught on quite well to {{fact}}.
Charles
The bad news is a considerable amount of the stuff they considered to be missing (dosage information and the like) we probably wouldn't consider encyclopedic.
That our own foolishness. this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.) The professionals at not just New Scientist but everyone professional that analyzes our medical information consider it a defect. Not us. Everyone is out of step but Wikipedia.
There's an unfortunate paternalistic tradition that sites & references for laypeople don't make it easy to find key toxicity information on human lethal does for medicines, for fear it might be used by potential suicides. We uniquely don't give it for the safe use either, a disgrace to the concept of free information. Classic example of ownership, in several senses.
Yes, I've discussed it at the wikiproject and made no headway. Maybe some more general attention will help dislodge the obscurantists.
My profession has been providing biomedical information to anyone who wants it. Not hiding it. That's why I don't work on this topic in Wikipedia--to follow the current guideline in this field would be unethical for a librarian.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:54 PM, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/31 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
The good news is that the template {{missing}} exists. The bad news is that it appears hardly to be used (backlinks for [[Template:Missing]]). Could we do more to make clear to the public that there is such a template to add? They have caught on quite well to {{fact}}.
Charles
The bad news is a considerable amount of the stuff they considered to be missing (dosage information and the like) we probably wouldn't consider encyclopedic.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.)
Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance?
That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples.
However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible.
Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent.
Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections?
(Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.)
Ben
People are always going to mistreat and misdiagnose; let them at least have correct information, which is more likely to guide them right than incomplete information. Not doing this when in one's power is as immoral as telling deliberate lies.
Considering only public information for now, I think there are no exceptions at all to the requirement to give full information in all cases and all subjects, except for young children, and except for information intended to specifically & unjustly harm a private individual. I mean it quite literally, essentially following JS Mill. For those who do think we have a responsibility not to tell the public what they might use improperly, I remind them, first, that this is the explanation used for all censorship--censorship is the classic valid example of a slippery slope. And second, that this is information the governments of the English-speaking countries not only permit but require to be publicly available, and that is in fact widely available. We are not breaking new ground here.
In any case, I cannot see how standard drug dosage information is more harmful than any other facet of medicine.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.)
Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance?
That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples.
However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible.
Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent.
Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections?
(Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.)
Ben
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If I may jump into the conversation with an ethical question:
It has occurred to me that sometimes people legitimately can't get to a doctor (or other professional) that will help them. Sometimes they can't even *get* to a doctor to begin with. If they are lucky to have the internet, it would make sense to use it. Wikipedia is on the internet, and so it does make some sense (less sense than say, checking a medical website, but still some sense) to check it.
What obligation does Wikipedia have to these people?
Emily On Aug 3, 2009, at 3:11 PM, David Goodman wrote:
People are always going to mistreat and misdiagnose; let them at least have correct information, which is more likely to guide them right than incomplete information. Not doing this when in one's power is as immoral as telling deliberate lies.
Considering only public information for now, I think there are no exceptions at all to the requirement to give full information in all cases and all subjects, except for young children, and except for information intended to specifically & unjustly harm a private individual. I mean it quite literally, essentially following JS Mill. For those who do think we have a responsibility not to tell the public what they might use improperly, I remind them, first, that this is the explanation used for all censorship--censorship is the classic valid example of a slippery slope. And second, that this is information the governments of the English-speaking countries not only permit but require to be publicly available, and that is in fact widely available. We are not breaking new ground here.
In any case, I cannot see how standard drug dosage information is more harmful than any other facet of medicine.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.)
Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance?
That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples.
However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible.
Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent.
Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections?
(Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.)
Ben
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think you forgot to specifically mention the ongoing efforts of the US medical profession and its auxiliaries to prevent meaningful reform.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Emily Monroebluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
If I may jump into the conversation with an ethical question:
It has occurred to me that sometimes people legitimately can't get to a doctor (or other professional) that will help them. Sometimes they can't even *get* to a doctor to begin with. If they are lucky to have the internet, it would make sense to use it. Wikipedia is on the internet, and so it does make some sense (less sense than say, checking a medical website, but still some sense) to check it.
What obligation does Wikipedia have to these people?
Emily On Aug 3, 2009, at 3:11 PM, David Goodman wrote:
People are always going to mistreat and misdiagnose; let them at least have correct information, which is more likely to guide them right than incomplete information. Not doing this when in one's power is as immoral as telling deliberate lies.
Considering only public information for now, I think there are no exceptions at all to the requirement to give full information in all cases and all subjects, except for young children, and except for information intended to specifically & unjustly harm a private individual. I mean it quite literally, essentially following JS Mill. For those who do think we have a responsibility not to tell the public what they might use improperly, I remind them, first, that this is the explanation used for all censorship--censorship is the classic valid example of a slippery slope. And second, that this is information the governments of the English-speaking countries not only permit but require to be publicly available, and that is in fact widely available. We are not breaking new ground here.
In any case, I cannot see how standard drug dosage information is more harmful than any other facet of medicine.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.)
Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance?
That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples.
However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible.
Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent.
Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections?
(Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.)
Ben
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think you forgot to specifically mention the ongoing efforts of the US medical profession and its auxiliaries to prevent meaningful reform.
I was thinking globally. There's the US and its' refusal to change, and then there's people in developing countries who can get an internet connection, but can't go to the doctor (possibly a representation of their governments' refusal to change).
I was also thinking at least somewhat apolitically. Unfortunately, health care reform IS political.
Emily
On Aug 3, 2009, at 7:37 PM, David Goodman wrote:
I think you forgot to specifically mention the ongoing efforts of the US medical profession and its auxiliaries to prevent meaningful reform.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Emily Monroebluecaliocean@me.com wrote:
If I may jump into the conversation with an ethical question:
It has occurred to me that sometimes people legitimately can't get to a doctor (or other professional) that will help them. Sometimes they can't even *get* to a doctor to begin with. If they are lucky to have the internet, it would make sense to use it. Wikipedia is on the internet, and so it does make some sense (less sense than say, checking a medical website, but still some sense) to check it.
What obligation does Wikipedia have to these people?
Emily On Aug 3, 2009, at 3:11 PM, David Goodman wrote:
People are always going to mistreat and misdiagnose; let them at least have correct information, which is more likely to guide them right than incomplete information. Not doing this when in one's power is as immoral as telling deliberate lies.
Considering only public information for now, I think there are no exceptions at all to the requirement to give full information in all cases and all subjects, except for young children, and except for information intended to specifically & unjustly harm a private individual. I mean it quite literally, essentially following JS Mill. For those who do think we have a responsibility not to tell the public what they might use improperly, I remind them, first, that this is the explanation used for all censorship--censorship is the classic valid example of a slippery slope. And second, that this is information the governments of the English-speaking countries not only permit but require to be publicly available, and that is in fact widely available. We are not breaking new ground here.
In any case, I cannot see how standard drug dosage information is more harmful than any other facet of medicine.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
David Goodman wrote:
this is information that essentially everyone in the world considers basic reference information, that is available in authoritative form for all the english speaking countries (slightly different in each), and could easily be adding with absolutely impeccable official references, but which the medicine wikiproject refuses to add.
why? people might misinterpret it; we shouldn't tell people how to treat illnesses, this is the role of physicians, it's different in different countries, it changes frequently, there are all sort of special considerations, and so on. (The arguments against each should be obvious: we tell people everything else about treating the illnesses, physicians should not hold a monopoly of medical care, we can easily give the different approved dosages just as we give the different drug names, everything else relative to medicine changes also & we update the encyclopedia, everyone understands that there are exceptions as with everything else in the world.)
Would it accurate to say that the main concern is blame-avoidance?
That is, giving out certain kinds of information carries legal or ethical responsibility, because people will take important action based on that information. Legal and medical information are the classic examples.
However, the great strength of Wikipedia is its approach of "better to make errors and let people fix them than to get nowhere by trying to prevent errors before they happen". That's how Wikipedia grew, and it goes head on against the arguments you mentioned above. It's a strange thing for Wikipedians to oppose including a certain broad category of information, which everyone agrees is valuable and noteworthy, simply because errors and misinterpretations are possible.
Now, medical information is particularly prone to a certain kind of dangerous misinterpretation. Naïve readers want simple claims they can rely on, like "X cures Y". The reality is that drugs always have trade-offs, and there's enough variation among people that treatments affect different people in different ways. Naïve readers are prone to lift statements out of context or simplify them dangerously: "Wikipedia said X cures Y, but all I got was hives!" when actually the text said, "X cures Y in 60% of people, and it causes hives in 0.2% of people"--perhaps in a big table, mixed in with lots of other information. On top of that, those numbers are usually statistical extrapolations, open to debate, and the medical consensus is always shifting, and there is always dissent.
Maybe the folks here can brainstorm a way around this. Can you tell a few specific bits of information, say, about just one specific drug, that would be nice to include, but that raise the blame-related objections?
(Or, if I've got the underlying concern wrong, please post about that.)
Ben
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l