But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point and the point at
which you railed at, from a position that was extreme. Your contention is that we should
not report *any* thing in our work on a drug except what the manufacturer puts on the
label. And that you don't think that position is ridiculously extreme is exactly why
you can't see apparently what we're actually doing. Instead you want to put up a
straw man to try to thrust your argument acrost by showing how naked he is. But no one
has ever taken the extreme position that you're advocating against in the first
place.
So that's why your argument has no clothes.
See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the
project report that the
Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more
damage to the heart than
is acceptable.
Such claims are best kept within the confines of official medical
journals, the news media, and personal blogs. Not put into a forum "that
everyone can edit" where it masquerades as having some authoritative or
encyclopaedic perspective. The danger is that "everyone can edit it" so
any particular page fetch may have just been edited by someone with a COI.
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sat, Oct 23, 2010 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 23/10/2010 15:15, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific
Daylight Time,
wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> OK this is going to be controversial but have you
ever considered taht
> maybe you shouldn't have anything on
Atorvastatin other than what comes
> as the medical advice in the packaging? One cannot
provide any useful
> advice on whether someone should use the drug or
not that should be
> between the patient and their doctor. I mean its
not as if wikipedia is
> an expert pharmacopeia as wikipedia doesn't
have experts weighing the
> evidence one way or the other, all you can do is
mimic the day to day
> controversy which of its very nature is going to
be conflict ridden.
>
> If there are still any pretensions of being
encyclopaedic here then any
> such articles should only be written once the
conflict has been resolved.
>
> Example here is the MMR article from one period in
2004:
>
>
> any parent reading that article at that time is
highly unlikely to have
> opted for the vaccine. Or take the final paragraph
here:
>
> oldid=6127791#The_MMR_controversy
>
> adding every rumour, statement, or innuendo that
someone somewhere in
> the world might have once said, however wrong, is
unencyclopeadic. It is
> certainly not without consequences. How many
children were made ill by
> those paragraphs?
>>
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures.htm>
>
Why would you make such outrageous statements and
expect any result here?
On what space have you been slumming where people add
"every rumour,
statement or innuendo that someone somewhere in the
world might have once
said"?
Please tell me, I'm dying to know. I mean I'm
really dying.
See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the
project report that the
Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more
damage to the heart than
is acceptable.
Such claims are best kept within the confines of official medical
journals, the news media, and personal blogs. Not put into a forum "that
everyone can edit" where it masquerades as having some authoritative or
encyclopaedic perspective. The danger is that "everyone can edit it" so
any particular page fetch may have just been edited by someone with a COI.
You want us only to report things once the controversy
is
over, in other words once 25,000 people have gotten
sick from salmonella
eggs... not just a thousand. No wait, actually after
all the lawsuits are
over
and the people involved are all dead as well.
Sound good to me. At least while that is happening the news channels are
reporting the current state of play, and the wikipedia page isn't being
edit warred by those telling everyone that nothing is wrong.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l