Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Antioxidant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
NOTE: In order to preserve the formatting of this case page, I'm moving discussion to the talk page. --Moralis (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Request Information
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
User:TimVickers and User:Paul144, possibly User:Regulations as well.
[edit] What's going on?
We can't agree over how to discuss a review. Paul wishes to include some sources that I am not happy with.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
I would like him to find some better sources. I'd be happy with putting this study in context, but feel we should use only high-quality peer-reviewed sources.
[edit] Mediator response
Greetings! Before we begin, I would like to let all concerned parties know that I am new to mediation, and be sure that you're all comfortable with that. Of course, we can't proceed unless you all agree to mediation, so I'll also need you to indicate that you're willing to take part in this before we can go anywhere with it. I would also like to be sure that I understand what's going on. There are several unsigned and inline comments on the article's talk page, which have made the dispute hard to follow for someone just stepping in. As I understand it:
The dispute stems from a disagreement over what constitutes a reliable source. We'll assume for the purposes of this conversation that TimVickers represents one side of the issue (in defense of this report, it would appear) while Paul144 and Regulations represent the other side (in this case, devalidating the study). It looks like Paul (or Regulations?) is presenting at least one source claiming that the study is flawed, and explaining why. Tim considers this source to be less reliable than the source(s) he's providing in support of the study.
Both sides appear to believe that the other is giving undue weight to their own position. Tim, your argument appears to be that since Paul's source is unreliable, his position should not be given equal weight in the article. Paul (and Regulations? I'm not sure if Regulations is involved or not, from what you've written here), you seem to be of the opinion that your source is equally valid and your position should therefore be given equal weight in the article.
I'd like to begin by having each of you answer the following questions:
Tim:
1) Do you accept mediation? Are you comfortable with me as the mediator?
- Yes I do. Perfectly comfortable - as I have no idea who you are!
2) Do you feel that I have summarized the situation appropriately? If not, please correct me here.
- I'm not really "supporting" the study as this isn't quite as black and white as your summary. We both agree that the recent review (the JMA review) needs context, but we disagree on what to provide this context with. I wish to use other sources of equal reliability (peer-reviewed articles in medical journals), to say if this study is consistent or inconsistent with previous research.
3) Why do you feel that the source(s) presented by Paul and Regulations are not valid, or less valid than your own?
- I'm trying to apply Wikipedia:Reliable sources here. The sources provided so far suffer from three major problems.
-
- The publications and authors of the sources in question are affiliated with the nutracuticals industry, so the authors and publishers have a direct financial conflict of interest.
- They are not peer-reviewed.
- The publications these articles appeared in are not scientific journals but websites of unverifiable reliability.
-
- My preferred solution would be a wording that puts this review in context, but which is backed by reliable sources. TimVickers 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Paul and Regulations:
1) Do you accept mediation? Are you comfortable with me as the mediator?
Yes, I do. It's a valuable part of the wiki community. Thanks for setting this up.
2) Do you feel that I have summarized the situation appropriately? If not, please correct me here.
No complaints with your summary.
3) Why do you feel that your source(s) are adequate, despite not coming from a publication that Tim would consider reliable? --Moralis (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Many of the sources quoted are interviewed scientists whose expertise was sought both from a. the view of interpreting the conclusions and apparent weaknesses of the meta-analysis and b. from the perspective of innumerable reports of antioxidant phytochemicals providing either evidence or promise of health benefits, a far greater weight of evidence than the contrary.
I disagree with Tim that the online publications are not peer-reviewed, as I am a contributor to a few of these, e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx, and know my articles are reviewed with feedback by others before publication.
The natural products industry is too young -- just a few years of formal business activity -- to establish itself in academia where most peer-reviewed journals begin. But this will inevitably occur. Meanwhile, having seen this trend before when new fields of research began then grew into journals, such as in the '90s when nitric oxide and other free radicals (related to this Antioxidant topic) became "fields" with their own journals, I feel reasonably certain we are at the threshold of a new natural products academic field being introduced first through industry and online publishing. We should not disregard it as tainted, unscientific or "un-peered". In the current digital era, this is how scientific information appears first.
All of this explanation above may be beside the point anyway. In the section I edited, I provided fair-minded language that was not intended to disrespect the JAMA publication, but rather to offer what anyone (any scientist especially) would accept as a possible alternative interpretation. This is what I said:
These harmful effects may also be seen in non-smokers, as a recent meta-analysis including data from 68 separate clinical trials of 232,606 patients showed that β-carotene, vitamin A or vitamin E supplementation was associated with increased mortality[1]. However, this meta-analysis found no significant effect from vitamin C supplementation on mortality, and its conclusions have been questioned due to the wide heterogeneity of patients already ill with varied diseases studied in different trial designs, treatment dosages and durations[2].
That's a fair and reasoned conclusion to make, not different than what one might find in the discussion section of a peer-reviewed journal. I realize Wikipedia is not an editorial space, but the balanced view is what serves the public on a topic of considerable current interest that also is not yet defined in fact. I honestly don't think any reasonable person or scientist could see it differently at this stage of interpreting the JAMA meta-analysis and what it means to understanding antioxidants. --Paul144 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I also feel it would serve the public if we devoted a separate paragraph in the same section to the strengths and weaknesses specifically of this meta-analysis. On the positive, the source of the publication is highly respected and tacitly accepted as high-quality peer-review (JAMA), plus we could summarize 2-3 points Tim feels are particularly well done in this study. On the negative, even the best journals can have weak studies with equally weak peer-review; this study has been subject of several credible critiques which should be distilled to a few points allowing the reader to judge for herself. --Paul144 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- This would be original research if not backed by reliable sources. Why, out of the 157 references in this article should this one be the only source with a criticism/rebuttal section? Why can't we just say "X showed this while Y and Z showed this." Sticking to the facts and not trying to add our own interpretations would be a much better way of proceeding. We have over 20 years of randomised, controlled clinical trials of antioxidants to summarise (about 3,500 papers) and about 10 years of meta-analyses (about 100 in total). Surely with this vast amount of data we can find enough reliable sources to present the facts accurately? TimVickers 15:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- So is Berry Wise your company Paul? TimVickers 15:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Administrative notes
User:Paul144 has been temporarily blocked for adding unsourced material to the Wolfberry article. He won't be able to respond to these questions until the block expires. TimVickers 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The block lasted about 36 hrs and was lifted yesterday. It evolved from a dispute with an administrator responding to complaints from marketers protecting unscientific, fabricated health claims for wolfberry juice products. As a scientist wanting the truth told about wolfberries and as author of more than 70% of the Wikipedia article, I debated issues with the admin. My new entries are now in the article. --Paul144 13:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
