> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by
>>> those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome
>
>> Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are ed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/11/2010 01:33, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Everything that is done incorrectly because of funding is also done by
>> those who have an intellectual or emotional stake in the outcome
> Yes, and that's where we fall down. Many of us are editors with p
> Most journals do make their abstracts visible, so if funding is
> included there, one can see it without logging in.
>
> But there are two serious ethical problems, one of them is what
> people who are funded by a commercial or POV entity do incorrectly
> because of that funding.
> The worse is
e wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
>>> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
>>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>>> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
>>> On 7 November 2010 12:26, Da
On 8 November 2010 05:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
>> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
>> O
]: critical trust is the kind of trust one obtains after having access
to all the necessary data to make a judgment in complete liberty of thought.
On 08/11/2010 02:54, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
>> Misplaced Reliance,
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
> Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
> On 7 November 2010 12:26, David
> Gerard
> wrote:
> > T
> I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of
> our contributors is the elephant in the room. I hope you don't truly
> believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors
> is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content. The hope is that
> over ti
I haven't heard the word "eventuate" before.
My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if
sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources
too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not
creators of novel views. Their ed
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 wrote:
> Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create
> them.
>
> A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are
> verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third
> party can check, why
Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create
them.
A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are
verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any third
party can check, why they believe "X said Y" is true.
Once that's done, the
On 7 November 2010 12:26, David Gerard wrote:
> That naming funding sources is in fact *standard in the field* is,
> however, something that strongly suggests we should not deliberately
> withhold such information from the reader.
Err we don't. They are free to consult the source.
However the fi
On 7 November 2010 02:18, John Vandenberg wrote:
> By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we
> suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying
> it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our
> suggestion.
That naming funding sources
Papers are used to back up specific statements, not entire articles - often
many papers are used to back up an article. We assume an ability to make
thoughtful assessments of cites by our readers - that's exactly why we cite
and why we attribute (apart from copyright reasons). It seems inconsisten
--- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> It is
> appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide
> information
> to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can
> be
> available for peer-reviewers both before and after
> publishing.
In case this was not clear to you,
John, by your rationale, every scholarly journal that follows defined
ethics guidelines *requiring* that the funding be disclosed impugns the
authors' integrity. Does it really?
There is a difference between transparency and assumption of wrongdoing;
and history is full of people who resisted
By flagging a piece of research as 'funding by ACME Big Pharma', we
suggest that the research is somehow flawed, without clearly saying
it, without any evidence, and without sources that support our
suggestion.
This is akin to adding categories which are not unambiguously
supported by prose and re
Does not work for me,, because it unreasonably implies that references
without it are not so funded.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 7:56 AM, FT2 wrote:
> Works for me.
>
> FT2
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to d
Works for me.
FT2
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it
> > in
> > the rest of the way.
>
> >>
> >> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable
> >> knowledge to readers. This is one o
> I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it
> in
> the rest of the way.
>>
>> These ethics standards serve the ideal of communicating reliable
>> knowledge to readers. This is one of the ideals that the Foundation was
>> built upon. They are also expressly designed to
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in
the rest of the way.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
> >
> > wrote:
> > >..
> > > There have been plenty of studies
--- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
>
> wrote:
> >..
> > There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were
> not paid for, by
> > anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the
> drug's market outlook.
> > Being flippant as John was, hardly
22 matches
Mail list logo
