American Osteopathic Association

On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote: I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"? -- Marc

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ah, that explains it. :-) Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy!

On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: Ah, that explains it. :-) Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy! -- Marc _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello, I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this paper since its publication. Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject Medicine - < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_4… That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main forum. While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content. Here is a list of what has been done: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_publi… @geni - "The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia." I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia at least says that people should have health information, whereas every government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the rest) are still saying "Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this" and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing demand that is otherwise ignored. @Todd Allen - "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process." The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make those decisions. I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them lots of questions, but something more is needed too. yours, On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Todd Allen &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: if possible > causes or factors that need to be considered. > Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to get the > end of the process. > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier &lt;marc(a)uberbox.org&gt; > wrote: > > On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: > > > From what I remember from it is that > > > what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called > > > Osteopathy in the US > > > Ah, that explains it. :-) > > > Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be > > infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article > accuracy! > > > -- Marc > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

FYI - Here is the previous thread on this list about this study / topic: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/460005?do=post_view_t… _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier &lt;marc(a)uberbox.org&gt; wrote: That issue was discussed before too. From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US, where the UK one is basically voodoo, and the US one a legitimate specialty in medicine (but correct me if I'm wrong) -- Martijn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States Osteopaths also have chiropractic training. Take care, Amy On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier &lt;marc(a)uberbox.org&gt; wrote: -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbrinck(a)wikimedia.org &lt;avossbrinck(a)wikimedia.org&gt;* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Thanks everyone. Last day when this news published i receive lots of phone call from our journalist friend. You know all journalist just check the news media. Not check details issue.

What I think is funny about this whole article and this email thread is that the quality of Wikipedia is not brought into relation with anything else. For example, I know that one of the main causes of death in the Netherlands today has to do with improper dosages of medicine, caused both by failure to follow instructions in the medical information accompanying pharmaceuticals and by mistakes in that medical information. Wikipedia may be full of mistakes, but so is the "official" medical information offered to doctors and patients.