[Foundation-l] Greetings, Wikimedians

[James Hare]

So you're proposing that initially, articles should be developed in the main
namespace until "completion," then additions are to be proposed?

On 6/17/06, poore5 at adelphia.net <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> --- James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.
> >
> > Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with
> more
> > specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it.
> As
> > for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if
> an
> > article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the
> draft
> > versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure"
> > version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but
> vandalism
> > on a medical wiki could be life threatening.
> >
> > Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted
> within
> > a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it
> > would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.
> >
> > And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.
> >
> > Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources.
> > WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a
> > medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia
> would
> > serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a
> > supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is,
> how
> > to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this
> medical
> > wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous
> key.
> > There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a
> wiki
> > dedicated to such a topic.
> >
> > Thank you for your interest in the topic.
> >
> > Messedrocker
> >
> > On 6/17/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I
> would
> > > > like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously
> tell
> > > you
> > > > about my proposed project:
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please
> read
> > > the
> > > > whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my
> first
> > > post
> > > > to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to
> do.
> > >
> > > Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
> > > mailing list at
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
> > >
> > > Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
> > > should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
> > > Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
> > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
> > >
> > > Angela.
>
> Maybe this project would be useful. But I disagree with protecting the
> articles unless it is deemed "finished" and the projects want to have a
> "stable" version. The other reason is not good and will increase the risk of
> liability. No one should be taking medical advice from on line medical
> articles. We must be careful that Wikimedia project(s) do not send mixed
> signals on this point.
>
> On English speaking projects, the biggest need is for medical articles to
> be adapted for low literacy readers. I know that most medical articles are
> well above the reading level of the average US citizen. I'm certain that
> similar problems exist with other English speaking countries too.
>
> Sydney Poore aka FloNight
>
>