While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well.
For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact.
This 2010 review in Hepatology states "Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships"
WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission.
James: Wow. Like wow. Do you have screen shots of that Google Hep C thing? That's appalling. Is there any indication of what the source was? My mate runs the local Hep C council and that particular canard is something they fight very hard to debunk.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well.
For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact.
This 2010 review in Hepatology states "Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships"
WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James: Google obviously made a bad choice of source there, or a good source got something catastrophically wrong. That does not mean Google (or anyone) should rely on Wikipedia's systemically unreliable content. Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
James: Wow. Like wow. Do you have screen shots of that Google Hep C thing? That's appalling. Is there any indication of what the source was? My mate runs the local Hep C council and that particular canard is something they fight very hard to debunk.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well.
For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact.
This 2010 review in Hepatology states "Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships"
WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Lane. Bloody Mayo Clinic. Google can dump them, too, in my opinion. Has anyone told Google?
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
James: Google obviously made a bad choice of source there, or a good source got something catastrophically wrong. That does not mean Google (or anyone) should rely on Wikipedia's systemically unreliable content. Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
James: Wow. Like wow. Do you have screen shots of that Google Hep C thing? That's appalling. Is there any indication of what the source was? My mate runs the local Hep C council and that particular canard is something they fight very hard to debunk.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well.
For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact.
This 2010 review in Hepatology states "Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships"
WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission.
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On related points concerning the accuracy level and overall usefulness of Wikipedia as compared with other resources, people may be interested in my posting here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#A_reference_l...
and the second half of my book review here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_r...
Regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM
On 4/7/15, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikipedia has been, is, & ever shall be a work in progress. I don't think anyone is denying that any Wikimedia project is imperfect nor is anyone suggesting that there is no room for improvement. Regarding trustworthiness, *Доверяй, но проверяй* [Trust, but verify https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify]. One should always go to the citation sources. A Wikipedia will always be a summary of information, & not the be-all or end-all.
Anthony, if your comments were on on Wiki, I might have posted {{Uw-sofixit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-sofixit&redirect=no}} on your talk page. Please, we need you help. If you see something wrong, please be bold & fix it. Sometimes Wikipedia can only be improved one article & one edit at a time.
Yours, Peaceray
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Anthony Cole ahcoleecu@gmail.com wrote:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Back in 1989-90 I was working in a telecom company. We then said mobile phones can never really challange fixed phone as it is not at all reliable compared with fixed phone and will never be of the same quality. We then learnt "reliable enough for the purpose it it used for" as an explanation for the explosive use of mobiles for almost all usages
I use to to say Wikipedia consists of a number, say 1000, encyclopedias on different subject areas.
And I would say for something like 80% of these wp is reliable enough and in many cases outstanding compared to "competitors". In many subject areas there does not even exist an alternative.
But in some areas, say 20% of total there exist good alternatives if we look at content, and in some cases (like health) I see the demand for reliability and quality so high that perhaps wp can not be seen as the best alternative. (and the "Hot line" still rely on the fixed phone...)
I am proud to (again) be part of a movement that "wins" the world by producing "products" that are being reliable enough for its purpose at the same time being extremely easy to access and useful
Anders
Anthony Cole skrev den 2015-04-07 19:16:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's a really good point, Anders. I agree 100%.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Anders Wennersten mail@anderswennersten.se wrote:
Back in 1989-90 I was working in a telecom company. We then said mobile phones can never really challange fixed phone as it is not at all reliable compared with fixed phone and will never be of the same quality. We then learnt "reliable enough for the purpose it it used for" as an explanation for the explosive use of mobiles for almost all usages
I use to to say Wikipedia consists of a number, say 1000, encyclopedias on different subject areas.
And I would say for something like 80% of these wp is reliable enough and in many cases outstanding compared to "competitors". In many subject areas there does not even exist an alternative.
But in some areas, say 20% of total there exist good alternatives if we look at content, and in some cases (like health) I see the demand for reliability and quality so high that perhaps wp can not be seen as the best alternative. (and the "Hot line" still rely on the fixed phone...)
I am proud to (again) be part of a movement that "wins" the world by producing "products" that are being reliable enough for its purpose at the same time being extremely easy to access and useful
Anders
Anthony Cole skrev den 2015-04-07 19:16:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there.
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org