In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791
any parent reading that article at that time is highly unlikely to have opted for the vaccine. Or take the final paragraph here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine& 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/measles3.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps2.htm 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. 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.
See what outrageously extreme statements do for your cause? Nothing. Now back to our regular program already in progress.
W
On 23/10/2010 15:15, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791
any parent reading that article at that time is highly unlikely to have opted for the vaccine. Or take the final paragraph here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine& 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/measles3.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps2.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures.htm%3E%3E
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.
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@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-list@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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791
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/measles3.htm
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles1.htm
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps1.htm
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps2.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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
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.
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
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.
on 10/23/10 5:42 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk at wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
Very well put. I agree with you completely.
Marc Riddell, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy
On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
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.
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
Our general disclaimer should disabuse anyone who reads it of that idea.
We do encourage editor to improve our articles, and, as a whole, they are getting better.
Fred
On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
I would hope that somebody from NASA trying to plot spaceship trajectories around the Solar System isn't going to be using data from Wikipedia for those calculations either... or an engineer doing some structural load calculations using information about material strengths from a Wikipedia article. I don't see medical issues as being anything of a unique case or something that needs to be especially pointed out other than it is foolish to use information from Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia as "authoritative" without at the very least checking the sources used to obtain that information. Wikipedia isn't a replacement for the CRC Handbook, nor the Physician's Desk Reference. It shouldn't be either although both are excellent sources of information for factual data that can be used in a Wikipedia article.
-- Robert Horning ____________________________________________________________ Go Back to School Grant Funding May Be Available to Those Who Qualify http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cc3891f529d640410cst06duc
On 24/10/2010 02:17, Robert S. Horning wrote:
On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
I would hope that somebody from NASA trying to plot spaceship trajectories around the Solar System isn't going to be using data from Wikipedia for those calculations either... or an engineer doing some structural load calculations using information about material strengths from a Wikipedia article. I don't see medical issues as being anything of a unique case or something that needs to be especially pointed out other than it is foolish to use information from Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia as "authoritative" without at the very least checking the sources used to obtain that information. Wikipedia isn't a replacement for the CRC Handbook, nor the Physician's Desk Reference. It shouldn't be either although both are excellent sources of information for factual data that can be used in a Wikipedia article.
One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there is a general assumption that the information that you read is accurate baring any cultural bias.
One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there is a general assumption that the information that you read is accurate baring any cultural bias.
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Fred
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search engine's 1st link, and where the site is saying Encyclopaedia and there is a general assumption that the information that you read is accurate baring any cultural bias.
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
But really the issue is one of having every edit immediately visible to the world. Wikipedia is sometimes compared to Open Source Software, and whilst anyone can change the source code, you don't get to hack the toplevel distribution of Linux for instance. Instead the changes are community reviewed before they get submitted to core. Of course you are free to take your own version and hack away at it in your own little corner, but your changes aren't automatically reflected back into everybody's version.
The open source crowd take a pride in the continual quality of the code. Here on wikipedia the quality of the information isn't held in such high regard, its enough that its right most of the time. I'll repeat my calculator analogy: A calculator that randomly adds two numbers wrongly is useless even if it only does it 1:100000 times wrongly.
So there needs to be an assessment of classes of articles that the community consider should be held to 'Calculator' or 'Linux' standard and should be locked from edits until reviewed. ie articles in those classes should automatically fall under level 2 protection of "pending changes".
Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information. Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour, half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic information doesn't change from day to day or even from month to month.
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
That would be the logo at the side, then.
Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't.
The community attempts best-effort, but the readers need to understand that Wikipedia is *just written by people*. We tell them this all the time. Slowly it seeps through the culture.
Furthering this is definitely the best thing that can be done about the problem you raise. Not "everything in Wikipedia is rubbish and must be ignored" - that's obvious exaggeration and will be discounted by the readers, even though you're convinced it's the case. It wouldn't be #5 site in the world if it wasn't actually useful. Instead, that it's just written by people, and check the references.
- d.
On 24 October 2010 16:52, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
Our general disclaimer is good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Perhaps we should mention it on our introduction, which is linked on the en.wp front page "the free encyclopedia that _anyone can edit_."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:28 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That would be the logo at the side, then.
If you think the logo is supposed to indicate something, it should link to a textual description of that.
Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't.
The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for themselves.
http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-labels/
-- John Vandenberg
Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't.
The law routinely expects producers to add explicit safety warnings and disclaimers on their products for idiots who don't think for themselves.
http://coolrain44.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/stupid-warning-labels/
-- John Vandenberg
To paraphrase Murphy's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law
If information can be misused, it will be.
Actually, when designing equipment one must be careful not to connect any button on switch to anything that does much as eventually someone will push it or turn it.
Fred
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown that more "professional" encyclopedias also contain errors, the difference is that you can't fix them easily.
That said, any suggestions which adequately represents the power and utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy?
Fred
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
Any professor would flunk you for citing an encyclopedia—any encyclopedia—as a reference. I was homeschooled, and my mother would have slapped me in the head for not finding a primary source.
Austin
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
We define what encyclopedia means at this point, and research has shown that more "professional" encyclopedias also contain errors, the difference is that you can't fix them easily.
Two other differences are that biases in encyclopedias are generally easier to discover (in large part because they are usually consistent across an entire article), and that you can find out who to blame for them (either generally or specifically depending on the seriousness and willfulness of the error).
That said, any suggestions which adequately represents the power and utility of our product, but avoids implication of inerrancy?
I wouldn't want to waste much time on this as it has zero chance of being followed, but something like "the free bulletin board" would probably be more accurate.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied. If I misapplied the transitive property, I apologize.
Austin
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied.
A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: > Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance?
Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied.
A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though.
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
Austin
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject supports.
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hairadhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hairadhair@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? > > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense".
A better start would be to stop calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia.
Who on earth thinks an encyclopedia is an authoritative source?
How is that relevant?
You seemed to be saying that by calling it an encyclopedia, reliability is implied.
A higher degree of reliability is implied than is provided. I wouldn't go so far as to say that encyclopedias are generally authoritative, though.
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Actually I dug out an old 1999 CD version of Britannica the other week. *whispers* I was amazed as to how refreshing the articles are.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.
On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.
Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.
"Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is a great bit of rhetoric but it is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia. Of course pre wikipedia I doubt anyone outside OED really worried about the definition of encyclopedia.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
"Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is a great bit of rhetoric but it is not consistent with any rational definition of encyclopedia.
No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". "Wikipedia" cannot be "an encyclopedia", because it isn't "a work".
Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia".
Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it calls it "a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project". A project, not an encyclopedia.
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259
"Yesterday I asked one of my students if she knew what an encyclopedia is, and she said, Is it something like Wikipedia?"
- d.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language.
I saw your name and was ready for the usual response to that argument: "stop trolling, of course Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Well, yeah, it's not something that's going to be easily fixed. Reminds me of the comment by Sanger at the end of "Truth in Numbers?":
"A lot of kids are consulting wikipedia as the first and often the last source of information on anything that they're curious about. If it continues on in that capacity, we might have a generation of kids who have a fundamental confusion about basic principles of epistemology."
It's not something that can be fixed with a few simple changes. But "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain", someone's going to have to engage in the campaign of educating people on why not to rely on sources like Wikipedia.
Wikimedians are probably not the best candidates for doing that, though. On this very list we have an argument that Wikipedia is not less reliable than traditional encyclopedias.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:15 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't.
No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia.
No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia project". I then went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of encyclopedias.
On 24 October 2010 21:17, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No I haven't. I drew the line in the sand based on the fact that Wikipedia is not a fixed work. I also pointed out that even the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia doesn't say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it says that it is an "encyclopedia project". I then went on to compare the reliability of Wikipedia to that of encyclopedias.
Err you are aware that this mailing list is archived and people can see the order in which you introduced your arguments?
Still moving on you bring up the claim that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia because it is not a fixed work (which is a change from your original position that wikipedia was not in fact a work).
Now this brings up that obvious problem that by your definition the encyclopedia Britannica is not in fact an encyclopedia since it has published multiple editions. Now I suppose you could get around that by arguing that say EB1911 is an encyclopedia however than in turn gives up the problem that by that logic wikipedia 24 October 2010 20:28 and some seconds is an encyclopedia. Encarta with it's online updates could also be mentioned here. More recently Britannica online has been increasing it's rate of updates.
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand.
No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". "Wikipedia" cannot be "an encyclopedia", because it isn't "a work".
Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an encyclopedia.
Your position would require that Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds wasn't a work until 15 October. A somewhat non standard approach I feel. In fact wikipedia is at any given moment in a fixed form. So in fact there are a few tens of wikipedia encyclopedias a minute.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand.
No. It's more about accountability than about authority.
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand.
No. It's more about accountability than about authority.
You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an encyclopedia?
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand.
No. It's more about accountability than about authority.
You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an encyclopedia?
No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't.
On 24 October 2010 21:07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't.
No you have explained that you have decided to draw a line in the sand in terms of reliability to define what is and isn't an encyclopedia. The problem is that you have failed to provide any justification for this line such as showing that the majority of things listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_encyclopedias fall to one side while wikipedia does not.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies. I'd definitely expect more of the latter in Wikipedia than in any of the traditional encyclopedias.
So your position is that you have the authority to draw lines in the sand.
No. It's more about accountability than about authority.
You are claiming you are accountable if wikipedia turns out to be an encyclopedia?
No, that wasn't my claim. I am, however, accountable for what I say. And the idea that Wikipedia could "turn out to be an encyclopedia" is silly. It either is, or it isn't, and in this case, as I have explained, it isn't.
Wikipedia is an institution. Funny word, but of great significance. Marriage is an institution. Parliament is an institution. Universities are institutions, as is the internet, and war.
That doesn't mean we're a sacred chariot of the gods, a juggernaut, and entitled to be destructive.
We're 9 years in, going on a hundred, a thousand.
Fred
On 24/10/2010 20:10, geni wrote:
On 24 October 2010 19:59, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote:
You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts.
He is probably thinking about this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/
Even if you ignore the flaws in the Nature study and equate errors-per-article with reliability, it still found that Wikipedia contained more errors-per-article than Britannica.
Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in terms of encyclopedias .
I should hope so. The paper copy I bought in 1980 cost almost £1000. 30 years on I have every confidence that the articles won't have have random "was a homo fag" comments inserted into them, and the articles on Aristotle and Maths not much changed. OTOH the one on Beruit is probably changed out of all recognition, and there'll be a few extra Presidents of the USA.
It is also a bit useless for doing ctrl-C ctrl-V on though.
So unless you are going to define "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that works with lower levels of reliability qualify as encyclopedias.
Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted to push some agenda.
Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre.
On 24 October 2010 20:58, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted to push some agenda.
And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever?
Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre.
You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an encyclopedia (see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ).
And then well consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine#Length
On 24/10/2010 21:12, geni wrote:
On 24 October 2010 20:58, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Its not a question of lower levels of reliability it is a question of the absence of reliability, the fact that one can never be sure that what one is reading is correct, an honest mistake, or something inserted to push some agenda.
And how does that differ from every other document written by human beings ever?
Next to the EB we have a French encyclopaedia. It is much less in depth but it is still accurate in what it has to say on the subjects it covers, and again I don't have to worry about whether some one just added nonsense to the article on Maurice Jarre.
You've just defined the New Columbia Encyclopedia as not an encyclopedia (see http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829ta_talk_alford ).
And then well consider this:
Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page can be turned on its head from one page request to the next.
Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia.
On 24 October 2010 23:40, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page can be turned on its head from one page request to the next. Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia.
It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you actually expect to?
- d.
On 24/10/2010 23:48, David Gerard wrote:
On 24 October 2010 23:40, ????wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a site that boasts of containing the worlds knowledge, where every page can be turned on its head from one page request to the next. Whatever was I thinking? Of course the vandalism, POV pushing, and plain old altering of pages to 'win' an argument in the pub or the David Ike forum, is exactly the same as what goes on at the New Columbia Encyclopedia.
It's entirely unclear what it is you're actually expecting to achieve in participating in discussion here, either in particular or in general. Could you please detail what you want to achieve and what you actually expect to?
Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least get some here to think as to how one might produce a body of work that can be relied upon. Where the body of work isn't continually under attack or being buggered about with.
In the case of drugs it is entirely unclear why the pages should reflect this months news reports. Someone dies in Epping Forest a drug is blamed and someone adds that to the article page for the drug. The drug may or may not have been responsible the person putting the report on the page has no way of knowing. You'll remember that those two kids died in the UK and some recreational drug mephedrone was blamed. It turned out that neither had taken the stuff. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone
you'll find this:
According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist who is a member of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed deaths by newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with the reporting of recreational drug use"
its worth holding on to that thought as it happens not just with recreational drugs, but with almost every medical story. The newspapers distort and exaggerate. Actually this particular quote is a bit of an exaggeration in itself the full section currently reads:
Toxicology reports following the deaths of two teenagers (Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19) that were widely reported by the media to be caused by mephedrone, and which led to a ban on the substance in April 2010, showed that the teenagers had in fact not taken any mephedrone.[76] According to Fiona Measham, a criminologist who is a member of the ACMD, the reporting of the unconfirmed deaths by newspapers followed "the usual cycle of ‘exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy and sensationalism'" associated with the reporting of recreational drug use.
The two teenagers died on March 15th and the Fiona Measham article was published online 3 days before the two teenagers died. The current state of the article implies that it is the reporting of the events surrounding those two teenagers that she is referring to, when in fact it is not.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Robert S. Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two numbers wrongly, such a calculator wouldn't be authoritative in its results, even when it added the numbers correctly.
For some things, like who played who in 'West Wing', it is of little importance. For medical issues the accuracy is highly important, and if one can't guarantee that each page load contains the accurate information then one shouldn't be pretending that it is in any way authoritative.
I would hope that somebody from NASA trying to plot spaceship trajectories around the Solar System isn't going to be using data from Wikipedia for those calculations either... or an engineer doing some structural load calculations using information about material strengths from a Wikipedia article. I don't see medical issues as being anything of a unique case or something that needs to be especially pointed out other than it is foolish to use information from Wikipedia or for that matter any encyclopedia as "authoritative" without at the very least checking the sources used to obtain that information. Wikipedia isn't a replacement for the CRC Handbook, nor the Physician's Desk Reference. It shouldn't be either although both are excellent sources of information for factual data that can be used in a Wikipedia article.
General agree. I do back of the envelope spacecraft mission planning with Wikipedia sources when on the road and away from my professional tools, and back of the envelope structural design with Wikipedia materials properties when similarly away from professional sources, but I know what I'm getting there and always go look up proper values if the BOTE work proceeds anywhere. In some cases, I put the structural and astrodynamics data into Wikipedia in the first place, looking at the CRC, astronomical handbooks, and engineering data from manufacturers.
The risk here is that amateurs don't do spacecraft navigation or structural design much. They do - as a rule - take mediations and have medical conditions. In that sense, Wikipedia medical information is much more of an "attractive nuisance" to the uninformed...
On 10/25/2010 02:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:
General agree. I do back of the envelope spacecraft mission planning with Wikipedia sources when on the road and away from my professional tools, and back of the envelope structural design with Wikipedia materials properties when similarly away from professional sources, but I know what I'm getting there and always go look up proper values if the BOTE work proceeds anywhere. In some cases, I put the structural and astrodynamics data into Wikipedia in the first place, looking at the CRC, astronomical handbooks, and engineering data from manufacturers.
The risk here is that amateurs don't do spacecraft navigation or structural design much. They do - as a rule - take mediations and have medical conditions. In that sense, Wikipedia medical information is much more of an "attractive nuisance" to the uninformed...
There is the issue of what I like to call "amateur pharmacology", other wise known as "drug experimenters". This is an issue I addressed some time ago with the "Drugs:Fact and Fiction" Wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Drugs:Fact_and_Fiction
Essentially those who try to act as their own pharmacist without any formal training and choosing deliberately to "experiment" with various drugs (including "illegal drugs"), do so at significant risk to themselves and to those close to them as well. Those who use Wikimedia projects for dosing information or as a textbook as it were to self-administer these substances without the proper training is in for a huge surprise and will likely hurt themselves or those who they try to offer these kinds of drugs.
Something significant here too is that these folks sometimes wrap themselves up in the concept of "scientific research" but there is no attempt to record the results, study the literature to see what has happened before, or to publish findings. Science in this case has as much to do with what is going on as a real "laboratory" has anything to do with a "Meth lab".
I could name other kind areas of scientific research where rank amateurs certainly would not generally be welcome, like an amateur nuclear energy researcher or amateur explosives testing. Again, it is the same thing in terms of somebody engaging in a potentially dangerous activity where if they don't take precautions and try to at least learn something substantial about the topic first... something you don't get from an encyclopedia.
It doesn't matter if you are doing these things out of curiosity, they are simply dangerous. I know of amateurs who do get into rocketry, and some of them have proposals to build vehicles that could get to orbital velocities. Still, you aren't going to get the information to build these vehicles from information found in Wikimedia projects... except perhaps references that will point you to more proper sources of information that will be useful.
-- Robert Horning ____________________________________________________________ SHOCKING: 2010 Honda Civic for $1,734.09 Is this price real? YES! We reveal the TRUTH! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cc60b37d6f38429cf1st05duc
On 23/10/2010 15:15, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-list@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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791
any parent reading that article at that time is highly unlikely to have opted for the vaccine. Or take the final paragraph here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine& 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/measles3.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps2.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures.htm%3E%3E
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.
Controversy has arisen because some scientists and parents claim that the vaccine may be linked to the development of a number of conditions, such as autism, bowel disorders such as Crohn's disease, and the brain disorder Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791#The_...
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.
The sourcing policy, Verifiability, has always been about identifying good-enough sources, not perfect ones, allowing editors to make decisions in context about how to present things neutrally, making sure significant-minority views are included.
But for the last couple of years there has been a very worrying push toward scientific point of view and the exclusion of high-quality mainstream media sources.
In the case of articles about drugs, this effectively leaves the pharmaceutical companies in charge of Wikipedia's content, because they are the ones who finance most of the studies.
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.
Sci-bod: The incidence of harmful side effects is vary low 1:20000 Interviewer: But you can't say with 100% certainty that no one will be harmed.
Sci-bod: We are 95% sure that it is caused by X. Interviewer: But you can't say with 100% certainty that it is caused by X.
and so it goes on. A controversy is presented when no real controversy exists the scare is perpetuated for as long as possible. Most of the interviewers are as numerically illiterate as are their audience.
The newspapers are worse: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfu... http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
in effect by repeating the nonsense the wikipedia articles become no better than just another opinionated blog. This opinion piece lasted some 6 months before being fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=175842901&...
It doesn't matter if final outcome is that the scare was correct or misplaced by repeating the 'latest' news one does a disservice to the readers. Its not as if the 'scare' isn't being fought out in a 1000 other places.
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, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me.
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.
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&...
the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.
For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&...
the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.
I happen to live in a place with quackery and strange medical ideas thrive. With respect to vaccines, prejudice resulted in a great deal of suffering by puppies with parvo. These people do real damage. And they BELIEVE, in colloidal silver, in taking golden seal internally, in grapefruit seed oil, and on and on.
Fred
On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the typical run of the media.
(Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
- d.
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the typical run of the media.
(Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and it was still removed.
How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the typical run of the media.
(Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and it was still removed.
How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
It swings both ways, doesn't it. Present consensus is that the MMR vaccine/autism controversy was without merit; by giving it undue weight, we may have discouraged parents from having their children vaccinated, and may have contributed to multiple deaths. Measles outbreaks had practically disappeared; now they're back.
Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that exists on a topic. That is how encyclopedias are written. A Wikipedia article shouldn't look like a press review if there is a significant amount of scholarly literature on a topic.
Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that.
A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following wording:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5_compare...
It's not an easy thing to get right; the discussion on the WP:V talk page (which also includes a variety of alternative proposals) could benefit from wider input.
Andreas
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, this thread is more appropriate for the en.wp list. There have been experiments with paid editing on other Wikipedias and the arguments for paid editing have been quite different. One project I was involved in was about what does it take to get to the point where things take off.
My conclusion is that it is not only about a size in content but also engaging community. This works even when the community is not really happy about the result. {{sofixit}} applies to some extend and the resulting engagement lowers the threshold. Thanks, GerardM
On 24 October 2010 16:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The specific case raised here, the BBC is, sadly, not a high quality source for science reporting, being notoriously even worse than the typical run of the media.
(Wonder if I could cite Ben Goldacre on that.)
Though their recent move to linking to original sources may help.
In the example I gave I cited both the BBC and the original study, and it was still removed.
How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
It swings both ways, doesn't it. Present consensus is that the MMR vaccine/autism controversy was without merit; by giving it undue weight, we may have discouraged parents from having their children vaccinated, and may have contributed to multiple deaths. Measles outbreaks had practically disappeared; now they're back.
Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that exists on a topic. That is how encyclopedias are written. A Wikipedia article shouldn't look like a press review if there is a significant amount of scholarly literature on a topic.
Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that.
A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following wording:
Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources in topic areas where they are available. Non-academic sources may be used as well, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; the greater the scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5_compare...
It's not an easy thing to get right; the discussion on the WP:V talk page (which also includes a variety of alternative proposals) could benefit from wider input.
Andreas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry, which is the funder and beneficiary of much of the research.
Our first basic job in writing an encyclopedia is to reflect the scholarly literature that exists on a topic. ...
That's missing my point though. In the case of drugs, much of the scholarly literature is financed by the people who are making billions from selling the drug.
There is no other situation in which we allow articles to be sourced entirely, or almost entirely, to the people who have manufactured the product we are writing about.
Having said that, we should also note, in a disinterested tone, the existence of any notable controversies in the public consciousness, making clear who says what, and on what basis. The high-end media will be indispensable for that.
That is what is not being allowed.
A few weeks ago, I proposed updating en:WP's verifiability policy with the following wording:
[snip] ... The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in that field. Quality mainstream media are equally valuable sources for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. ... [snip]
That wording has attracted a significant amount of support, but SlimVirgin fears it will further move the balance towards improperly excluding media sources.
Actually I believe I wrote the words about the socio-economic and human impact. And I have asked only that there be a thoughtful wiki-wide discussion before changing the policy.
Sarah
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
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.
Another thought occurs, though I suspect I'm wasting my time, on this, but nearly all the articles that have something to do with vaccinations link to anti-vaccination groups. Why? Should, in your opinion, every article on geology link to 'Young Earth' groups, every article that involves Evolution link to 'Intelligenmt design' groups, space articles link to the 'Flat Earth Society'?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org