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

[Andreas Kolbe]

> > I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
> >
> > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
> >
> > criticises media reports for citing studies and
> experts with financial ties
> > to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties to the
> reader.
> >
> > If it's improper for the media to withhold this
> information, it's equally
> > improper for us to withhold it in our articles. It's a
> question of correct
> > attribution: "According to a 2007 randomised,
> double-blind, placebo-
> > controlled trial funded by company X, involving 50
> patients, their product
> > Y ..."
> >
> > I don't think our medical sources guideline addresses
> this point at
> > present, i.e. that we should name funding sources in
> our attribution. So
> > that is an area we could do some work on. At least it
> will be clear to
> > the reader who paid for what.
> >
> I think that would make an important difference to our
> coverage. It
> would not only inform the reader that the sources we're
> relying on
> have a financial interest in the outcome. It would also
> alert the
> editors who push to rely on those sources that additional
> disinterested sources may be needed too.


If anyone's interested, this is currently being discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Funding_of_cited_research

A.