Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • Archived by user:Leifern: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Health controversies/Midgley's objection|Initial comments by User:Midgley.

Contents

[edit] Initial comments

What steps are being taken to make sure it doesn't turn out like the old WikiProject Alternative medicine?Geni 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what steps do you think should be taken? For one thing, I don't think this aims to resolve any of the controversies but rather create clarity around them. --Leifern 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to also see stability around these articles. They are extremely vulnerable. They are often volatile subjects, since there is a religious aspect to some POV. We're dealing with two different cultures, with very different definitions of evidence and standards of conduct. Conspiracy theories are rampant, and are used to justify deceptive behavior. (Anti-vaccinationists are probably the worst examples, where allowing one's own child to [needlessly] die has been considered a deed worthy of praise.)
To achieve stability, editing of articles needs to be controlled - as in controlled access: First consensus, then article changes. No access without consensus.
Ideally, editing privileges should be limited only to properly identifed (real names and confirmable identities) persons willing to stand up for, and take responsibility for, their edits. As a reward they could be listed as contributing editors. This would promote more serious editing, without attacks and improper behavior.
At an appropriate time in the editing process, controversial articles should be locked until consensus is reached on each additional edit or revision. Thus the existing articles can't get vandalized and all the existing contributions that have been produced through discussions and consensus won't get lost because of some idiot's whim or carelessness, or a passing vandals slash and burn attack. The approved edit should then be submitted to a referee, whereupon it gets added and the article immediately locked again.
I would also propose paragraph by paragraph editing (or section by section). When a whole paragraph or section is edited to everyone's satisfaction, then it can be added to the article. -- Fyslee 21:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous proposal offered by this user above. Limiting access to certain users? Granting and revoking privileges? This user doesn't understand Wikipedia if he/she are seriously proposing this. Vandalism (when it truly is vandalism) can be easily reverted. Locking an article is simply out of the question. And if I choose not to create an account, that is my business and it should have nothing to do with my abilities to edit Wikipedia. I think this user is being paranoid and does not fully realize that users with differing opinions are also able to contribute to Wikipedia articles. 202.129.51.103 16:02, 6 March 2006
You need to read more carefully. I haven't suggested anything that would limit editing only to those with the same POV. That would be very wrong. My suggestion was merely one which has been debated for some time here at Wikipedia, which is the limiting of all editing here to registered users. I happen to favor that viewpoint, along with many others. Others don't hold that POV, and that is their privilege. No problemo. As far as the comment about paranoia, just try editing extremely controversial articles for awhile, and you'll soon discover what many have discovered, and that is that the article can never rise above mediocrity. There is simply too much possibility for disruptiveness and uncooperativeness to get anything really done in the long run. Access would be for anyone, regardless of POV, who - at a late stage in the development of the article - has changes that have been agreed upon through the consensus process. The early stages of development would function just as they do now. -- Fyslee 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It is an approach with some merit, particularly where some of the anonymous editors appear to be work toward their own financial gain in MLM or other scahemes. Midgley 21:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying everything related to Geni's original comment to User talk:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies to avoid clutter here, ok? Let's see if we can continue there, for now. When there are enough interested people to justify a project, I'll copy the discussion to the project page. --Leifern 22:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If I recall correctly, there was a similar article started about medical controversies in the past several months that was later deleted, because of difficulty achieving consensus as to what constituted a "controversy." One concern that emerged was that the article could emerge as a POV platform for minority viewpoints that weren't considered "controversial" by the mainstream community. In any event, I'm open to see what shape such a project takes. Andrew73 23:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I think the best way is to remove extremely controversial aspects of these articles and putting these under separate articles. I think the actions I did with therapies and causes of autism / Asperger's syndrome is a good example of this. Because of these, there will be less edit wars on the main, featured, articles, and less controversy. It is also highly unlikely that the therapy and causes of autism are very interesting to ordinary people. It is the symptoms and manifestations that are interesting, and not so controversial --Rdos 15:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. eg taking Thimerosal controversy out of thimerosal, as I did a while ago. THe problem is much less the articles though, or their content, than the people with particualr affinities for particualr bits of that content. Midgley 21:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

CommentI would very much like to remove corporate branding from health care provider articles. While health care is a business, it's also widely perceived as a public good that must adhere to public standards (similar to the status of teachers). Branding - especially prominently placed corporate logos and boxes that contain only promotional facts - turns Wikipedia articles into advertisements. While I think criticism should be clearly marked, I don't think it should be subordinated or de-emphasized in any way. --Pansophia 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Involving a statistician, and requiring statistical treatment of numerical claims would be desirable. Midgley 17:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a health controversy?

As I remarked when Leifern originally started up this project, this project is about one particular subgroup of health controversies, namely those where mainstream medicine is being challenged by alternative viewpoints. These alternative viewpoints may originate from organised altentive schools of medicine (e.g. echinacea for the common cold) or they may be the pet project of a small group of practicioners.

I must state again that a viewpoint is not inherently notable if it is (1) held by some people who make a lot of noise, (2) being propagated or sold on the internet, (3) the subject of an edit war, (4) groundbreaking. In each instance, there have to be serious considerations of notability, as detailed in WP:NPOVUW. Undue weight is one of the important "razors" in making sure Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Even better than describing individual treatments (which are numerous), it is useful to describe trends. A departed user took the time to add to many pages how many people use "alternative" treatments at all for certain indications. To split this up between various forms (e.g. kinesiology, chiropractic, herbal therapy) is even better.

I agree with several opinions above that we should be careful with making claims about the efficacy of both orthodox and alternative treatments. We should describe on Wikipedia (1) what is prescribed and used, (2) why this is thought to be effective, (3) any trends.

Hopefully this project will quench the serial edit wars we've had over these subjects, and I encourage editors on both sides of the divide to desist from creating walled gardens, forking, unnecessary reverts, personal attacks, etc etc. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any health controversy pages which don't have Ombudsman and Leifern in their edit histories, because if there are no great number, a solution to the problem presents itself. Midgley 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • A wikipedia:list of problematic medical controversies on WP seems like a useful adjunct to this project. Midgley 01:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So, I've created it. I propose that anyone who feels a page is a medical controversy that is problematic add it to that list, and we look at it from time to time, in a search for enlightenment. Knowing what we are talking about will probably not hinder our discussions. Midgley 01:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Looking at the AfD debate on a past page called medical controversies the closing suggestion included making a competent page - a list of them - so I've created that as well as a redirect to the list given above. Midgley 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alternative medicine

Someone is trying to put Category:Alternative medicine into Category:Pseudoscience. I believe it is highly misleading to make this generalization, as well as a violation of Wikipedia standards on categorization. Comments at Category talk:Alternative medicine. --Dforest 12:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing revert war still in progress. --Salix alba (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any developments?

Hi I'm new to being quite active on wiki and I was wondering what people are upto on this project? I've been working through the articles in category Alternative_medicine most of them are very quiet, no aggro there lolMerkinsmum 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Health_controversies_d8de.html"