I don't fully see the distinction you are trying to draw. If I want information on my specific cancer, I will look at the specific articles about it and the various specific procedures and drugs available.
That information applies to me, as well as it does to other cases. If the information is in just a widely general presentation that no one can apply it, then why have it at all? It serves no purpose to write in such a vague way that no one can apply that knowledge.
"Can I eat with this medicine?" is a specific question that can be specifically answered in our article, without the need to consult another doctor.
In a message dated 9/5/2008 4:24:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
2008/9/5 WJhonson@aol.com:
I'm not sure I fully agree with this. It would depend on the question. The internet allows people to check and re-check what they've been told. In that sense, our article on digitalis should strive to represent the average knowledge of the medical community, not just be a source of
entertainment
for example.
If our article on breast cancer could be improved in some way, that is a good thing.
I'll clarify a key point about what I said: Questions about *your wife's* breast cancer should be directed to a doctor. Questions about breast cancer *in general* could well be answered on Wikipedia and if they're not already in the article the reference desk would be happy to help (be careful how you phrase the question though or it might be interpreted as a request for medical advice and deleted). If you want to re-check what a doctor has told you about your specific case, you go to a different doctor.
More generally, the issue of how encyclopaedic facts apply to a given case is not, itself, encyclopaedic. The application of facts is a matter for professionals, we just concern ourselves with the facts themselves (the reference desks will sometimes help out with the application, but generally the desks exist to help people find out encyclopaedic facts, although sometimes facts too obscure to be included in the encyclopaedia proper [yet, at least]).
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
2008/9/6 WJhonson@aol.com:
I don't fully see the distinction you are trying to draw. If I want information on my specific cancer, I will look at the specific articles about it and the various specific procedures and drugs available.
You misunderstand me. By "your wife's breast cancer" I don't mean the particular type of breast cancer that she has, I mean her actual case. Every case is different. If we require information about your wife in order to answer the question, it's not out place to do so.
That information applies to me, as well as it does to other cases. If the information is in just a widely general presentation that no one can apply it, then why have it at all? It serves no purpose to write in such a vague way that no one can apply that knowledge.
People can apply it for themselves but we're not going to apply it for them.
"Can I eat with this medicine?" is a specific question that can be specifically answered in our article, without the need to consult another doctor.
"Can a person with no other relevant conditions and on no other relevant medications eat with this medicine?" is a general question which can be answered in our article. Your question is a specific question which requires consulting a doctor.