[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...
dgoodmanny at gmail.com
Sun Oct 31 17:04:15 UTC 2010
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope.
This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> > 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:
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
More information about the foundation-l