--- James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.
Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with more specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it. As for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if an article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the draft versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure" version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but vandalism on a medical wiki could be life threatening.
Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted within a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.
And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.
Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources. WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia would serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is, how to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this medical wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous key. There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a wiki dedicated to such a topic.
Thank you for your interest in the topic.
Messedrocker
On 6/17/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell
you
about my proposed project: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read
the
whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first
post
to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki mailing list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
Angela.
Maybe this project would be useful. But I disagree with protecting the articles unless it is deemed "finished" and the projects want to have a "stable" version. The other reason is not good and will increase the risk of liability. No one should be taking medical advice from on line medical articles. We must be careful that Wikimedia project(s) do not send mixed signals on this point.
On English speaking projects, the biggest need is for medical articles to be adapted for low literacy readers. I know that most medical articles are well above the reading level of the average US citizen. I’m certain that similar problems exist with other English speaking countries too.
Sydney Poore aka FloNight
So you're proposing that initially, articles should be developed in the main namespace until "completion," then additions are to be proposed?
On 6/17/06, poore5@adelphia.net poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
--- James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.
Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with
more
specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it.
As
for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if
an
article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the
draft
versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure" version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but
vandalism
on a medical wiki could be life threatening.
Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted
within
a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.
And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.
Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources. WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia
would
serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is,
how
to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this
medical
wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous
key.
There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a
wiki
dedicated to such a topic.
Thank you for your interest in the topic.
Messedrocker
On 6/17/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I
would
like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously
tell
you
about my proposed project: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please
read
the
whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my
first
post
to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to
do.
Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki mailing list at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
Angela.
Maybe this project would be useful. But I disagree with protecting the articles unless it is deemed "finished" and the projects want to have a "stable" version. The other reason is not good and will increase the risk of liability. No one should be taking medical advice from on line medical articles. We must be careful that Wikimedia project(s) do not send mixed signals on this point.
On English speaking projects, the biggest need is for medical articles to be adapted for low literacy readers. I know that most medical articles are well above the reading level of the average US citizen. I'm certain that similar problems exist with other English speaking countries too.
Sydney Poore aka FloNight
I would like to echo FloNight here. I'm not sure we really want to be providing medical advice as it opens WMF to a large degree of liability. And if it is just a dictionary of terms, well, like Angela and Nathan said, wouldn't it be duplicating work? Thanks. --LV
The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary" when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to make it go away."
On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to echo FloNight here. I'm not sure we really want to be providing medical advice as it opens WMF to a large degree of liability. And if it is just a dictionary of terms, well, like Angela and Nathan said, wouldn't it be duplicating work? Thanks. --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/17/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary" when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to make it go away."
Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV
How is Wikipedia better than World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica? How is Wikinews better than CNN.com? How is Wiktionary better than dictionary.com? The idea is that when Wikimedia starts a project, we're the copyleft alternative to the ideal corporate source we're getting information from. The information Wikimedia publishes is for all the people with Internet access, and eventually the entire world.
On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using
exclusively
verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where
people
-know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical
dictionary"
when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how
to
make it go away."
Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Anyways, I think we should focus on a name. Apparently WikiMD is taken, so how does MedWiki or WikiMed or WikiMedicine sound?
On 6/17/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
How is Wikipedia better than World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica? How is Wikinews better than CNN.com? How is Wiktionary better than dictionary.com? The idea is that when Wikimedia starts a project, we're the copyleft alternative to the ideal corporate source we're getting information from. The information Wikimedia publishes is for all the people with Internet access, and eventually the entire world.
On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/17/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using
exclusively
verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where
people
-know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical
dictionary"
when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and
how to
make it go away."
Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 6/17/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary" when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to make it go away."
That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the emergency medical hologram.
Kelly
On Sun, June 18, 2006 05:55, Kelly Martin wrote:
That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the emergency medical hologram.
Can I give an even simpler warning/worry?
At the moment we have students complaining that they were marked down in essays for getting things wrong, and their response is "But it must be true - I found it on Wikipedia!"
What happens when someone reads something on WikiMed - the medical information that anyone can edit - (or whatever it gets called) and finds that what they read wasn't accurate and someone is injured, maimed, or even dies? Don't say it won't ever happen, in some countries people sue because their coffee is too hot. It will. There are plenty of medical info sites out there, but they don't permit drive-by editors. Us doing so would be a very dangerous step away from behaving in a legally and medically responsible way, imho.
Which is a pity, as otherwise I liked the idea as being a way to find the info without being 'attacked' by so many adverts!
Alison Wheeler
That's what's so hard.
My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki. Having a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability and would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.
What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but should keep us pretty safe.
On 6/18/06, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
On Sun, June 18, 2006 05:55, Kelly Martin wrote:
That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the emergency medical hologram.
Can I give an even simpler warning/worry?
At the moment we have students complaining that they were marked down in essays for getting things wrong, and their response is "But it must be true - I found it on Wikipedia!"
What happens when someone reads something on WikiMed - the medical information that anyone can edit - (or whatever it gets called) and finds that what they read wasn't accurate and someone is injured, maimed, or even dies? Don't say it won't ever happen, in some countries people sue because their coffee is too hot. It will. There are plenty of medical info sites out there, but they don't permit drive-by editors. Us doing so would be a very dangerous step away from behaving in a legally and medically responsible way, imho.
Which is a pity, as otherwise I liked the idea as being a way to find the info without being 'attacked' by so many adverts!
Alison Wheeler _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So is every single edit going to be researched? If I were to come in switch a dosage of some medicine from 10mg to 100mg, throw up a junk source to WebMD, is someone who might not intricately know the specific medications going to go to each source and check even the most minor of edits?
Don't take this as huge criticism, I am just looking for fundamental flaws. Thanks. --LV
Let's assume we're going to go with the editable-drafts-protected-mainspace plan.
If I were checking the edits of a page, I would do each individual edit at a time. I'd take a look at the addition to the page, check out the source they supplied, and make sure that the source and the edit say the same thing. If the source doesn't justify the addition, the addition is removed. If there are no sources, it's removed, no questions asked. If the source justifies the edit, it gets approved and added to the mainspace version. It wouldn't be that hard: all you have to do is go to the source listed and make sure that it all checks out. If it's hard to tell, then it's best to withhold the information and contact the editor. Ideally, once an edit is made to a draft, an administrator should take a look at the individual edit and check it. For that reason, it'd be good to make sure there's a good proportion of administrators to regular users to expedite the process.
Alternatively, we could create a new level of users that would be capable of editing the main space: they could receive this status if they have a good history of editing. This set of users wouldn't even have to make their own edits on the drafts; they could simply edit the main space version (but once they mess up, they'd better be ready to fix it and apologize). The benefit of this middle-point between administrators and regular users is that if they're trusted to make useful edits, but not necessarily trusted with admin tools, they can receive this status.
To answer your question, Lord Voldemort, the accuracy on the wiki (that is, the main space, as opposed to the drafts) depends on how dedicated the administrator is. Or the slightly-elevated user, if we implement that system. If we wisely appoint these people, we won't be disappointed. I'm sure we have people motivated to work on such a daring endeavor. I know I am.
On 6/18/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
So is every single edit going to be researched? If I were to come in switch a dosage of some medicine from 10mg to 100mg, throw up a junk source to WebMD, is someone who might not intricately know the specific medications going to go to each source and check even the most minor of edits?
Don't take this as huge criticism, I am just looking for fundamental flaws. Thanks. --LV _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Hare wrote:
Alternatively, we could create a new level of users that would be capable of editing the main space: they could receive this status if they have a good history of editing. This set of users wouldn't even have to make their own edits on the drafts; they could simply edit the main space version (but once they mess up, they'd better be ready to fix it and apologize). The benefit of this middle-point between administrators and regular users is that if they're trusted to make useful edits, but not necessarily trusted with admin tools, they can receive this status.
To answer your question, Lord Voldemort, the accuracy on the wiki (that is, the main space, as opposed to the drafts) depends on how dedicated the administrator is. Or the slightly-elevated user, if we implement that system. If we wisely appoint these people, we won't be disappointed. I'm sure we have people motivated to work on such a daring endeavor. I know I am.
You have an idealised view of how a volunteer organization works. Fact checking is detailed, time-consuming and tedious work. Volunteers like to work on projects of their own, and no amount of appointing will result in what you expect unless you are willing to pay these people.
Ec
James Hare wrote:
That's what's so hard.
My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki. Having a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability and would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.
What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but should keep us pretty safe.
Your proposal would likely increase our exposure to liability, not decrease it. As long as the public is _clearly_ informed that the information in a medical article is not necessarily the product of professionals we are probably better off than if we gave people a false sense of security about the reliability of the articles. Remember too, how people interpret such written material often has no relation to what was actually written or what the author intended. Do not underestimate people's capacity to misread information, and use that as a basis for starting a lawsuit.
Ec
Of course we'd have a disclaimer. Quite an apparent disclaimer -- perhaps in MediaWiki:Sitenotice. I wouldn't allow it any other way, nor would the wikilawyers. I think having a disclaimer that the information we present is merely background information, and professional advice is like 350 times better, would help us be safe (and help them from hurting themselves).
On 6/19/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
James Hare wrote:
That's what's so hard.
My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki.
Having
a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability
and
would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.
What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but should keep us pretty safe.
Your proposal would likely increase our exposure to liability, not decrease it. As long as the public is _clearly_ informed that the information in a medical article is not necessarily the product of professionals we are probably better off than if we gave people a false sense of security about the reliability of the articles. Remember too, how people interpret such written material often has no relation to what was actually written or what the author intended. Do not underestimate people's capacity to misread information, and use that as a basis for starting a lawsuit.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org