Talk:FUTON bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This doesn't seem very NPOV. From what I think of as a sane point of view, the issue is that online research is easier to access and therefore provide more benefit to other researchers, who reward their publishers by citing them more. This page spins this as a "failure" and paints as victims the researchers and journals who selfishly hoard their work instead of putting it online as they should.

I'd edit the article, but I'm clearly not in a very NPOV mood!

Kragen Sitaker 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the original article in Lancet on the FUTON Bias I dispute that the sumary in Wikipedia is not reasonably neutral or that my original paper is biased in the way Kragen suggests. He certainly was not in a NPOV mood when he wrote this comment and should have kept his mouth shut. Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

Reinhard Wentz, London 17.03.2006 sleuthmedical@yahoo.com

[Kragen: Before editing the article you should perhaps read the paper in Lancet? Reinhard Wentz 12.04.2006]

Irony is so delicious. FUTON biased reearch used to refute concept of FUTON bias. Removing dispute flag.--Cberlet 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the irony, but the warning was still unjustified (and biased). Thank you, Cherlet, for removing it. Reinhard Wentz, 29.04.2006