[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and ...

[Andreas Kolbe]

> From: David Goodman <dgoodmanny at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 25 October, 2010, 6:57

> Whether or not we want it to be,
> whether or not it ought to be,
> Wikipedia is being relied on. Our foundational principles
> do not
> control the outside world.  What we have produced is
> being used as the
> nearest approach to a reliable source most people  are
> willing to look
> for--and in many cases actually is the closest thing to a
> reliable
> sources they can reasonably be expected to find. Not that
> we're
> particularly good, just that there is nothing as widely
> available that
> is  better.
> 
> This gives us responsibility. Whether or not we are ready
> for it, it
> gives us responsibility. We're no longer playing a computer
> game for
> our own satisfaction. We are now responsible for covering
> controversial subjects in an even-handed fashion, giving
> various views
> the appropriate emphasis, and providing enough information
> that people
> can judge them. We need to cover things with real
> consequences, and
> get them right. Since people come to us for medical or
> legal
> information, we need to provide
> accurate   information, while
> explaining the limits of what we
> provide.   This is not a mechanical
> process. It is editing in the true sense of the word: 
> it takes
> judgement, it takes takes  research-- things we have
> been claiming are
> against our basic principles.   And indeed
> they weren't not needed for
> a play-project.  We may wish we were still playing.
> But we've grown up
> and must take the responsibility that adults have, of
> working and
> standing behind our work.
> 
> We have an obligation to provide all answers, and indicate
> which are
> the accepted answers among them. We can not provide
> information from
> scientific studies and news anecdotes and say they have
> equal weight.
> If we report things people say that are not really true or
> that are
> outright lies, we must explain their status.
> 
> There are some matters in the world where there are views
> that almost
> every rational person who understands the problem considers
> far
> fringe, and yet a very significant minority or even
> majority of people
> in the world believe them to be true or at least possible.
> There are
> matters in the world which a very significant minority or
> even a
> majority think should not be judged by logic and science,
> and the only
> evidence they want is the experiences of those who agree
> with them.
> We need to explain those views, but we also need to 
> explain their
> basis.


Here are some sources from the en:WP:V talk page* that lend weight to that argument:


1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19390105 
"Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?" —

"Based on its search engine ranking and page view statistics, the English 
Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information compared to 
the other online health information providers studied."


2.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/21/2
"How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? 
an evaluation of 500 stories" 

"Of 170 stories that cited an expert or a scientific study, 85 (50%) cited 
at least one with a financial tie to the manufacturer of the drug, a tie 
that was disclosed in only 33 of the 85 stories."


3.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805753 
"Communicating Medical News — Pitfalls of Health Care Journalism"

"Journalists sometimes feel the need to play carnival barkers, hyping a 
story to draw attention to it. This leads them to frame a story as new or 
different — depicting study results as counterintuitive or a break from the 
past — if they want it to be featured prominently or even accepted by an 
editor at all."


4.
http://annals.org/content/150/9/613.abstract 
"Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic?"

"Conclusion: Press releases from academic medical centers often promote 
research that has uncertain relevance to human health and do not provide 
key facts or acknowledge important limitations."



* Sources were contributed by User:QuackGuru