Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-12 Raymond Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Comments: Can't find out who mediator is, case seems inactive. Cowman109Talk 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-12 Raymond Hill 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-12 Raymond Hill

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Lerix 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

... The issue is taking place in the drug addiction page under external links(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addiction) and on the Anti-Psychiatry page under the article section. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry)

Who's involved?

...Raymond Hill, Antaeus Feldspar and Lerix (myself) are involved.

What's going on?

...I've been posting relevant links that do give additional information, thus adding complementary information not given on the wiki webpages. Now, Raymond Hill and Antaeus Feldspar give no pertinent reasons for removing the links. They seem to proritize a personal grudge rather than considering the informational content of Wikipedia. Raymond Hill is also accusing me of "link spamming".

What would you like to change about that?

...I would like them to give reasons for their actions. I also want them to be objective(this is the whole point of Wikipedia).

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...No

[edit] Mediator response

Is this case still active? Cowman109^Talk 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

From what I can see, what is happening is that Lerix is edit warring against Raymond Hill & Co. Although I cannot comment on what personal grudges you hold, I do understand where you are both coming from.

• Lerix is posting to sites that contain useful information; these sites however are (from what I can see) contraversial ones.
• Therefore Raymond Hill and Antaeus Feldspar are seeing the bad sides to these and reverting the edits.

So, would both parties accept the link if Lerix added a small bit of text explaining the context of the link? There does not seem to be any discussion happening on talk pages, so could all discussion happen below please? --02barryc 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I'm no sure if I have to answer in this particular section... About the externbal link removed, which was added there: I maintained that this was added in order to promote Narconon's (unscientific) views on drug addiction (see Narconon.) To quote the California Department of Education: "Some drug-related information presented [by Narconon] does not reflect accurate, widely accepted medical and scientific evidence. Some information is misleading because it is overstated or a distinction between drug use and abuse is lacking."). Now I wouldn't want Wikipedia to mislead the reader into reaching a site that promote unscientific views on the serious topic of Drug Addiction.

I would also point out that Wikipedia is not an agent to promote Narconon: I noticed that most of Lerix's contributions are about adding an external link to Narconon: 17 of his 21 edits is to add Narconon related links to articles, even within an article that has absolutely nothing to do with drugs.

I believe too often wikipedia's external links section is abused, as wikipedia is a sure way to increase traffic to the listed sites, I have a few times culled such section (both pro- and con-), because many links in there often are not really contributing significant complentary information to the article. This is my opinion about the links added by Lerix. -- Raymond Hill 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

My main goal when adding these external links to the various Wikipedia web pages is to offer additional content to the readers. The article relating to the anti-psychiatry web page discusses several important aspects relating to psychiatric drugs and their dangers. I strongly feel that this link belongs there. Although Narconon is mentioned at the end of this particular article, the informational content is not compromised for say, and numerous references are cited at the end. I have no objection in adding a word or two stating that the website is a commercial one.

I am specifically concerned with the drug addiction issue present in our society. That is why I concentrate my efforts in posting external links that provide concise complementary information. I do not feel that the issue that Narconon runs the website should make the external link a target for removal. --Lerix 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, so going back to the original compromise offer - would Raymond Hill be okay with Lerix adding the links and providing a suitable commentary describing the pros and cons of the site? There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, in adding to the site, as long as you had an intention to improve the site. Anyhow, I hope this can be resolved with a quick explanation - and there should be no need to worry about it anymore. --02barryc 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I would rather have the Narconon wikilink integrated in the article (maybe introduced as a controversial treatment), such that all the point of views about Narconon will be available to the reader, which is not the case if the wikipedia article about Narconon is bypassed through an external link. -- Raymond Hill 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I find it interesting that Lerix named me as a participant in this mediation on the 14th yet as of three days later, still had not taken any steps whatever to notify me... Be that as it may, here is my take: having one's external link added to an article is not a right. No matter how many people treat it as if an external link was like a complimentary mint that you're entitled to just for showing up, there is only one reason for adding an external link, and that is if it improves the article for the readers.

Lerix accuses Raymond and I of bad faith: he alleges, falsely, that we gave "no pertinent reasons" for our actions (I believe that I explained my reasons quite succinctly in my edit summaries); he alleges "personal grudge" and even more insultingly, alleges that a failure to consider "informational content of Wikipedia" is why we have been removing the links which, as Raymond put in evidence, make up almost all of Lerix's edits. What he does not do is put the burden of proof on the correct side and make any explanation of why his links should be included in the article.

The simple fact is that much of what Narconon teaches is absolutely contrary to medical consensus. Narconon teaches that drugs stay in fat, and from their positions in the fat cells, the drugs cause drug cravings and flashbacks until niacin "pulls" the drugs out of the fat, and saunas "sweat" the drugs out of the body -- and that they leave a colored ooze on the skin when they exit the body. This is grade-A gobbledygook pseudoscience. Saying that the "informational content" of drug addiction is increased by adding a link to this organization's theories is like saying that the informational content of Plate tectonics is increased by an external link to the Flat Earth Society.

Now, obviously, there are some articles that would be improved by an external link to the Flat Earth Society. Like... well, Flat Earth Society. But not Plate tectonics. Some people wish the policy of Wikipedia would be to always add external links to anyone who thinks they have "the truth" on an issue, but it's just not so; we don't even always add internal links. Is there a single Shakespeare play whose article links to alternate theories of Shakespearean authorship? No, there is not. Lerix's apparent idea that he and his organization are owed these links, and the subsequent boost in search engine placement, is completely unsupported.

If a compromise is to be considered, let it be to put internal links in the articles. As Raymond observes, this allows both sides of the story to be told, something that placing a link in the "external links" section and giving it the highly POV and highly disputed description of "informational content" does not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, placing an internal link sounds a lot better of an idea than an external one; encapsulating it in a "Controversy" section would make it even better. Please bear in mind though that (I hope) Lerix was trying to improve the site - it can be particularly annoying seeing your efforts reverted and changed without due explanation. A breakdown of communication was probably to blame for this mediation session occuring in the first place. I hope, as said before, that we can build a NPOV by offering different sides of the coin, but also warning readers of the pitfalls of these arguements. Hopefully, everything can be resolved now. --02barryc 10:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I will assume that the complete article has been read before the link was removed. (www.narconon.ca/psychiatrics_drugs.htm). Therefore, you will have noticed that the article is in fact relevant to the anti-psychiatry issue. It discusses the dangers of psychiatric drugs, the power exerted by psychiatrists and even quotes real-life situations involving psychiatric patients. The only mention of the word “Narconon” is at the end of the article, to somewhat inform the readers that Narconon is equally against psychiatry. However, if we disregard this last paragraph, there is no mention whatsoever of the word Narconon throughout the whole article.

Now, is the issue of where the article is hosted a problem? Simply because information is placed on a Narconon website doesn’t make it “fake” or “useless.” There are numerous articles found on this website, many of them from recognized health organizations, such as this one on Health Consequences for the Paramedics, www.narconon.ca/health_consequences_paramedic.htm.

The only problem I have with integrating an internal link in a “Controversy” section is that the article in question doesn’t deal with the Narconon organization. It addresses the anti-psychiatry issue. Narconon already has an article page of its own. I still maintain my position that an external link would be better.

People are entitled to having their own opinion and theories on the Narconon organization, but this should not in any case make them believe that the informational content found on a Narconon website is obsolete. --Lerix 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The problem with the article is that it's a crummy article, which by the third paragraph has already gone from just shoddy logic and innuendo ("No human is perfect, so it simply wouldn't make sense to state ... that pharmaceutical companies don't wish to increase their annual revenues.") to misstatement of the facts ("... the most [pills] can do is attenuate the symptoms...") and by the end of the article is off in a sheer frenzy of misinformation ("Yet psychiatrists have this unconditional power to prescribe "off-label" drugs (drugs for which no scientific study of the drug has been conducted and whether or not it is safe or beneficial)" -- false -- "These drugs pose a serious threat, particularly since they haven't been completely tested for dangerous side effects or possible long-term effects" -- same false claim again -- "Numerous diagnosed mental illnesses are getting treated by other types of highly addictive and "off-label" drugs. The lives of millions of individuals are threatened due to the carelessness of the drug being administered. Does anyone have the right to take this type of risk with a life, especially if this individual is affected by a mental illness?" -- total scare-mongering, still based on a complete misrepresentation of what "off-label" means.)

You say the article "addresses the anti-psychiatry issue". I think it is more appropriate to say it pushes the anti-psychiatry issue. What it does not do is noticeably increase the "informational content" of the article, since what information it does give is taken out of context and blended seamlessly with blatant 'misinformation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think it would better to get a request for comment, and try and get more opinions, as we don't seem to be getting very far with resolving this deadlock. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 17:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The references made in this article concord with my own beliefs and thoughts. I have read several articles and considerable content on psychiatric drugs and related issues. The wording may not specifically pinpoint the profound meaning of off-label drugs as in wikipedia, but it still roughly summarizes what off-label means. From what I understand, off-label drugs are simply drugs prescribed for other medical conditions than they have orginially been approved for, without being subjected to the usual rigorous testing. So, if a cough medicine is prescribed to treat muscle cramps, no studies may have been conducted to demonstrate that it really works or is safe to use under these conditions.

Since this particular article section seems to be of major concern, I searched the internet for additional references and similar point of views on the topic. Many showed resembling statements:

“Millions of Americans each year are prescribed drugs that are not approved for their specific medical condition, a practice known as "off-label" use, that is legal and logical in many cases. But a new study has found that 20 percent of all prescriptions are written for non-approved off-label uses and that most of these uses -- three-quarters -- are not well-supported by scientific research. This widespread use of medications off-label could threaten patients' safety while escaping the attention of federal regulators, some experts suggest.” [1]

It is has been shown through research that pills or medication do not necessarily cure a disease or sickness, but rather aid the immune system of the body to carry out the job of defending the body against an illness. Taking a headache pill doesn’t simply make the headache vanish, but rather attenuates the symptoms for the time being.

All in all, the article says in understandable terms the dangers of psychiatric drugs and off-label use. --Lerix 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

However, please keep in mind that there are policies on this kind of thing. WP:VERIFY being the most relevant, I quote:

• "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed."
• "As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves."

Remember, "Just because some information is verifiable, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia is the right place to publish it". I gather that you are writing an article about Anti-psychiatry - Narconon is a good topic to write about, but remember, you should provide suitable reasoning for this, however, Narconon are 'not a reputable source and therefore would not be a good topic to write about on Drug addiction - what would be better would be to provide an internal link to Narconon, listing them as futher reading. The external link, according to policy, should go on the Anti-psychiatry page. From WP:RS:

• "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias...so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one."

--BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 10:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Lerix, I think you sum up the whole situation quite accurately, if unknowingly, when you start off by saying "The references made in this article concord with my own beliefs and thoughts." I have no doubt that they do. The problem is that the references made in the article do not accord with the facts. You try to defend the article by saying that it "roughly summarizes" what "off-label" means. Again, you still seem to think that the default is 'an organization that wants its material publicized by Wikipedia has it for the asking; it can only be denied it if it's without redeeming qualities.' This is simply not the case. It is not enough for Narconon's article to "roughly summarize" what "off-label" means, because as we have already seen, "roughly summarize" is really "inaccurately summarize", and the article goes on to make strong accusations based on exactly the parts of that inaccurate summary that are wrong. (I could go into the flawed logic of the "pills only attenuate the symptoms" bit as well but I'm focusing on my main point here.) How, exactly, does Wikipedia benefit from linking to such article? No, no, you don't need to explain again why you want Wikipedia to link to this article; that part's quite well understood. The question is, how is it good for Wikipedia? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)