No subject

the ordinary reader won't know how to use it, I see the continuation
of guild mentality, the desire to keep information obscure to protect
revenues and status.

We provide information on many potentially dangerous things. We do not
provide detailed practical instructions. but the plain statement of
normal mg/kg is not detailed instruction any more than is information
on indications. If we give the information for vitamin requirements,
we can give it for drugs.  We often give LD50s, though sometimes
inconspicuously and with an unfortunate  tendency to give the values
for rats even if the human value is known.

Basic information that anyone can understand is what is known to be
safe, and what is known to be dangerous. The more directly we present
it, the more we fulfill our mandate. NOT CENSORED, frankly, and that
should settle it. Some people think it applies only to sexual images,
but that's just a function of our culture preoccupation with them.
There are more important things to avoid censoring. If the information
is known reliably, we have no justification for not publishing it. The
very meaning of NOT CENSORED is that information is always preferred
to ignorance.  The key word is "always".  The only restraint should be
legal restrictions,  which does not apply here.  If it's verifiable,
legal, and pertinent, and we do not state it, we are censoring.

 David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> The questions of liability and encyclopedic nature are really tangential to
> the core reasons for the guideline. The text of the guideline and
> discussions about it have generally made no reference to whether the
> material is encyclopedic or whether legal ramifications exist for having the
> wrong information. Since many of the editors of drug information have some
> connection to the health care industry, whether as physicians or nurses or
> etc., the focus has understandably been about the potential for harming
> people who use incorrect information or misuse correct information. I
> haven't seen this problem adequately addressed here; it's roughly analogous
> to why we don't include instructions on how to make bombs. A specialist
> encyclopedia of explosives and ordnance might include information on how
> such weapons are built, but we don't. Similarly, medical references include
> information on lethal dosages and dangerous applications for drugs, but we
> don't.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>