On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at
05:17,<wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at
08:15,<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote:
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. 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.
We should not be using our own judgment in these matters. If the
London Times or BBC report problems with Lipitor, or anything else,
that's a good enough source for us, and we should not be allowing
editors to stop it from being added to our articles.
Yet both these sources can be sensational. The science reporting is
abysmal at times. When they have a science scare I have to turn the BBC
radio4 news off because of the crap reporting. If any one is in the UK
they'll know exactly what I'm taling about.
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
scientist as a source,
Not at all. By all means deal with peer reviewed articles. But many
press reports, even in the 'quality' media are at best little more than
an uncritical regurgitation of some press release, and at worse they
have sensationalised the release. One should take such things with a
large pinch of salt as they are mostly crap. Stick it in wikinews if you
must but leave the main articles untainted.
and the vested interests that finance the
research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
journalists. That makes no sense to me.
They're not disinterested, most of the reports aren't being written by
science journalists, or by any one that actually understands the issues.
You and I both know that if a health scare arises, you'll find the exact
same report on 100s of news sites and if you trace it back to source
you'll find it comes from an single POV pushing 'interested' party with
the juicy bits emphasised.
Where were the 100000s that Pig Flu was meant to kill last year, or the
millions that Bird Flu was going to kill the year before?
Stick these things in an article labelled "Bullshit Science Reports" and
move them out if they ever turn out to be true.
The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose
sources the world
regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the
debate even if we personally dislike some of it.
For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&am…
the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.