In a message dated 10/31/2010 10:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodmanny@gmail.com writes:
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope. This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative reader-edited encyclopedia >>
Yes, giving our readers the actual tools with which they can make informed decisions is beyond our scope. We should only be seeking to enforce dogma, not to create thinkers.
W
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way
beyond our scope.
This is a matter for professional journals, not an
unauthoritative
reader-edited encyclopedia >>
Yes, giving our readers the actual tools with which they can make informed decisions is beyond our scope. We should only be seeking to enforce dogma, not to create thinkers.
I am really puzzled by the resistance to naming funding sources in Wikipedia.
Multiple studies have lambasted media reports that fail to disclose financial ties between the researchers they quote, and the manufacturers who make the product they tested. The "gold standard" for media reports, according to multiple sources, is that such ties should be mentioned as a matter of course.
All reputable medical journals make disclosure of conflicts of interest a condition for manuscript acceptance, and publish this conflict-of-interest information, as a matter of course.
Yet in Wikipedia, I am told that applying these same standards would be "smearing" the study authors, that it would be too complicated to do, or that our editors are not the right people to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(me...
I don't understand what is so difficult or complicated about saying, "According to a 2009 study funded by the manufacturer, drug X is effective in ..."
Truly puzzled.
Andreas
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 20:18, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
I am really puzzled by the resistance to naming funding sources in Wikipedia.
This is the part of post-modernist shit or nicely called "post-modernist relativism". You know, the world is so big, we don't understand nothing and we are not relevant to make our own judgments because of all of those and many more. In a lighter form it materializes through cowardice, in heavier through believing in astrology and other New Age shit.
Bad news is that it is very deep in all Western societies, good news is that group cowardice could be handled by taking initiative.
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.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way
I don't understand what is so difficult or complicated about saying, "According to a 2009 study funded by the manufacturer, drug X is effective in ..."
Truly puzzled.
Andreas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Following on from David, the funding should not matter.
We should not be using studies which have not been peer-reviewed.
We should be very wary of studies that have been peer-reviewed by journals with a history of allowing garbage through.
We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic community.
-- John Vandenberg
Still, it is quite well known that manufacture funded studies come up more often than not with entirely different results than if they are not funded by the manufacture.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Following on from David, the funding should not matter.
We should not be using studies which have not been peer-reviewed.
We should be very wary of studies that have been peer-reviewed by journals with a history of allowing garbage through.
We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic community.
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote:
We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic community.
The citation count isn't the only measure within academic journals, though - the reputation of the author should also be borne in mind, i.e. (speaking generally) the reliability at which their previous works have been rated, and hence the likelihood that the new work that they have been published should also be considered worthwhile of attention. And, of course, the level of peer review that the article has undergone - different journals require higher standards of review, and hence will have different initial levels of acceptance/trust from the academic community. Relying on citations alone is definitely a flawed measure, and is not something that we should rely on in solitude if we're interested in covering the latest scientific findings.
The funding is almost inconsequential when considering these other metrics, given that they're based almost entirely on alternative sources of reliability (or should be within an ideal information/scientific-based world).
Mike Peel
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 31 Oct 2010, at 23:08, John Vandenberg wrote:
We should be careful with new studies even when published in respected journals, until the citation count rises to the point that we feel comfortable that the study has been accepted by the academic community.
The citation count isn't the only measure within academic journals, though - the reputation of the author should also be borne in mind, i.e. (speaking generally) the reliability at which their previous works have been rated, and hence the likelihood that the new work that they have been published should also be considered worthwhile of attention. And, of course, the level of peer review that the article has undergone - different journals require higher standards of review, and hence will have different initial levels of acceptance/trust from the academic community. Relying on citations alone is definitely a flawed measure, and is not something that we should rely on in solitude if we're interested in covering the latest scientific findings.
I agree that citation count isn't a good measure of 'truth'. As you point out, it is much more complex than that.
The funding is almost inconsequential when considering these other metrics, given that they're based almost entirely on alternative sources of reliability (or should be within an ideal information/scientific-based world).
In addition, requiring that we describe the funding in our articles is going to be an exercise in madness for us, and useless information for the reader. For example, it is quite common for funding to be split between a competitive grant and an industry partner. Often the competitive grant _requires_ an industry partner, as the public purse wants to know that there is industry demand for the research, and also wants industry to pay part of the costs. In these cases we would need to say 'According to a 2009 study funded by [x] and [govt body]...', which then begs the question of how much of it was paid for by whom.
-- John Vandenberg
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 00:02, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Information about who funded research is just one more information inside of an article. If it is possible to find that information, it is good; if it is not possible, it is good, too. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. So, "study funded by X said about Y that" seems as quite valid information, if available.
On 01/11/2010 06:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 00:02, David Goodmandgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Information about who funded research is just one more information inside of an article. If it is possible to find that information, it is good; if it is not possible, it is good, too. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. So, "study funded by X said about Y that" seems as quite valid information, if available.
Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant details so why not pollute this class of article too?
Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc.
Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem, and probably illegal in some places too.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant details so why not pollute this class of article too?
Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc.
Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem, and probably illegal in some places too.
It is hard to say that irrelevant details exist. It is just a matter of time when once irrelevant, details would become relevant enough for some article. I witnessed a number of times that one detail [inside of a Wikipedia article] was irrelevant at one point of time, while fully relevant a year or two later.
It is more about well or badly worded articles. And POV pushers have developed badly worded articles into the state of art, by pushing inside of, let's say, introduction the information which doesn't belong there.
Connection between scientific studies and their sponsors is very relevant. It goes up to the point that it is important to know who is a mentor of some PhD student. Forcing students to build foundations for fringe theories of their mentors is a common practice. The only difference between the present and past practice is in the complexity of mathematics and amount of data behind the fringe science.
The fact that there are no independent researches behind some drug means exclusively that. Encyclopedia doesn't describe controversies exclusively, it gives useful information about described matter. And sponsors belong to the set of relevant information.
Let's say, it is historically very important to detect Leonardo da Vinci's sponsors; or the fact that Tales of Milet was independently wealthy; or the fact that not just funds were important in Copernicus' decision to become quiet.
There are much more scientists and inventions today than in past, but it is equally important to detect context around them.
It is sad to see that Wikipedians are showing the same kind of fear toward more information, as classical encyclopedists was showing in relation to Wikipedia. Again, there are no irrelevant information (or the most of information treated as so are not irrelevant), there are just well and badly worded articles.
millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant details so why not pollute this class of article too?
Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc.
Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem, and probably illegal in some places too.
It is hard to say that irrelevant details exist. It is just a matter of time when once irrelevant, details would become relevant enough for some article. I witnessed a number of times that one detail [inside of a Wikipedia article] was irrelevant at one point of time, while fully relevant a year or two later.
At which point add the detail. Information can have a positive and negative effect on an article. Until it becomes relevant, given proper weight, and can be synthesised into the article, odd bits of data simply detract from the present real information. Its as if you go home and your partner starts telling you about the events of the day, minute details of their journey into work, the trip to the supermarket, your brother died, details of how they selected items from the shopping list, details of the journey back from the supermarket.
It is more about well or badly worded articles. And POV pushers have developed badly worded articles into the state of art, by pushing inside of, let's say, introduction the information which doesn't belong there.
And this stuff doesn't belong in the article space, putting it there simple provides a handle for the POV pushers to hang stuff off of. Shove it in some appendix or expansion of the reference if it needs recording. But as someone said in the talk pages, primary research does belong in the article space anyway. Let them POV push in an area that few will look in.
However, if you want to see POV pushing on drugs trying these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-T-2
where the molecules are being given cute little animations, someone might just as well have stuck little smiley faces on them.
Connection between scientific studies and their sponsors is very relevant. It goes up to the point that it is important to know who is a mentor of some PhD student. Forcing students to build foundations for fringe theories of their mentors is a common practice. The only difference between the present and past practice is in the complexity of mathematics and amount of data behind the fringe science.
Perhaps one should have a credits listing at the end of each article listing the sponsors all the references. Something like the last 5 minutes of a Hollywood film? To avoid any possibility of bias one would also have to ensure that the same thing happened with every reference to every article, on every subject. After all that reference might have been sponsored by Jews, Christians, or Atheists.
The fact that there are no independent researches behind some drug means exclusively that. Encyclopedia doesn't describe controversies exclusively, it gives useful information about described matter. And sponsors belong to the set of relevant information.
Let's say, it is historically very important to detect Leonardo da Vinci's sponsors; or the fact that Tales of Milet was independently wealthy; or the fact that not just funds were important in Copernicus' decision to become quiet.
The point is that information becomes relevant in retrospect. At the time it was news, which may or may not have been correct. One needs to decide whether the point of the project is to fulminate gossip, or to record facts.
There are much more scientists and inventions today than in past, but it is equally important to detect context around them.
It is sad to see that Wikipedians are showing the same kind of fear toward more information, as classical encyclopedists was showing in relation to Wikipedia. Again, there are no irrelevant information (or the most of information treated as so are not irrelevant), there are just well and badly worded articles.
Its not fear of information, its concern that the addition of minutia detracts from the main purpose of the article, and that it provides a handle for some agenda pushing. In these postings and on the talk page there are references to "Big Pharma". IOW some are looking to add this stuff simply in order to POV push.
I see it that way too. It is sufficient that if such questions arise and are published, then we report on them.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM, wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 08:54, ???? wiki-list@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Quite right, the articles in other subjects are polluted with irrelevant details so why not pollute this class of article too?
Mention it if it is a major factor in some controversy. For example if a number of research results are saying that X is useless for Y, and one report by the manufacturer says X helps in 90% of cases of Y. Otherwise as others have said who funds the research is noise. You might as well add in the funding for any research in the Computer Science articles, in the history articles, in the social science articles, etc, etc.
Frankly if manufacturer research isn't providing correct data, for policy makers, and other scientist to work from that is a major problem, and probably illegal in some places too.
It is hard to say that irrelevant details exist. It is just a matter of time when once irrelevant, details would become relevant enough for some article. I witnessed a number of times that one detail [inside of a Wikipedia article] was irrelevant at one point of time, while fully relevant a year or two later.
At which point add the detail. Information can have a positive and negative effect on an article. Until it becomes relevant, given proper weight, and can be synthesised into the article, odd bits of data simply detract from the present real information. Its as if you go home and your partner starts telling you about the events of the day, minute details of their journey into work, the trip to the supermarket, your brother died, details of how they selected items from the shopping list, details of the journey back from the supermarket.
It is more about well or badly worded articles. And POV pushers have developed badly worded articles into the state of art, by pushing inside of, let's say, introduction the information which doesn't belong there.
And this stuff doesn't belong in the article space, putting it there simple provides a handle for the POV pushers to hang stuff off of. Shove it in some appendix or expansion of the reference if it needs recording. But as someone said in the talk pages, primary research does belong in the article space anyway. Let them POV push in an area that few will look in.
However, if you want to see POV pushing on drugs trying these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-T-2
where the molecules are being given cute little animations, someone might just as well have stuck little smiley faces on them.
Connection between scientific studies and their sponsors is very relevant. It goes up to the point that it is important to know who is a mentor of some PhD student. Forcing students to build foundations for fringe theories of their mentors is a common practice. The only difference between the present and past practice is in the complexity of mathematics and amount of data behind the fringe science.
Perhaps one should have a credits listing at the end of each article listing the sponsors all the references. Something like the last 5 minutes of a Hollywood film? To avoid any possibility of bias one would also have to ensure that the same thing happened with every reference to every article, on every subject. After all that reference might have been sponsored by Jews, Christians, or Atheists.
The fact that there are no independent researches behind some drug means exclusively that. Encyclopedia doesn't describe controversies exclusively, it gives useful information about described matter. And sponsors belong to the set of relevant information.
Let's say, it is historically very important to detect Leonardo da Vinci's sponsors; or the fact that Tales of Milet was independently wealthy; or the fact that not just funds were important in Copernicus' decision to become quiet.
The point is that information becomes relevant in retrospect. At the time it was news, which may or may not have been correct. One needs to decide whether the point of the project is to fulminate gossip, or to record facts.
There are much more scientists and inventions today than in past, but it is equally important to detect context around them.
It is sad to see that Wikipedians are showing the same kind of fear toward more information, as classical encyclopedists was showing in relation to Wikipedia. Again, there are no irrelevant information (or the most of information treated as so are not irrelevant), there are just well and badly worded articles.
Its not fear of information, its concern that the addition of minutia detracts from the main purpose of the article, and that it provides a handle for some agenda pushing. In these postings and on the talk page there are references to "Big Pharma". IOW some are looking to add this stuff simply in order to POV push.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org