[Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,<WJhonson at 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-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/
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&oldid=133421215
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=175842901&oldid=175097590

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.