Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 whether it's publically available, legal, or verifiable. You didn't answer the question. I want to know why legal information that can be googled up in a minute or so shouldn't be in the wikipedia. (And anyway, it's only verifiable under ideal circumstances. Straw man. If we have it, it will get vandalized. Unlike... the rest of the wikipedia? And nobody ever checks for and removes vandalism of course. The vandalized version, of course, won't be verifiable, but it's still going to stick around for a while.) So on that 'logic' we should remove all information that even theoretically could be harmful from the wikipedia immediately, because ummm... it might get vandalised! So I think we should start with the hydrogen article. Knowledge of hydrogen could get people killed! It's an EXPLOSIVE GAS We should definitely remove the flammability limits- it's heinous that people should know how much hydrogen you need to burn it!!! People could die. Then there's all the metals. A lot of those are poisonous! Copper, lead, cadmium; somebody could poison somebody! People could die. And the articles on flight, somebody might try to build an aircraft, and die!!! Aircraft pages need to go! People could die. Do you want to do the AFDs or should I? I reckon we should have maybe 10-20% of the wikipedia left before we've finished, flower arranging (without using any of those dangerous pins though, you could prick your finger and get an infection and die) and so forth. I think we need to do away with all the geology articles, people might throw rocks at each other. Maybe drawing and stuff about crayons can stay, provided we can prove that people usually don't eat too many. In fact, perhaps we need to just shut the whole wikipedia down- somebody could choke on the crayons. People could die. I think this is madness. And further, I don't have to follow it anyway. You're espousing censorship, but it's a *core value* that the wikipedia is *not* censored. IAR is a core value, and supersedes all other core values. It's never legitimate to say we should ignore common sense because our core values don't allow for it. Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? The wikipedia itself is not common sense. -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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, not readers... If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be careful with that thought. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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, not readers... If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be careful with that thought. Marc Riddell 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 is one reason to try to keep the door open even with editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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, not readers... If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be careful with that thought. Marc Riddell 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 is one reason to try to keep the door open even with editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. I agree with everything you say here, Fred. I was just stumbling over the use of the word suicide in this context. As far as the Project dealing compassionately with human interaction, I see no evidence of that. This brings up the old question: What is more important, the product or the people who create it? This Project has not successfully resolved that question. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 verifiable. You didn't answer the question. I want to know why legal information that can be googled up in a minute or so shouldn't be in the wikipedia. Because that's like saying if everyone else litters, why shouldn't I litter, too. We have an obligation to avoid harm caused by us, even if other people may cause similar harm. And anyway, the other Googleable sites * are much less prone to vandalism and errors * are less trusted by Internet users * are much less *prominent*. (And anyway, it's only verifiable under ideal circumstances. Straw man. It's not a straw man. You wanted to know why we should remove verifiable information. The answer is that if we have this particular verifiable information we will have time periods where it's vandalized (and therefore not verifiable at that moment). If we have it, it will get vandalized. Unlike... the rest of the wikipedia? And nobody ever checks for and removes vandalism of course. If it gets vandalized and the vandalism is fixed, there's an interval of time when the vandalism is in existence. This is an acceptable cost if the article is about George Washington's birthdate; it's not an acceptable cost when someone could get hurt. Moreover, the time it takes to fix vandalism can vary greatly, and several factors make it more likely that vandalism will stick around on drug articles than on, say, the Obama artlcle. So on that 'logic' we should remove all information that even theoretically could be harmful from the wikipedia immediately, because ummm... it might get vandalised! So I think we should start with the hydrogen article. Knowledge of hydrogen could get people killed! It's an EXPLOSIVE GAS We should definitely remove the flammability limits- it's heinous that people should know how much hydrogen you need to burn it!!! People could die. Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn. Likewise, chances are low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an aircraft. This is where the common sense comes in: some types of information are more likely than others, *in practice*, to be used in situations where someone can get hurt. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 is one reason to try to keep the door open even with editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. I agree with everything you say here, Fred. I was just stumbling over the use of the word suicide in this context. As far as the Project dealing compassionately with human interaction, I see no evidence of that. This brings up the old question: What is more important, the product or the people who create it? This Project has not successfully resolved that question. Marc That attitude is an ideal for both administrators and arbitrators, and ultimately comes from Jimbo, who is very patient and forgiving with troublesome behavior. While there are massive failures, I do see lots of evidence of patience and forgiveness. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 Wikipedia article to check a prescription - I'd been given an antibiotic which I'd seen mentioned as used in treatment of the condition, but at a dosage about eight times lower. It turned out - and our article explained quite clearly and with detail - that there were two treatment regimes; one is basically a short sharp shock, and the other runs over a week. I'd been placed on the second, but had only seen reference to the first. Score one to Wikipedia; I felt quite reassured knowing that. I can think of a number of cases where we could pose much more immediate risk to someone using Wikipedia as a quick-reference - household wiring, for example! Oh, live is *blue*, right... To be honest, this worry seems a bit presumptive about the suggestibility of our users. On the whole, people are much more likely to ring up a pharmacy and say excuse me, are you sure this instruction is right? than they are to decide the writing on the bottle was clearly wrong and they should take twenty tablets each morning rather than two... do people *really* decide to self-medicate based entirely on one thing they read on the internet, and go off and acquire the medication and so on without ever noticing anything to the contrary? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 wikipedia provided me with the necessary information of which medicines I had been prescribed for completely different ailments, was a multipurpose drug workable in the situation I found myself. and that is a fact. I am sure there are phone-line services I could have consulted, but wikipedia worked ok. And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day. _ Touche! :-DDD Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 censored of course. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 when the standard dosage is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd want the person to be able to know that. 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... 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 wikipedia provided me with the necessary information of which medicines I had been prescribed for completely different ailments, was a multipurpose drug workable in the situation I found myself. and that is a fact. I am sure there are phone-line services I could have consulted, but wikipedia worked ok. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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. (And anyway, it's only verifiable under ideal circumstances. If we have it, it will get vandalized. The vandalized version, of course, won't be verifiable, but it's still going to stick around for a while.) I think this is madness. And further, I don't have to follow it anyway. You're espousing censorship, but it's a *core value* that the wikipedia is *not* censored. IAR is a core value, and supersedes all other core values. It's never legitimate to say we should ignore common sense because our core values don't allow for it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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*. Then don't say that. Rather, it means that we need to think about how much harm something can do and not cause harm that is exceptionally acute when the benefit to the encyclopedia is relatively small. How do you figure this out? Well, you have to think--there's no rule for it. Anything that doesn't present a significant chance of destroying the species cannot be considered exceptionally acute given how many things there are around that do carry that risk. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 don't say that. That too is an example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 have to follow it anyway. You're espousing censorship, but it's a *core value* that the wikipedia is *not* censored. But it's only a *guideline* that we don't include typical dosages. ergo: we don't have to follow it. -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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% of biographies) Total number of featured BLPs: unknown Worked out an approximation for the latter figure using the CatScan tool: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orgbasecat=FA-Class+biography+articlesbasedeep=3mode=tstemplates=blpgo=Scanformat=htmluserlang=en Intersection of Category:FA-Class biography articles and Template:Blp = 169 articles http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikilang=enwikifam=.wikipedia.orgbasecat=FA-Class+biography+articlesbasedeep=3mode=cstagcat=Biography+articles+of+living+peopletagdeep=3go=Scanformat=htmluserlang=en Intersection of Category:FA-Class biography articles and Category:Biography articles of living people = 168 articles. I sorted them in Excel and the total is 169. There are 36 articles on music groups. Three other articles (a list, a criminal trial article, and a summary-style daughter article). The other 130 articles are on living individuals. I'll throw a list up on-wiki somewhere and link from here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carcharoth/Featured_BLPs Carcharoth Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biography_articles_by_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_biography_articles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 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. 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. If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is wrong. This is so even if the rule is called a mandate. Mandates, rules, or whatever are never supposed to be applied without common sense. This is actually similar to some BLP issues. We don't have an article on Brian Peppers because not censored doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove things that have impact on the real world. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 ethnic conflicts. If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is wrong. This is so even if the rule is called a mandate. Mandates, rules, or whatever are never supposed to be applied without common sense. Why do you expect anyone else to follow your version of common sense? -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 exclude information on rather a lot of ethnic conflicts. Could you explain that one? I understood it well enough. Accurate information on a number of subjects is inflammatory. Imagine if the Chinese people actually had access to a video of soldiers machine gunning Tienanmen protesters. I doubt if anyone eating at the McDonald's at the site would have much appetite. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 whatsoever*. Rather, it means that we need to think about how much harm something can do and not cause harm that is exceptionally acute when the benefit to the encyclopedia is relatively small. How do you figure this out? Well, you have to think--there's no rule for it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 exclude information on rather a lot of ethnic conflicts. Could you explain that one? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 only a tiny amount of harm, should it be removed then? And if not, how much harm does it take, and who gets to judge? In other words who died and made you head censor? -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 want the person to be able to know that. Will **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377034x1201454326/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd= MaystepsfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 tiny amount of harm, should it be removed then? There's an aswer to this. Think. There's *no rule* you can use for this. You *have* to consider it case by case. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd want the person to be able to know that. 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... ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 codify that principle is futile, although Ignore all rules comes close. IAR is particularly subject to wikilawyering in this situation. It says that it applies when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. This can be easily interpreted to mean that any use of IAR must improve Wikipedia itself, and that considerations outside Wikipedia (such as BLP and other issues related to avoiding harm) are ineligible for IAR. Trying to do Biographies of living persons without a rule proved futile; so a written policy was created. We still don't have a corresponding policy for organizations. The underlying principle is don't hang an article on scraps of negative information, but you could write a book on the biographies on Wikipedia, and an even more interesting book if you collected all the half-cocked material we have excluded for one reason or another. Not a book you would want to publish or distribute in the UK, however. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 for organizations. It'd need a bad example as compelling as Siegenthaler. The underlying principle is don't hang an article on scraps of negative information, but you could write a book on the biographies on Wikipedia, and an even more interesting book if you collected all the half-cocked material we have excluded for one reason or another. Not a book you would want to publish or distribute in the UK, however. *cough* indeed :-) (The UK phone-call-receiving people do get calls or emails from UK article subjects, with varying degrees of legal threat attached. As per any customer support, solving the problem, or pointing them in the right direction to solve the problem, usually deals with things very nicely. I avoid editing legally problematic BLPs about UK-based subjects, but in almost all cases they're happy to have someone helping solve the problem. Pointing out that we take this very seriously when we're alerted to it helps a great deal too.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 shift the error to the pharmacy. It's the same issue. Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less informed* people? Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information, not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377034x1201454326/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd= MaystepsfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 only a tiny amount of harm, should it be removed then? And if not, how much harm does it take, and who gets to judge? In other words who died and made you head censor? -- -Ian Woollard We're all censors, we just vary with respect to what we censor. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 benefit... --- Then shift the error to the pharmacy. It's the same issue. That's not shifting, that's duplicating, which makes it incredibly unlikely. Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less informed* people? A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. While I'm not a fan of argumentum ad proverbium (to completely make up a Latin phrase), that particular proverb is often true and applies in this case. People that know a little often don't realise how much they don't know and, thus, make mistakes that wouldn't have been made if they knew nothing and relied on experts. Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information, not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies. *Encyclopaedic information.* I still don't think accurate dosage information is within our scope. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 Florida's. You guys that are removing this information are setting yourself up as censors. You're removing *legal* information from the wikipedia that could *save* lives (because it helps people check their prescriptions for errors). It's specifically a censorship of the wikipedia, and for a fictitious reason that has never, to my knowledge even happened in real life. Fred Bauder -- -Ian Woollard All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 people make up a large proportion of the articles on Wikipedia (last time I looked it was about 1 in 5). The number of featured articles that are biographies is another interesting stat, as is the number of featured articles we have that are BLPs. 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% of biographies) Total number of featured BLPs: unknown Can anyone work out that last figure? A book consisting of the featured biographies might not be bad. Carcharoth Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biography_articles_by_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_biography_articles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 themselves. If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd want the person to be able to know that. 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... Just as likely that the pharmacist got it wrong, really. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
-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 5/26/2009 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 shift the error to the pharmacy. It's the same issue. That's not shifting, that's duplicating, which makes it incredibly unlikely. Do you really think that *better informed* people are worse off then *less informed* people? A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. While I'm not a fan of argumentum ad proverbium (to completely make up a Latin phrase), that particular proverb is often true and applies in this case. People that know a little often don't realise how much they don't know and, thus, make mistakes that wouldn't have been made if they knew nothing and relied on experts. Our entire project has the net goal of increasing freedom of information, not cordoning some of it off with us as the nannies. *Encyclopaedic information.* I still don't think accurate dosage information is within our scope. - - I'm sure before the FOIA the government thought we really didn't need to know a lot of things, that we now know. The more open information is, the less likely it will be misused. The fewer eyes review something, the more likely it will be misunderstood. If a patient isn't well-enough educated to understand dosing, that doesn't mean we should not tell them anything. Rather it means, they might want to learn more. Withholding crucial information is not a very good answer to patient's questions. If dosage information isn't encyclopedic, then why does it appear in encyclopedias already ? Are you claiming that the PDR causes more harm than it prevents ? Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 to legitimise a previous run of vandalism edits. Always worth checking the recent history no matter what edit you are making. Carcharoth On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:34 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 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 reverter to know whether George Bush was born in Texas or Maine. Simple vandalism is one thing. Reverting to This drug is used to treat diabetes is a quite different animal. I'm sure you would agree. If we expect *each and every* vandal reverter to suddenly also be an expert in that article, than we're going to be facing a big problem. There simply aren't that many experts to handle the vandals. I hope you can see this point. Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 empirical range based upon non-official secondary sources. I didn't say it wasn't correct. It is just unwise. Specific dosage information can be used for administering treatment (and, therefore, can cause serious problems if it is incorrect), a range of typical doses can't be. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 that enables one to do that. Is it VoiceOfAll's? *AGK* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 contributions log, rather than the article, but I might be wrong there. Carcharoth On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM, agk agkw...@googlemail.com wrote: 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 that enables one to do that. Is it VoiceOfAll's? *AGK* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 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 nawr...@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy#Assembly_details Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823249x1201398664/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 information on how weapons are built, though. There was a big argument a few years back about whether we ought to tone down the amount of coverage we give to details of how various nuclear bomb designs work (or at least are alleged to work, based on public information), but it was decided that including it was encyclopedic. We don't include HOWTO style step-by-step instructions, of course, but we include all the details that are available, from assembly procedures to, sizes of various parts, quantity and purity of fuel required, machining requirements, etc. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 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 contributions log, rather than the article, but I might be wrong there. Carcharoth On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 3:06 PM, agk agkw...@googlemail.com wrote: 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 that enables one to do that. Is it VoiceOfAll's? *AGK* ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 analysis. I don't think The Bomb is a great analogy since the risks obviously outweigh the (largely absent) benefits, but I find Goodman's argument pretty convincing in mentioning LD50s. ~A On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 14:14, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 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! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy#Assembly_details Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! ( http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823249x1201398664/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp ; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 is standardized and available from the authoritative source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable. (Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be reported. Well, I imagine we can link to this information if it is online; and I imagine the disclaimers about following such advice in self-medicating or (feels queasy here) treating others are better left on some other site. I'm also uneasy at taking US-centric medical advice as normative. It is simply not the case that prescribing is an international standard, I believe. Body mass index must have some relevance. And so on. David has a point in that certain official recommendations could be presented as such, as verifiable facts. I would be alarmed even about physicians consulting an editable site such as WP about such key numbers. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 evidence worth including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least better than nothing. This (medical info) case is certainly an interesting instance of WP undercutting what people would generally agree was a well-founded desire to have authoritative information. If we assume that doctors are smart users of WP, it suggests that the advantages of a quick survey or cross-check only seconds away can outweigh more ponderous research. We have no reason to be complacent about all this, but at least the Wikipedia brand must be getting repeat customers. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 available from the authoritative source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable. (Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be reported. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG I was not aware of that policy and am not sure what I think of it. But let us explore the possibility that a doctor consults Wikipedia regarding standard dosage and somehow (The Physician Desk Reference and the formulations actually available at a pharmacy figure into this) manages to prescribe a fatal or damaging dose. During his deposition in his medical malpractice suit he testifies that he consulted Wikipedia (Actually not likely even if he did due to the fact that judgment against him becomes almost a dead certainty). Are we then a potential defendant? Or is that so far fetched that we are denying useful information without being at any particular risk. Another scenario involves someone who a condition and is self-medicating and buying drugs off the internet (or in a place where prescription drugs may be obtained without prescription) and relies on our standard dosage information. Information is grossly wrong and harm ensures, are we then morally responsible or a potential defendant? Does this fall under do no harm? If so, how is it different from any incorrect medical information. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or how-tos; see WP:NOT#HOWTO. 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 the dosage information. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 discussion in the article. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or textbook and should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or how-tos; see WP:NOT#HOWTO. 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 the dosage information. Agreed. If doctors want a reliable wiki for them to consult for medical purposes, they should set up a separate wiki and require all editors to identify and verify their medical credentials. There are limits to what Wikipedia can and should do - it is not a universal panacea. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 target. We could put the dosage information in templates, and protect the templates, but that doesn't allay the range of other problems associated with including such information. We have to ask ourselves why someone would use Wikipedia to look up this sort of information - are those needs we want to fulfill? It's also important to note that there are many other sources for this sort of information for medical professionals. Institutional or office subscriptions to electronic/online references like Micromedex are not prohibitively expense, there are a number of free or cheap physical reference books, and I even have a free and comprehensive reference on my phone. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 any quotation can possibly be. I am not aware of any litigation due to a mis=print in PubMedPlus or the similar. I recall one major correction in the print Merck a few editions back--they made it very prominent. An error in print is much more dangerous than online, because there is no way of ensuring that all copies get corrected. 4.Though we do not give medical advice, it is entirely appropriate to indicate where reliabler advice can be found. 5. How a substance is used is encyclopedic information. It's necessary to actually make use of our reference work. Example: A person will come across a newspaper article discussing an overdose giving the amount. They will go to the encyclopedia article to put it in context. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: 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 target. We could put the dosage information in templates, and protect the templates, but that doesn't allay the range of other problems associated with including such information. We have to ask ourselves why someone would use Wikipedia to look up this sort of information - are those needs we want to fulfill? It's also important to note that there are many other sources for this sort of information for medical professionals. Institutional or office subscriptions to electronic/online references like Micromedex are not prohibitively expense, there are a number of free or cheap physical reference books, and I even have a free and comprehensive reference on my phone. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 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 article without fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable. The PDR is an encyclopedia of drugs and our project as an teritary source if you will (although I hate that term teritiary), should report everything that any other reliable encyclopedia has to say about whatever topic. It seems encyclopedia to me, to report what another encyclopedia states. There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR and a general one like Wikipedia. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 errors in it, what constitutes evidence worth including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least better than nothing. This (medical info) case is certainly an interesting instance of WP undercutting what people would generally agree was a well-founded desire to have authoritative information. I agree the desire for authoritative information is well-founded, but you can go too far and have paralysis: since nobody's yet agreed on what the most perfect, most authoritative source of information would be, we shouldn't have one at all? Surely building *something* is better, which is basically what Wikipedia has done, with tentative and in-progress answers to all those tricky questions of authority and process. Maybe a medical organization can build something better than Wikipedia for their field, with more authoritative information and a better process. But they haven't, despite a decades-long headstart on us in the planning department. Rather than undercutting, maybe we'll actually stimulate a renewed sense of urgency to produce an alternative? -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 the dosage information. 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 expected thing to include in an article. I certainly find it a conceptually interesting distinction whether some industrial acid is usually used in 10 mL or 100 L quantities, and similarly whether some drug is usually used in 10 mg or 100 g quantities; that's especially true if different quantities of a chemical have different applications. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 expected thing to include in an article. ...especially given that we include it for all sorts of chemicals that you *don't* put in your mouth. Take a look at the article for a chemical element, for example - a handy table with Young's modulus, specific heat capacity, isotope half-lives, the whole lot; the infobox for its compounds is less detailed but still pretty comprehensive. Moving away from chemicals, take a look at, say, the article on an asteroid, with comprehensive details of its orbital parameters and composition, or a country, where the infobox gives details right down to the telephone code. I think we're kidding ourselves a bit if we say that these numbers - the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a specialised reference work and of little or no immediate use to the casual reader - are vaguely encyclopedic, but comments like is generally given in 10-50mg doses are somehow definitely not. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 article without fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable. I don't think you would agree if this logic were extended to all articles. Am I responsible, fixing the birthplace of George Bush, that someone else, in another section of that article has said He killed his parents when he was three. No I'm not responsible for that. I'm solely responsible for the edits I make, not those of others. Similar to reverting vandalism. If the previous version was incorrect, than the responsibility rests on whomever put that into the article in the first place. Not on any subsequent editor. We are not all experts in what the PDR does and doesn't say. But any of us can fix spelling errors in an article. That does not mean, that we must know and approve the entire article and be responsible for it, simply because we are changing something of little consequence in it. That's true for all articles, not just ones on drugs. Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 have said, in one big project, instead of fifty little ones. We may not reproduce every detail, but we would certainly reproduce the most important details. Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 PDR. Could they sue other people that have edited the article without fixing the mistake? What about someone that reverted vandalism to that sentence, thus putting back the incorrect information? We can't rely on the law only holding the person directly responsible liable. I don't think you would agree if this logic were extended to all articles. Disagree. Am I responsible, fixing the birthplace of George Bush, that someone else, in another section of that article has said He killed his parents when he was three. Fixing birthplace, maybe not. But reverting vandalism is different. No I'm not responsible for that. I'm solely responsible for the edits I make, not those of others. If you revert to a version that includes stuff previously taken out by another editor, then you are re-instating the material that was removed. That is why I always check a diff of what changes have been made before, or just after, saving. That is also why I argue against bot-like blanket reversion of contributions of banned users without manual checking. If they removed vandalism, we can't blindly revert that. Similar to reverting vandalism. If the previous version was incorrect, than the responsibility rests on whomever put that into the article in the first place. Not on any subsequent editor. 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 else will? So many times I've seen Twinkle and Huggle users only revert the last bit of vandalism and ignoring the previous 3 or 4 edits that also added vandalism. It makes the Twinkle and Huggle users look really, really silly. They end up saving an article with blatant vandalism that they would see if they had looked at it for even a few seconds. The different scenario where you spot a single mistake and go in and change it is somewhat different. Reading and checking the whole of an article is not always feasible. But I would be happier if there was a tick box to be updated by trusted editors that said I've read the whole of this article and it looks OK. After months and years of nothing but vandalism addition and reverts, it is easy for stuff to creep in without being spotted. Sometimes every article needs someone to step back, read the whole thing, make what overall changes are needed, and tick the box saying an editor has read and checked the whole article. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 else will? I agree. Quite often vandals will come in and keep making vandal edits until they are stopped. It only needs some other user to make a routine edit in the middle for the reverter to miss the earlier edits, which might mean that the article will be left with vandalism that appears to have been accepted as valid. It's always worth investigating the history, and also whether the account or IP has vandalised anything else, when doing a vandal revert. -- Sam Blacketer ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 reverter to know whether George Bush was born in Texas or Maine. Simple vandalism is one thing. Reverting to This drug is used to treat diabetes is a quite different animal. I'm sure you would agree. If we expect *each and every* vandal reverter to suddenly also be an expert in that article, than we're going to be facing a big problem. There simply aren't that many experts to handle the vandals. I hope you can see this point. Will Johnson ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study. Despite using the online encyclopedia as a resource for information, only about 10% of the 1,900 physicians surveyed created new posts or edited existing posts on Wikipedia, the study found. So 20% of physicians that read Wikipedia edit it? That's fantastic! That's far better than the general population. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't so unfriendly to experts as we fear. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study. Despite using the online encyclopedia as a resource for information, only about 10% of the 1,900 physicians surveyed created new posts or edited existing posts on Wikipedia, the study found. So 20% of physicians that read Wikipedia edit it? That's fantastic! That's far better than the general population. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't so unfriendly to experts as we fear. 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... Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 they get implemented for all articles (as I hope they do once they are shown to work on BLPs). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 available from the authoritative source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable. (Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be reported. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote: Thomas Dalton wrote: 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 purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study. An interesting finding. There's been calls for literally decades now for greater use of electronic information dissemination in medicine, and one of the big proposals that's been bandied about but never really implemented is some sort of widely available database of conditions, symptoms, treatments, etc. In specific areas there are best practices compenedia, but there's no giant database just summarizing everything, even the stuff that isn't worked out yet (physicians still need info on conditions even when they aren't totally well understood yet). 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 evidence worth including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least better than nothing. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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 link to where this is in policy? And also link to where you propose that we remove it. I agree with your opinion that standard dosage is not advice. Will J ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
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, medical or otherwise) or how-tos; see WP:NOT#HOWTO. as for proposing to remove it, we'd need to start another discussion. The most recent was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_10#Drug_Information_in_Wikipedia (with extensive comments by Kevin Clauson) see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Archive_2#Clauson_study Earlier discussions are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_2#Dosages_of_Drugs and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)/Archive_2#Drugs:_Do_not_include_detailed_dosage_and_titration_information. there's a lot of reading. Personally, I call it IMNAP-paranoia On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 12:45 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: 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 link to where this is in policy? And also link to where you propose that we remove it. I agree with your opinion that standard dosage is not advice. Will J ** An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322948x1201367184/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072amp;hmpgID=62amp; bcd=MayExcfooterNO62) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
