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/Tri...
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]]
On 18/02/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
Please don't do that. It's useful knowledge to know what dosages are typically given for what.
e.g. amitryptyline, which has quite different dosages for depression and for chronic pain relief (and has come into its own for the latter after SSRIs beat it for the former).
- d.
On 2/18/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/02/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
Is there a substantive reason that we provide dosage information on
prescription drugs? I generally remove the following sections on sight:
Please don't do that. It's useful knowledge to know what dosages are typically given for what.
e.g. amitryptyline, which has quite different dosages for depression and for chronic pain relief (and has come into its own for the latter after SSRIs beat it for the former).
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It may be useful knowledge, but it opens wikipedia up to some SEVERE liability concerns if someone tries to use that information to self-medicate, and even worse if it turns out someone takes an overdose because of vandalism that wasn't caught in time or vandalism that was archived to some site that mirrors...
That's a good enough reason alone to remove those entries. Let the doctors handle it, or let someone look it up on an actual medical site.
Parker
On 2/19/07, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
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
I find it frustrating how often useful information is removed under the single principle of "Wikipedia is not a ...". Explaining how to use a coffee plunger? "Wikipedia is not a how-to..." - yes, but what surely an explanation is an essential part of the article. Links to articles that demonstrate the concept of [[One deal a day]]? "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Mentioning the local tourist attractions and best restaurants of a small town? "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" - yes, but that's probably the most useful thing you could write about a small town.
Is it time we replaced WP:NOT with "Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia. It's unique, and it's just trying to be useful to people, dammit."
Steve