User talk:Kd4ttc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments to and from Steve

Want to say something? Well post below to your heart's content!

[edit] References to Star Fleet Database of the Future

Star Fleet... heh. As long as they keep it in the About pages and not pretending they're worth an encyclopedia article, I don't mind. Ensiform 05:52, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I always was amused that the computers on the various Start Trek shows had such minutae stored. Not that storage capacity wouldn't allow it, but just that someone took the effort to do all the data entry. I used to joke that in the future everyone was either a Star Fleet officer, or a data entry clerk. Then along came the World Wide Web. Of course! Everyone is entering all the data themselves! Kd4ttc 01:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ornament and Crime

Please could you take a look at this page again, based on the discussion on VfD, and see if you can verify the veracity of the re-write? If you know anything more about this, perhaps you could add something. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:49, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That's great - I vote to keep it on the basis of what you wrote - good work! Mark Richards 05:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Love it, I think more articles could do with a few more whimsical pieces in them. One thing about a collaborative writing project is that you tend to remove a lot of the personality from the writing style - more of this please! Mark Richards 19:25, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with what Steely Dan was in the book, that made it a particularly funny inside joke to those who had read it! Mark Richards 22:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)



[edit] A Wikipedia doctors group?

Hi, glad to notice another doctor around. I was wondering if you might be interested in a more coordinated effort on the medical side of wikipedia. I'm getting jealous of all those nice blue boxes at the bottom of non-medical wikipedia articles :-). Do you know what happened to the "WikiProject Medicine"? JFW 10:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are a few of us. Users with medical backgrounds would be a nice list. Article, not. Is there a mechanism in wiki to allow seaches for users with certain backgrounds? A young anesthesiologist, Alan, I believe, was editing the medicine article, where I met him. I didn't hear about the Medicine project. Now that would be REAL work. Interesting idea, though. The wiki structure allows rapid editing of the text, with the inherent plusses and minuses of that. There are some nicely formatted articles out there. How come the non-medical superformatters are not applying such artisanry to the medical pieces? Kd4ttc 14:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. It appears you have also moved your name to the "doctors" list on User:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc! I'll be updating the WikiDoc page with some of the feedback I've been having. Would you mind directing any feedback at my talk page? A kind General Practicioner from Poland (User:Kpjas) gave me some useful advice on determining the kind of readership Wikipedia medical articles should be aimed at. I'll try to write some sort of proposal. JFW 19:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS The formatting is probably hard for someone who's got little medical background. A non-medic might put paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria under the urology header (it is one of the occasions gastroenterologists and hematologists have to cooperate: when a PNH patient develops Budd-Chiari syndrome). I'll see if I can trace Alan.

Oh, I agree completely. The PNH example is a good choice. I was thinking of formatting in the very low level of how to put in side bars. A few of the military articles have nice examples of that. What you are talking to is the need for a system of specialized sysops. Sort of what an editor would be rather than mechanical in nature as the sysops are presently. (No offense intended. Th system works well) I like how lay folk go in and edit, even in medical articles. Much improved readability. I like participating in a general encyclopedia. BTW, I have in mind redoing the Celiac article. A special interest of mine.

  • I will copy this to your talk. Email for me is a good technique. sholland at napervillegi dot com Kd4ttc 20:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi Dr Holland (you might have noticed that I am from Holland, although presently living in the UK). The downside of sysops is, indeed, that they are not medically grounded. Frankly, I'm not sure if there are MD sysops around, and I do in fact wonder if a sysop would be needed for the things that we've been discussing (inserting "blue boxes", equalizing medical jargon, etc.)
I'd be delighted to see a good article on Celiac disease. There is, for example, nothing yet on tTG molecular mimicry etc. My best read on the subject recently was the review by Jabri and Green in The Lancet (2003).
My email is jfdwolff (a) doctors.org ; sadly, I'm not into Ham radio :-). JFW 21:14, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A message over the WikiDoc network—
User:Ksheka is trying to move Heart attack to Myocardial infarction. This involves having the Redirect deleted at Myocardial infarction. Please vote for delete at: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_18.
JFW | T@lk 11:01, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bleeding

Hello Kd4ttc. Today I wrote a stubbly entry on Heyde's syndrome, which has been intriguing me for the past few months. I lack the expertise to say anything on the exact nature of angiodysplasia - would it be a generalisation to call them teleangiectasia of the gut? Do you have any pretty colonoscopy images? JFW | T@lk 13:29, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've done a basic rewrite on hepatitis. Any opinions? JFW | T@lk 14:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bad time this week. I will look next week. Steve Kd4ttc 03:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yow! Nicely done! on Heyde's syndrome. kudos!
I looked at both. Hepatitis needs a diagnosis section, and some slight changes from IgG antibodies to IgG anti-blahblahblah as appropriate. I'll get to the diagnosis section next week. Anyone can get specific on the IgG specificities. I dont have telangiectasia pics, but will get some in a short while. Kd4ttc 03:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer-review work (and the compliments). Concerning Heyde, a group from Canada (in Transfus Med Rev last year) maintains that high shear stress in the vasculature of the elderly might explain why they have a higher incidence of bleeding, even in the absence of aortic valve stenosis. We'll see— JFW | T@lk 03:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is an additional problem. The bleeding ofrom telangiectasias in the elderly can be a big problem. Interestingly, it will sometimes respond to estrogen adminitration. estrogen/progesterone combo BCP's are of use, using the high dose estrogen combo pills. Kd4ttc 20:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another review request

Hello Kd4ttc, I've just completed a huge revamp of the gastroesophageal reflux disease page, which was merged with gerd (no capitals), an older page that happened to contain an NIH patients' information document. There must be lots of little things I've inadvertedly left out. I'd be delighted if you could guide the way on this—
JFW | T@lk 00:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks like were both hot on the GERD article! It needs more work. The main problem is it confuses heartburn with GERD. Also, it underestimates the aggressiveness needed to treat it. We'll keep working on it. Steve Kd4ttc 03:12, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uh, your editing basically reminded me of the many flaws I had left behind... Indeed, heartburn (or should we say pyrosis) deserves a seperate treatment, delineating the boundaries with GERD. JFW | T@lk 03:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I basically like the article. I am going to add more to flesh out the heartburn part of it. Keeping it in the same article is of use. There is a line of thinking that does put chronic heartburn in the GERD group. Sort of GERD characterized by normal histology. Whether it is GERD is getting at semantics. I want to include the data on elevation of the head of the bed +/- H2 blockers being 95% effective. With OTC H2's now available in the US it is very cheap treatment. Kd4ttc 15:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The H2 statistic is news to me, but it sounds great. I put in the highly selective vagotomy in as an historical anecdote—does it belong here or in the peptic ulcer page? JFW | T@lk 15:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Both! It was better treatment for PUD. Was it really used for GERD? That was back when the Sippe diet was in vogue. Ah for the days of metabolic alkalosis! Re PUD: For antacids in PUD dosing 7 times a day needs to be mentioned, in contrast to H2 blockers BID, PPI q day, and eradication therapy 1 course. Kd4ttc 20:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Is WikiDoc moving?

Please follow this link for some information.
JFW | T@lk 12:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatitis

Compliments on your improvements on hepatitis. I wrote a page on Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis a while back; would you mind checking if I made any mistakes (I've got little clinical experience with that disease).
JFW | T@lk 12:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be pleased to. I didn't know we had that. I'll link the hepatitis article subpart to the NASH article later. The NASH article you wrote is an excellent summary and hits a number of highlights. I'll just end up adding some flesh to it and a little perspective on NASH being the up and coming Hep C of the future. Steve Kd4ttc 22:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Steve, thanks for the talk page message. I spotted the either/or distiction in the cirrhosis section, and tried to preserve it during my editing spree. I'll have another go.
One of my first patients ever was an Indonesian immigrant who—in retrospect—probably had NASH. It's made me forever fascinated with liver disease (see alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency).
JFW | T@lk 21:47, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing in New WikiDocs

While I'm all for expanding our numbers by looking for doctors and those that write medical articles on the wiki, I am personally a bit suspect of the amount of plagerized work User:Statkit1 has added to the wiki. As per his talk page, I'm probably not alone. Besides, I think it's moot, since his last edits were months ago. Ksheka 10:35, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Children start life doing reports by copying out of the encyclopedia. It is quite rational - why reinvent the wheel? The Chinese do not see see copyright the same way as we in the west do, they having a philosophy of freedom of knowledge. Isn't a person copying showing interest that could be directed to conformity with western standards of copyright respect? Kd4ttc 17:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
 :-) Ksheka 17:33, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
Is that a Buddha smile, a parent smile, or a colleague smile? Kd4ttc 19:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Yes it is. Ksheka 19:59, May 22, 2004 (UTC)
 :-) Kd4ttc 23:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

Well, it is, after all, "the most popular science fiction franchise of the late 20th century."  :) Ensiform 22:59, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Angiodysplasia

Please see... JFW | T@lk 22:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the invitation. You do nice work. Ever try the estrogen trick? Kd4ttc 23:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Estrogen... I forgot to mention that. I must admit I do not manage many patients myself at the moment; I'm just a mere "senior house officer" (=junior resident). JFW | T@lk 09:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] EGD

Steve, I finally wrote Esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Could you review and expand?? And link to that guy who invented fibreglass (Basil whatever)... JFW | T@lk 19:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • More a title than an article, but then it was my job, anyway ;-). I plan on adding pics, history, complications, who does it, and some other details. Not a bad start, though. Are you in GB? Any chance you are at Royal Free and know Dame Sheila Sherlock? Kd4ttc 21:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My compliments on EGD. I have done my usual editorial sweep. Please check if you can concur with my edits.
I happened to be in the Royal Free today, but I don't (yet) have Dame Sherlock's acquaintance. At the moment, I'm locumming, and I will start a full-time post in August... JFW | T@lk 23:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Oooh. Real nice. I like your editing style. You also cranked up the sophistication level a notch. We could use a few non-medical volunteers to see if we are at the right sophistication level. An ideal person would be a wikipedia user who had an EGD to see if we got the wanted info. By the way, we could use some nurses around here. They often do the brunt of teaching with patients. Kd4ttc 01:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Natural Health arbitration

Thank you for your additional complaint in this matter. I have moved it out of the section for votes and comments by arbitrators up to the complaint section. You are welcome to add evidence regarding the matter. Keep in mind, however that the arbitrators will (usually) not get into the content of articles, including links to arguably unrelated areas. The presence of the link to MNH's complementary medicine project will be left up to the editing process if possible. Fred Bauder 13:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  1. Fred: Thanks for taking the time to move my comment to the appropriate place. I think leaving that up to editing makes sense. Steve, Kd4ttc 20:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mr-Natural-Health

crossposted to each others' talk pages; James F., Kd4ttc

Dear Mr. Forrester. I regret seeing the MNH matter come to the point it has, but thank you for being willing to participate in the process. I read the policy. Am I correct in understanding that at this point Accept votes means that the request for arbitration has been accepted by three committee members, but that at this time no decision has yet been made either to arbitrate or for a decision on what to do? I ask merely to understand the process, with comments regarding the matter on the arbitration page. Respectfully, Dr. Holland, Kd4ttc 03:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed correct; until another Arbitrator votes to accept, or four Arbitrators vote to reject, or, indeed, if a sufficient number of Arbitrators recuse themselves, such as that quorate would fall to three.
I agree with you that it regretful that this particular disagreement, or, indeed, any such fraças, has been felt necessary to refer to the Arbitration Committee.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 09:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Having said that, the case has now been accepted; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health.
James F. (talk) 10:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Mr-Natural-Health's CAM tags

Crossposted from my talk page:

Thank you for adding an outside, neutral voice to the CAM tagging of articles. I agree with your advice, entirely. Kd4ttc 15:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Dr. Holland. Thank you for agreeing with my posting. I hope Mr-Natural-Health reads it, calms down and goes back to building Wikipages. However, not only has he ignored my posting, he has removed it without a single reply. I am rather disappointed. -- PFHLai 01:24, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing my contribution. I have some things I'd like to say about MNH too, but I think they're best left unsaid given the proceedings at the moment  ;o) It's a shame because it would be such a release to say them, grrrrr! --bodnotbod 00:05, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Child-Pugh score

Is this correct? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, you found my calculator! A better calculator is the autoimmune hepatitis calculater, my first Javascript program.

And have I made mistakes in ascites? JFW | T@lk 14:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added albumin gradient. Ascites is thought to follow hyperaldosteronism rather than preceed it. That pathophysiology paragraph needs a further tweak in that regard. Kd4ttc 00:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ooops. Ascites preceeds the renal changes. Kd4ttc 23:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind making the relevant additions? I'm not sure if I will get this right! There is also a lot to say about carcinomatous ascites - whether it is a production or a resorption problem, the role of VEGF and fenestrae in the vasculature... (Once heard a difficult talk about it.)JFW | T@lk 08:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] gedday

hey Steve, sorry to hear about the toad :-( Erich 07:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your condolences are warmly felt, even if related to the cold blooded. Kd4ttc 23:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Have added your userpage to category physician, hope you don't mind.--Nomen Nescio 09:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Back

I will be back on Wikipedia off and on after an absence prompted by burnout regarding Mr. Natural Health. Kd4ttc 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality differences and subspecialties

I am not completely certain, but my impression is that UK general practice is more akin to Family practice than Internal medicine in scope, although more akin to IM in subspecialty tracking. --DocJohnny 05:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

From limited discussions here I suspect such is the case. General practice in the UK includes gynecologic care and pediatrics? Kd4ttc 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It does, if nobody else had said...Midgley 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're back!

Hi Steve, pleasure to see you back! Please stick around this time. The IBD articles are screaming to be edited properly! JFW | T@lk 18:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on Talk:Dysphagia. Arcadian notices with some dismay that you're throwing your credentials & experience around. While there's nothing wrong with a good discussion, we've recently had a little trouble with unsourced information (see "CITE is the new black" on my userpage. It's gonna be references, references, references until we're blue in the face.
Please be nice to Arcadian. He's a med student and very good. You won't believe how many medics we have around at the moment! JFW | T@lk 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Wakefield

There are a number of problems with reliance solely upon peer reviewed research from the medical community. Perhaps you are already well aware that most research funding for medical studies comes from corporations, with little in the way of oversight from government agencies or watchdogs to ensure accountability. There is no tonic in sight for the rampant conflicts of interest that, increasingly, have plagued medical research in general and autism research in particular. As for Melanie Phillips, Dan Olmsted, David Kirby, et al, they play a particularly important role in the framing of public debate, which has otherwise largely sided with powerful pharmaceutical and medical industry interests. Brian Deer's denigration of all things Wakefield has been liberally referenced in several Wiki articles, seemingly for the same reason that he constantly makes slanted, snide personal attacks on Wakefield's integrity. The media has a great deal of influence upon public opinion and informed debate, and the ability of journalists to summarize and provide perspective on technical matters, which often far exceeds that of researchers, is of similar importance. Without such talents, the public (and readers of the Wiki) cannot become well informed. Given a choice between a perspective dominated by the insular, exclusive medical research monopoly and a robust, inclusive diversity of informed perspectives, which would you choose for the Wiki's readers? Ombudsman22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the goals of Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view on these things. You do not, which is not really a problem. However, your writing is not a neutral point of view. Your belief that there is an "insular, exclusive medical research monopoly" seems a good expression of your POV. Whether the contrary perspectives are informed is arguable given the over 30 studies in the Cochrane collaboration. I would not have a panopoly of views of unknown sources thrown together in an encyclopedia entry. You also present a false dichotomy, that one must have one perspective or another. Claiming that one must choose between different two perspectives is evidence that your writing is not neutral in point of view. The thing to do here is to express who has opinions about this and why, including both perspectives. However, the perspecitves that are allowable are those that have at least been published. Wakefield makes that cut. Melanie Phillips does not. Brian Deer does not. I disagree with the idea that throwing a lot of bad ideas into wikipedia makes people better informed, especially when the poor data is not differentiated from the good data. What ought to be done is to describe why the term "Autistic enterocolytis" came into being, what supports the idea that it is real, what is evidence against it, and what the consensus of the scientific and medical community is. One does not need to try to convince others about it. The act of trying to convince makes the article POV and liable to deletion. Given an interest in verifiability on Wikipedia inclusion of a section on unverifiable claims is completely unsupportable. I am copying both of these paragraphs to the talk page on autistic enterocolitis. Further discussion needs to take place there. Comments were put on your talk page because certain comments relevent to yor edits did not seem to have come to your attention. Steve Kd4ttc 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope I am not interrupting. I came across this item whilst following a link from the Epidemiology "Talk" page. The above might be considered to represent an erroneous understanding of NPOV. I suspect clarification of the understanding might create an appropriate environment in which you two gentlemen might be able to find an appropriate consensus. Where there are two differing POVs, it is very clear that they need to both be set out, side-by-side, so that the reader of the relevant Wiki page can judge for themselves. This avoids all issues of imbalance, with balance restored and an NPOV article achieved by flagging both perspectives transparently as POVs and contrasting them in the same article. I am intrigued that this is so often not being done. It would generate vastly more light and a lot less heat and make editing more effective and efficient. I am sure you both must agree with that?
Additionally, there is considerable evidence in numerous peer reviewed papers to support the view that there is an "insular, exclusive medical research monopoly". This is particularly so in relation to the control over publication of research and the practices of bulk purchases of reprints, which the drug industry but few others can engage in and which generates most substantial revenues for publishers even from a single paper. Accordingly, it might be considered that denying that state might itself be considered a POV, which of course, if it is, you are welcome to hold.
The concept of 'bad data' and 'good data' and who is to judge also seems an anathema to Wikipedia. One of the purposes of Wikipedia is that if someone seeks to include what they assert is 'good data' and someone else claims is 'bad data', then that can be established by consensus with both POVs appearing in and contrasted in the Wikipedia page. Where data is irrefutably false and misleading that must surely be demonstrable? Accordingly, it is not adequate simply to revert in all cases that which one disagrees with.
It is also unclear to me why it is suggested that journalist sources are not appropriate for a 21st century electronic internationally available encyclopaedic resource like Wikipedia or do I misunderstand the thrust of your comments? After all, not all journalists operate from offices below the kerbside. 86.10.231.219 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally I ignore anon posts as they usually are associated with vandalism and one cannot follow edit histories reliably as several users may be on one ip address. This post above from someone who does not wish to leave a reliable history is rather disturbing and needs to be addressed as it brings up some views of NPOV that are not conventional on Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view refers to the article as a whole. It does not mean that several points of view are allowed and that they then cancel out to neutral. Goofy stuff in an article doesn't need to stay there just cause it is someones point of view. There needs to be some level of credibility. There is some judgement to be applied here as the circumstance calls for, but there is no need to include unverifiable fringe views at all in an article. I do not know that there is a peer reviewed literature of insular medical research. If someone can reference it that would be nice, but that is an unsupported assertion. The idea of pharma controlling research by bying up reprints is amusing. Of course it is possible to judge good and bad data. One has just to read a number of studies and see their problems. Wakefield's for example was a great example of referral bias. It looked even worse when it was found out that £55000 from attorneys was given in 1996 to support him, 2 years before the 1998 research paper on colitis in Autistics. Journalists are not an acceptable resource for scientific data because they report other peoples data. Relying on journalists for scientific conclusions, especially in medical fields, is not useful. Kd4ttc 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE: The overall thrust of the proposition you put forward above is "This post ..... brings up some views of NPOV that are not conventional on Wikipedia. "
After some consideration, one way to respond to the proposition and the points made in support is to test them. I trust you find the following of assistance in achieving clarity. Please let me know if you agree or disagree:-
  • "Neutral point of view refers to the article as a whole"
Of course. It ipso facto must refer to each part of the whole also. The whole cannot be NPOV if part of it is POV.
  • "It " (NPOV) "does not mean that several points of view are allowed and that they then cancel out to neutral."
Agreed. However, they can all be accommodated in Wikipedia under NPOV policy. For an example, see [[1]]
  • "Goofy stuff in an article doesn't need to stay there just cause it is someones point of view."
Whilst the description "Goofy stuff" is a point of view in itself, I agree in broad terms that what might generally be considered odd to the majority might not have to be represented in Wikipedia. However, if there is a "goofy" view to the majority, but it is held by a significant minority, then NPOV may require that the view be represented. There are, after all, many religions in the world and what is not "goofy" to followers of one religion can be to followers of another.
  • "There needs to be some level of credibility."
Of course.
  • "There is some judgement to be applied here as the circumstance calls for,"
All editors ought to apply good judgement all the time. Where there are differences in judgement there are policies and procedures which can be applied to resolve the matter, if the two views cannot be reconciled and represented in the one article by applying NPOV policy and guidance.
  • "but there is no need to include unverifiable fringe views at all in an article."
as to "unverifiable", it goes without saying that in the event of a dispute over any proposition, substantiation is essential, albeit that references are frequently not provided by many editors.
as to "fringe views" if the "fringe" is significant, then its POV may have to be represented to ensure balance and an NPOV is achieved.
"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy." [[2]]
  • "I do not know that there is a peer reviewed literature of insular medical research. If someone can reference it that would be nice, but that is an unsupported assertion."
Pass. Fortunately, not an issue in relation to our discussion over NPOV. However, I believe the assertion was "insular, exclusive medical research monopoly" and not "insular medical research".
  • "The idea of pharma controlling research by bying up reprints is amusing."
Richard Smith, retired editor of the BMJ did not think so (and he is not alone in the profession). See "Medical journals and pharmaceutical companies: uneasy bedfellows" - BMJ 2003;326:1202-1205 (31 May), [[3]]. There are plenty of other articles and papers (and particularly peer reviewed ones) dealing with these kinds of issues: how peer reviewed publication has been corrupted and debased and how trust in peer reviewed medical and pharmaceutical papers has been severely damaged. If you want a few more references please let me know. There ought to be a Wiki page on the topic if there is not one already.
  • Of course it is possible to judge good and bad data. One has just to read a number of studies and see their problems.
Agreed. The issue is to ensure that judgements of what is "good" and what is "bad" are not POV and to the extent they are, then that may need to be reflected to ensure an NPOV.
  • "Wakefield's for example was a great example of referral bias. It looked even worse when it was found out that £55000 from attorneys was given in 1996 to support him, 2 years before the 1998 research paper on colitis in Autistics."
Pass. Fortunately, not an issue in relation to our discussion over NPOV.
  • "Journalists are not an acceptable resource for scientific data because they report other peoples data."
It all depends upon why a journalistic reference is cited and whether it is for "scientific data", which seems an unusual reason, or for some other reasons (and it is notable the UK DoH is fond of citing journalistic pieces on medical issues). This is where editorial judgment might be needed. The "New Scientist" was recently cited to me and in the context of "an acceptable resource for scientific data" it was a simple matter to dismiss it.
  • Relying on journalists for scientific conclusions, especially in medical fields, is not useful.
Again, it all depends upon why a journalistic reference is cited. Would you say that about a medical journalist or an MD who publishes in the popular press on medical issues? And, of course, people of that kind will not be relating scientific conclusions but medical ones.
Also, is this confusing medicine and science? Medicine, and especially the practice of medicine, is not a science, albeit medicine can and does rely on science in many ways.
86.10.231.219 00:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
That is an awful lot of typing to say you basically agree. However, I insist that people posting on this user talk page use an account rather than Just an IP address. Further anon posts will be deleted. Kd4ttc 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

--Anon post clipped-- 86.10.231.219 11:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Kd4ttc 14:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

Apparrently my typos are rare enough for you to brag about spotting them[4] :-)

Seriously, could you have a look at Talk:Epidemiology? JFW | T@lk 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure who this anon is, but he appears to be a reincarnation of a fairly difficult individual I first crossed paths with on mumps (see Talk:Mumps for some recent fireworks). Of all our vaccine skeptics certainly the most verbose, and clearly informed on matters epidemiological. I hope my emergency surgery on the article itself will cool down matters. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
What a thug. I have decided to ignore the Anon's. Mostly they are vandals. Of course, as IP only you cannot see their edit history, and their lack of candor on their interests just leads to unneeded ambiguity in their posts. Kd4ttc 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon policy

In order to ensure that disucssions are ocurring with a single individual rather than a group who might be sharing a single IP address I am requiring that posters to this talk page post while logged in to an account. Kd4ttc 14:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You adopted this policy immediately after deleting a personal message to which a reply would be appropriate[[5]]. You made adverse statements with detailed comments. The reply responded.
Please also see [[6]]
"Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. ...... If someone removes your comments without answering consider moving on or dispute resolution."
86.10.231.219 21:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If the posting is from an anon then the message is not personal. If someone wants to log in and take credit for posts then we can talk about it. Steve Kd4ttc 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Reference for proposition please. 86.10.231.219 22:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the anon policy was posted above on 04:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (see the Wakefield section above). It was added as an anon policy here because someone from 86.10.231.219 seemed to hae missed the note above. Essentially I am trying to disengage from repetitive lengthy posts that I take to be a form of harassement. By taking away the forum here from whoever the user or users are at 86.10.231.219 I hope to defuse the situation. I have no idea what "Reference for proposition please" means, and the insistence of an anon from 86.10.231.219 in pursuing a conversation I do not want to partake in unreasonable. Kd4ttc 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the explanation of your perspective. If you make detailed serious allegations you must expect detailed full responses. These are now on record. Case closed. NNTR. Maybe better to take it with broader shoulders and own up. The above paragraph very odd in circumstances. Sorry you feel individuals using IP addresses are invisible. 86.10.231.219 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image fair use

Thanks for pointing me to the right link. The pull-down didn't have a fair use section in it. The warnign template was quite clear, though, in what to do. You guys got to this so fast I hadn't had time to write the text using the article before other users here had made their comments! SteveKd4ttc 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (re:Image:NEJM 347(19)1477-1482 Table 2.jpeg)

Hi Steve. We actually have a policy against using fair use images except in articles (Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy, point 9). Also, fair use images that aren't used in articles are supposed to be deleted after a week. I'm not going to delete it, but I just wanted to warn you that it probably won't be around very long. dbenbenn | talk 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If I make my own tables though we're ok with it, though, correct? Steve Kd4ttc 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I did read the fair use policy, but stopped at the law. Sorry I didn't read down to policy on that page. Ooops Kd4ttc 05:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I guess if you make your own table that would be fine; the data isn't copyrighted, after all. Alternatively, you could just upload the image somewhere else on the web, and put a link to it. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decoration

Highly probably.

I was going to say something along the lines of leave the poor bugger alone, but your two word reply was so funny I can see it was left as a humorous comment. Not that he'll appreciate it, but I appreciate that one needs to take this whole thing in perspective. Steve Kd4ttc 03:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just did this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccinationists to Thimerosal I think it looks a lot better, actually.

Could you help me by looking around locally for material on Robert S Mendlesohn MD, of whom there is a stunningly poor biography as part of the anti-vacc cloud, and yet who must have generated a bit of actual interst in his life. Midgley 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just learned about the fellow through the article on Wikipedia, Robert S. Mendelsohn. What did you have in mind? Kd4ttc 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motivation etc

Same annon ? Yeah guess so - can't be many with the patience or typing skills to write such long-winded stuff (in truth my mind quickly clouds over trying to remember & follow multiple anons'/sockuppets' URL numbers).

PS I've much enjoyed the constructive discussion you've been having on Talk:Irritable bowel syndrome with other editors - surely a good example in WP of where specialists and interested non-medics sensibly & civily work for accurate & balanced (NPOV) articles. It is though a little less exciting to follow than edit wars. Now that you point it out, Autistic enterocolitis, (I had until this moment been unaware of the precise term coined by Dr. Andrew Wakefield) seems a topic in a similar vein - I'll try and following the debate on this one too, once I get back from my (real-life) holiday, but a quick glance suggests that you need not feel left out in the awards of my barnstar for long ! Take care, David Ruben Talk 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I wasn't really shopping for any award. Just seeing if my hunch on who people were dealing with was correct. Steve Kd4ttc 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfd Anti-Vaccinationists

Dear Steve,

I think you need to know that I contacted you twice on the Anti-vax RfD page inviting you to raise any concerns with me to achieve a resolution to any issue you feel you may have. Why did you not bother to contact me first but talk to everyone else instead?

You made similar comments in response to two different people on the anti-vax RfD as well. You then ask the same question on JfdWoolf's talk page. Three times - now isn't that going to stir things up unnecessarily?

Here is a note I posted to you on JfdWoolf's talk page:-

The proper thing to do Steve is contact me on my talk page and talk about it for a resolution. But what happens, I find you here talking to JfdWoolf, and about me. There is nothing in what I said to bear the allegation you make. But here you are talking to JfdWoolf claiming it does. So why are you here making such an allegation and why did you not raise it with me first? And even though I did not make the claim you suggest, if it had been made, which it was not, here you are bearing it out.

I look forward to hearing from you. The Invisible Anon 02:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My policy is to generally ignore anon's on this talk page, but the above post calls for an exception. I made a general request of people engaged in the page where an allegation by the above anon ocurred and I made a request of an admin involved with medical articles regarding how to deal with an anon who has acted in a questionable manner. When I have had a chance to discuss the situation with an admin such as JfdWoolf or the users of the page then I will take some action to deal with the events that have transpired. Kd4ttc 19:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon: I have considered the situation and have commented in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists. I agree discussing this with you is sensible. When noting what I consider ill manners by others on wikipedia I occasionally will seek other's opinions on the problem to help me take an approach that best addresses the problem. I am now prepared to do that. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists you claimed that there is a group of editors that are engaged in a POV war. That is a statement which assumes bad faith on the part of members you directed the comment at. You referred to a list on the user page for the IP address you are currently using User:86.10.231.219. With those statements together, you have made a statement that presumes bad faith directed at those users. You should retract your statements with additional postings in the pages where you made those statements. Deleting your list of malevolent editors on your home page would also be sensible. The proper thing to do is to discuss the problem with the users you have identified on their talk pages. While it is my policy not to have anons posting on my talk page I think an exception should be made for complaints anyone has against me. Kd4ttc 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Steve, thanks for the dialogue. First I think we need to consider the circumstances of my remarks and that, in the context of an RfD, for the reasons I set out here, statements of this kind are necessary and appropriate, especially where supported by evidence. However, I do suggest also below a compromise which might assist as it may remove the element of seeming personal criticism and ensure I am representing my perspective and view which you do not agree with.
My current editing practices do not in the normal course include such remarks about other editors on, for example, the talk pages of Wikipedia topic pages nor do they include engaging in ad hominem abuse or attacks on other editors. If there have been any I will be pleased to have my attention drawn to them and I will deal with those matters,if any. The comments you are unhappy with were on an RfD and they are ones I believe from many examples of editing on Wikipedia. In order to contribute my views properly to the RfD I believe I need to make clear what I perceive to be the position and it is a genuinely held view on my part. I did not make the comments as any form of gratuitous abuse nor are they intended to offend, but to inform in the context of that particular debate. I have also changed the text on my user page, in response to comments of another editor and will be continuing to revise that page. It is certainly an unfinished and unpolished work at this time.
You also need to consider how things appear to me and possibly to others where you associate yourself with other editors in the circumstances in which you have done. I, for example, am apparently a "representative of an anti-vaccinationist movement" according to JFW [[7]]
That is an accusation by association. Whilst I am deeply troubled about what is currently taking place and others who are not anti-vaccinators are also troubled (eg. "Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true'" [[8]]) I am not an "anti-vaccinator". I, like such others, do not oppose vaccination practice as a matter of principle. I am a critic and particularly where the risk/benefit equation does not support vaccination. I am also finding more and more that the people who need to be informed about that equation, namely medical professionals, are not being given the information and data. If they were, I do believe we would not be engaged in this dialogue now.
However, what this exemplies, is that where I or you associate yourself closely with the actions and activities of others, you run the risk of being perceived to be closely associated with those actions and activities, as I have been and am. I do hope this clarifies my perspective and assists you.
You specifically focus on the statement about being "engaged in a POV war" and you believe that is presuming bad faith. However, the statement is based on evidence and cannot therefore be either presuming or assuming bad faith. I am continuing to collect evidence for future reference, should it be needed. If you consider my view of the evidence is not supported by it, then that is a matter on which we can agree to disagree and have both of our views represented. If it is of any assistance to you, it might be worth pointing out on the RfD page that we have had a dialogue on the matter, we both have opposing views of my interpretation of the evidence and that I respect your view that you do not believe you are engaging in a POV war and I would ask that you would respect my view that it seems to me (rightly or wrongly) that is the position.
Does this help? If there has been any "sting" in my remarks on the RfD page, I should hope that a mutual statement on those lines might do the trick? The Invisible Anon 23:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon: Your reply indicates that you have decided not to retract your statement that Delete - Vote & reasons by The Invisible Anon 09:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC) This page is being used as part of a POV war by a group of medical contributors - a partial list found here 1. It is their latest tactic. They are at present hoovering up numerous Wikipedia pages containing information they do not agree with, dumping it here to marginalise it. (Taken from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-vaccinationists) First off, I have not participated in that article other than to note what you wrote about a group of individuals thot you included me in. Secondly, that a number of physicians disagree with you and edit or delete your edits in not evidence of a POV war, it is simply that they disagree with you. Thus you have no basis to assume bad faith on their part. What is evident from your view is that you presume bad faith in this instance. I can not change what you believe to be the intent of others, but you should not be arguing in articles or talk pages about it. If you believe you are the target of a POV war then please refer this to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I believe you are supposed to do a request for comment first, but I am not well versed on complaint procedures. Kd4ttc 05:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EMR

Great EMR pics on colonoscopy! I just had a peek now. Cheers. Barry Zuckerkorn 18:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked them! I also uploaded a lovely colon polyp. The EMR case was of a patient about 68 years of age with a large, sessile adenoma in the ascending colon. It was actually a hard to reach polyp and I had some luck in getting it off. One of the tricks I taught myself is that when you are about to snare deflate the colon a little. When fully inflated it can be hard for the snare to obtain purchase. The one I took off that was photoed was before I figured that out.
Aren't you a GI fellow somewhere? I thought I saw that on your user page after I saw a couple of your edits. Sorry not to have said welcome til now. Steve Kd4ttc 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IBS

You asked me how I came to be involved in (presumably) the IBS article dispute. The answer is I am a member of the dispute/mediation committee. The anon user came to the page of this committee and brought the dispute to me. From a biological and medical ethics viewpoint (I have qualifications in both), I thought the contributions given by the user were useful and truthful. Hope this helps. Cameronian 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I couldn't tell from the talk on the IBS page that there was a dispute submitted until the comment the then anon placed about the decision. Is there a protocol on how mediation is supposed to proceed? Kd4ttc 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: I think a lot of the terms you changed in the hypothalamus article were technical terms that should have remained. The sythesis and secretion is especially important, as is the concept of a releasing hormone. Your edits lost the important character of those terms. Kd4ttc 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The above was NOT my edit, it may have been another mediator, or the formerly anonymous user. I am a member of the association of members advocates, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates. The mediation I gave was the first level of mediation INFORMAL mediation, which only requires me to give advice to either party. If you disagree with my decision then please take this dispute to a more formal form of mediation. Thank You. Cameronian 10:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Cameronians talk page: There are recommendations on how to go about being an advocate. The page Wikipedia:Guide_to_Advocacy recommends that you work with the user to help them state their position and recommends against making pronoucements. The way things came across on the talk page was that Sarastro777 was trying to badger us with a decision by a mediator. Mediation is a process that allows all the users to state their cases, which was not done. The process was ham-handed. There are additional problems, anyway. Sarastro777 went to you saying she saw you on a list (she misidentified it, which has caused addtional problems, and she called other users Nazi's and racists) but your name was only added to the list after she went to you. In addition you misidentified yourself as a member of the Mediation committee. In addition your pronouncment was made in a way atypical for decisions made on Wikipedia. That suggests that your user account is being used in an illegitimate manner, perhaps as a sock puppet. I have asked others with admin privileges to look into this. Kd4ttc 16:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make absolutely clear that this was not my edit You wrote: I think a lot of the terms you changed in the hypothalamus article were technical terms that should have remained. The sythesis and secretion is especially important, as is the concept of a releasing hormone. Cameronian 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I will state once again that this was an INFORMAL mediation. I have never said that I was a member of THE mediation committee, I said A mediation comittee. I will also state that my username has changed, and I had not changed it on the AMA list until after the user contacted me. Changing username is a perfectly legitimate occurrance. In my opinion, discussion was not necessary, as several rules had been broken in the process, the 3RR, as well as reverting useful information. I recognise the information given by the user as viable and useful to people who are researching or have the condition. By all means, proceed to administrators, I just hope they see sense. Cameronian 16:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now put a formal mediation proceeding in place on the talk page of the IBS article. I hope you will find this satisfactory.Cameronian 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to provide a final comment on this affair. Any member of Wikipedia is entitled to act as a mediator in any case, whether they are a member of a comittee or not. If you look carefully under informal mediation, you will see that anybody is entitled to come in and give an opinion on the matter. I was approached, as far as I was aware, to give this sort of informal mediation, not to act as an advocate. There was no need at the time for a formal mediation or advocacy, as rules and policy had been broken, therefore the changes sarastro made were valid, and the revertions were not. However, due to the events which later transipred, I found it necessary to start a more formal mediation, again, something which any user who has no involvment in the article itself has the right to do. I also considered the reverts to be bordering on vandalism, as I have a qualifications in both biology and medical ethics, and I saw sarastro's edits as useful to people who had the condition or were researching the condition. I hope a satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from this mediation, and that all users will be able to work together to produce a high quality article. This will be my final comment until you recieve a reply from the co-ordinators of the mediation and advocacy comittees. Thank You. Cameronian 11:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Holland - Thanks for the heads up. I have no interest in pursuing the IBS article any further at this time. We have both been victimized through name calling and bullying with wholly inaccurate information about each of us. If the IBS article starts including anecdotal information than it is of no use to the IBS sufferer as I believe it furthers the notion that IBS is a benign illness that can be remedied by baseless medicine. Those suffering from IBS deserve accurate information from reproducable reliable sources - not from some child who has decided that we are all villains with hidden agendas. I will add this comment to the IBS discussion. Ibsgroup 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol15_3/article1.html saved for later use

[edit] Expand please

You wrote: I think a lot of the terms you changed in the hypothalamus article were technical terms that should have remained. The sythesis and secretion is especially important, as is the concept of a releasing hormone. Your edits lost the important character of those terms. Kd4ttc 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain please exactly what concerns you about the present text? The only thing that I can recognise is that I changed the description of releasing hormones to describe them as controlling secretion not stimulating secretion; this is because many people class somatostatin and dopamine with releasing hormones even though they are inhibitors of secretion; it seemed easier to make this change than add detail.Gleng 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I wanted to touch base rather than just start reediting each others stuff. I'll take this discussion back to the talk page on hypothalamus. Kd4ttc 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAD/Anal Wink

I was suprised the articles weren't linked! Good to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough. 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gleng

Well then, I am at least confidant in my ability to spot good editors. :) Let's hope he joins. Semiconscious • talk 06:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind words; yes it is addictive, but it's nice to be part of a constructive community. Gleng 18:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I should thank you for the compliments - it is always appreciated to have positive feedback, especially in what is a somewhat impersonal forum. I see though you are obviously in the habit of saying nice things to people :-) .David Ruben Talk 10:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

No problem! It was so... unobtrusive I almost didn't delete it because I thought it may have been an inside joke or something. Very strange... Semiconscious • talk 08:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation: Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Cameronian has changed vis web page to "this user has left Wikipedia due to the fact that some members are high maintenence bastards". Since ve was the submitter of the case the case has been withdrawn.

Thanks for the info. Kd4ttc 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulcerative colitis

I had a light call and spent the whole night on an extensive copy-edit. I'd appreciate your comments before it gets quacked up. Thanks! -- Samir ∙ TC 10:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Yeah I saw that, but thought I'd play it safe and spam him anyway. Thanks!Gator (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC. Troll. Remember above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219 You are mentioned in it. Midgley 20:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Endo Unit is now open!

And you're invited to help out. Please check out WikiProject Gastroenterology when you get a chance. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Amateur radio

Hello. I see that you have listed yourself as a licensed Amateur radio operator. Please consider taking a look at a proposal to setup a WikiProject Amatateur radio. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merge Proposal

A merger of Speech therapy, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech pathology, and Phoniatrics into one article has been proposed and a name suggested for the new page. I note that you have contributed to one page or the other in the last while. If you have any comments please make them on the talk page of Speech therapy. --Slp1 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adacolumn?

There's a new treatment for IBDs being tested in the United States and Canada. It's already been in use for sometime in Europe and Japan. I was hoping someone could look into creating a wiki for it as well as mention it on the current Ulcerative Colitis article. It's known as Adacolumn and uses no drugs whatsoever, it's an adsorptive type extracorporeal leukocyte apheresis device. A white blood cell filter, basically from what I understand. Anyway the website is Adacolumn.com[9] and there's lots of information there. The reason I'd like to see a wiki about it is so that information about the treatment could be more thoroughly gathered and compiled than just off of what the company's website has to say about it. Alot of the information about it is also in medical jargon and could certainly use some translation for the common person. It looks to be a very promising treatment from what I understand but researching and compiling the information for the public is far beyond me.

  • It is not a promising therapy. It is an immunomodulation approach. There were some trials as I recall, presented at DDW in the past, but only preliminary results. A mention in an IBD article would be reasonable. The poster putting this on my page logged in anonymously. Further discussion on this topic needs to be by registered users. Kd4ttc 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coeliac

Well done on expanding the coeliac page. One problem: many of your additions require a reliable source. I know this is jolly hard with data that you know from clinical practice or from articles read a long time ago. But I'd appreciate it if you could give a source for the 5% incidence of coeliac in IBS cohorts (mentioned several times), the fact that treated coeliacs tend to become obese and hypercholesterolaemic, and the risks of bisphosphonate treatment (and the claim that coeliac does not increase fracture risk much!)

Unfortunately I have little travel funds so I won't make it to DDW in January. Let me know if anything interesting is presented! JFW | T@lk 20:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, Corey 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/d/4/User_talk%7EKd4ttc_927b.html"