On 28/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable,
information from the wikipedia is common sense again?
Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend
on
Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you
know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever?
--
-Ian Woollard
I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by users,
not readers...
Fred
___
Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you
know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever?
--
-Ian Woollard
on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by users,
Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you
know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever?
--
-Ian Woollard
on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by
users,
Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you
know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever?
--
-Ian Woollard
on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable,
information from the wikipedia is common sense again?
Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend
on whether it's publically available, legal, or
on 5/29/09 9:06 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Interactions between less than perfect people and less than perfect
organizations are complex. We can do our best to be as compassionate as
possible in all interactions, but there can be a great deal of pain
regardless. That
2009/5/29 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
And what about the potential uses of information that could save
people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this
is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm.
For the sake of the record, I've ended up using a
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Actually my life experience using wikipedia for self medication
does not bear that out. There have been situtations where I was
in dire straits, and without a doctor within easy reach, where
simply consulting
On 29/05/2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day.
_
Touche! :-DDD
And more remarkably she even survived 8 years of the wikipedia, that
well-known deadly website, but only because it was suitably
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets
On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable,
information from the wikipedia is common sense again?
Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend
on whether it's publically available, legal, or verifiable.
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense.
I'm not interested in the prejudices you acquired by the age of ten.
Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should
avoid *any harm whatsoever*.
On Wed, 27 May 2009, geni wrote:
This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense.
I'm not interested in the prejudices you acquired by the age of ten.
Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should
avoid *any harm whatsoever*.
Then
On 27/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
That too is an example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense.
Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable,
information from the wikipedia is common sense again?
I think this is madness. And further, I don't
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
Total number of articles: 2,893,595
Total number of articles on people: 673,918 (23.29% of all articles)
Total number of featured biographies: 618 (0.09% of biographies)
Total number of BLPs: 375,584 (55.73%
On Mon, 25 May 2009, David Goodman wrote:
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
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
That would require us to exclude information on rather a lot of
2009/5/26 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on
Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to
harm.
That would require us to
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote:
I understood it well enough. Accurate information on a number of subjects
is inflammatory.
This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense.
Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should
avoid *any harm
2009/5/26 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia,
and how common sense is ignored.
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
That would require us to
On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if it's
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if it's only a
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate themselves.
If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote:
You're preaching to the choir. Often when we want to do the right
thing,
we are confronted with a demand for a rule, or presented with one,
typically no censorship. There is no substitute for doing what is
appropriate in the circumstances. Trying to
2009/5/26 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Trying to do Biographies of living persons without a rule proved futile;
so a written policy was created.
Which only works because it's NPOV/NOR/V with (a working aim for) no
eventualism whatsoever.
We still don't have a corresponding
policy
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net benefit...
---
Then
On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to
harm.
If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is
wrong.
Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid
harm? What if
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot
something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors
will have a net
On 26/05/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We're all censors, we just vary with respect to what we censor.
No, I don't think I am. I don't remove anything except that which is
believed to be illegal in the state of Florida... which this isn't.
That's not my censorship, that
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
snip
you could write a book on the biographies on Wikipedia
[...]
Not a book you would want to publish or distribute in the UK, however.
Turning away from BLPs to featured articles, it is well-known that
articles on
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more
harm
than it would cause.
Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and
educate
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info:
Manhattan Research
2009/5/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 5/26
I see what you are saying now, and I agree. Asking every editor to
check every article to that level of detail is not feasible. The
amount of checking done should be determined by the reason for the
edit. Still, even if you spot a typo and go and correct it, I would
still check you aren't helping
2009/5/25 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
Why is giving it in terms of body mass when that is the official
standard not correct?. For some drugs there is a range of usual dose,
for some there is a single standard dose. We are on much firmer
ground reporting a standard than reporting an
Sam Blacketer (2009/5/25):
Quite often vandals will come in and keep making vandal edits until they
are stopped
I concur with that. When I come across an account behaving so, I yearn for
a revert last X edits function.
Now that I think of it, I'm sure there is an administrator js block
On an article, rollback will do that if there is a sequence of edits
by a single editor and there are no intervening edits. If there are
intervening edits, it's normally worth looking closer and checking
what exactly to revert or change. I think you have to click rollback
on the editor's
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
From my experience as a biomedical librarian, when I see someone say,
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
In a message dated 5/25/2009 8:23:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
it's roughly analogous
to why we don't include instructions on how to make bombs.
-
Well sheet.
I've been following these instructions for a while now already!
Nathan wrote:
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.
We do include detailed
Rollback definitely works on the article's diff page. Twinkle also does the
same thing (assumes continued vandalism/agf) for all its various options.
~A
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:20, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On an article, rollback will do that if there is a sequence of
The exact specifications of the Little Boy bomb remain
classifiedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_informationbecause they
could still be used to create a viable nuclear weapon.
First line of the section. That sort of sums up this whole debate - it's
essentially a risk-benefit
David Goodman wrote:
I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information
Delirium wrote:
As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody
can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes
I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information is standardized and
2009/5/24 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The guideline is at:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Drugs]
Do not include dose and titration information except when they are
notable or necessary for the discussion in the article. Wikipedia is
not an instruction manual or textbook and
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/24 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The guideline is at:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Drugs]
Do not include dose and titration information except when they are
notable or necessary for the
It's a good guideline - there are few enough instances on Wikipedia where
simple vandalism can lead directly to serious physical harm, and this is
one. Statistics and reported numbers are vandalism targets throughout
Wikipedia every day, and dosage information would be a particularly popular
1. There are hundreds of thousands of places where similar harm could
be do--safe uses of a chemical, or the like. We could guard against it
by using flagged revisions on these pages.
2. We need not give only the US dose.
3. Saying according to the official USDI, the usual does is is as
safe as
2009/5/24 wjhon...@aol.com:
The PDR is a reliable source. If we are relying on the PDR for dosage
information, then we have no liability for re-reporting what they say.
What if we mis-report it? Errors could be due to misinterpreting the
source, typos, vandalism, etc.
At any rate, the
Charles Matthews wrote:
Delirium wrote:
As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody
can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
responsible if there were
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Even if we aren't worried about the consequences of giving incorrect
advice (which we should be), that guideline is still a good one for
the reasons it gives - such information is not encyclopaedic. Someone
using Wikipedia for its intended purpose should have no need for
2009/5/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
I agree with the first part (serious consequences of incorrect
information), but I don't see how why dosage information is
unencyclopedic. Information on typical quantities used for any chemical
compound with practical applications is a perfectly
2009/5/24 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
comments like is generally given in 10-50mg doses
Something like that I wouldn't have a big problem with. It's comments
like the standard dose is 2mg/kg body mass that I wouldn't like.
___
WikiEN-l
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
Could they sue other people that have edited the
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR
and a general one like Wikipedia.
-
Yes the difference is, we re-report what all the specialist encyclopedias
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:46 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
With vandalism, I think there is a duty of care to check the recent
history and go back to the last version before the vandalism started.
Sometimes you have to stop and look quite carefully, but if you don't,
who
Of course I agree with you Carcharoth. When you revert vandalism, you
should make sure you're not reverting to previous vandalism.
But what was asked was what if you are reverting to *incorrect*
information. That's not the same as reverting vandalism. We cannot expect
each
vandalism
http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
2009/5/23 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html
Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional
http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html
Fred
The original study:
http://www.manhattanresearch.com/products/Strategic_Advisory/ttp/
Fred
2009/5/23 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html
Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional
2009/5/23 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
That is the key, if physicians actively edit and keep the articles
comprehensive and up to date, there is nothing wrong with them consulting
them. Other than the usual difficulties...
FlaggedRevs ought to help with some of the usual difficulties if
I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information is standardized and
In a message dated 5/23/2009 9:02:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision.
---
Would you be willing to post here a direct
The guideline is at:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Drugs]
Do not include dose and titration information except when they are
notable or necessary for the discussion in the article. Wikipedia is
not an instruction manual or textbook and should not include
instructions, advice (legal,
69 matches
Mail list logo
