In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes:
> The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews.
> Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of the
> publishing venue.
>
> We should only use peer-reviewed research published in reputable
> journals, which eliminates vast quantities of 'research'.
>
This phrase of yours "reputability of the publishing venue" sounds like the
reputation of the periodical in which the research is published.
But what we're discussing in this thread, or sub-thread is who is paying
for the research, not the venue in which it's being published.
Am I mis understanding your point?
Also whether or not some other article does or does not mention who paid
for the research, I don't find germane to whether or not we should or should
not do it.
Even if you're right about what that other group is doing, we don't have to
do exactly what someone else is doing.
Our main point, IMHO, should be, what's the most reader-centric position to
take.
Not what's the most producer-centric position.
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:57:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> Sure. Find an article with a french author and bring moral rights into
> play.>>
>
That isn't enough, because *you* would have no standing.
You'd be thrown out, and the WMF isn't likely to want to be the plaintiff
as that would violate their seperation.
You would have to find a French author who would be willing to sue in their
own name, in a French courtroom.
W
I've just pushed live a new Wikimedia Foundation blog post that provides
an update on where we are with the Public Policy Initiative, the pilot
program to bring Wikipedia editing into university classrooms. Please
check it out if you're interested, especially if you know a professor
who would be a good fit for our remaining few slots for the spring:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/01/the-public-policy-initiative-midt…
LiAnna
--
LiAnna Davis
Communications Associate - Public Policy
Wikimedia Foundation
ldavis(a)wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayvdb(a)gmail.com writes:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > risker.wp(a)gmail.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
> >> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
> >>
> >
> >
> > This is false. The drug company does not always pay for research on a
> > drug.
>
> drug companies use a random chemical compound generator? >>
>
John, your response is a bit odd.
What does a random chemical compound generator have to do whatsoever with
who funded a study?
It's a complete non-sequitor.
W
In a message dated 10/31/2010 4:02:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
> But then it should also be said what studies were NOT funded by the
> manufacturer, and we do not know that,m because most journals do not
> specify--and almost none specified in the past. >>
>
That doesn't excuse us from stating it when it is specified.
Standards change, and we change with them.
In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
risker.wp(a)gmail.com writes:
> My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
> Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
>
This is false. The drug company does not always pay for research on a
drug.