Talk:National Institute on Drug Abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NIH, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to the National Institutes of Health. If you would like to join this project, see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Drug Policy, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of drug policy. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Propaganda alert

Please note the following blog post by Jacob Sullum at Reason Magazine.

Nada on NIDA
Date:Thursday 25 January 2007 20:25
Author:Jacob Sullum
The National Institute on Drug Abuse did not like the way it looked in its Wikipedia entry, so last August it began excising the naughty bits, including a section on "controversial research," a description of the government's marijuana cultivation, and references to nongovernmental sources. [...]

The full story is at [1]. Sjeng 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See also:

Federal Agency Cleans Up Its Own Wikipedia Entry
By: Ryan Grim
January 25, 2007 01:41 PM EST
Wikipedia has come of age. The online user-created encyclopedia is now influential enough that the federal government feels the need to doctor it up. [...]

This one is at [2].

[edit] Neutral info

Now that all the critical information about NIDA has been reverted back in, it would be nice if somebody could write a bit more generic stuff about the history of the institute as well. If you like NIDA, for whatever reason, you may want to consider adding some information about the great work done and sponsored by this fine government agency, rather than deleting descriptions of somewhat out-of-mainstream but very well documented criticism.

Response: This can only be considered "out-of-mainstream" to people who haven't researched NIDA much, followed their politics, or been involved with them at all. Many professors at large universities greatly dislike their advertising on how all of their research is very scientific, when in fact, they often ignore statistics. I'm not going to argue examples of this but if you'd like me to, I can. Furthermore, it isn't an organization that's actually actively trying to do something better for the citizens of this country. The average citizen just doesn't know--or doesn't care, as it often stands these days. But honestly, if it were somewhat-out-of-mainstream, don't you think someone else would have maybe deleted the non-governmental sources first (on the grounds that they were inaccurate/biased), before they had to do it themselves?

[edit] External references

  • The Gettman link doesn't appear to be relevant. Can anyone argue that it is? I didn't really scrutinize it, but it never mentions the subject of this article.
  • The 2 mpp.org/archive and mpp.org/releases links are bad. Looks like they went to a different site management technology with obnoxious URLs. Can anyone provide replacements?

–BozoTheScary 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the MPP links. I couldn't find reference to the first link in the new site structure so I used the archived site location. Kwix 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brace for possible vandalism

Wonkette has just advised her readers to come vandalize this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she's employing sarcasm in that post and not literally suggesting that her readers vandalize the article. That is not to say that some of her readers may not take it literally Charles (Kznf) 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the Wonkette team is male now. I have no idea how that makes sense, but it is. 67.62.109.178 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know I should have said 'they.' But I always picture Wonkette as being the lone female cartoon at the head of the page, and occasionally I forget that drawings don't blog. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop worrying, love blogs!

Somebody took out a reference to a blog on the theory that "blogs are not reliable sources of information." If we are to decide which sources of information are reliable, we should probably also cut all links to federal government pages about drugs. Some blogs are more reliable than others, as some newspapers are more reliable than others. In particular, the reason.com blog is linked to Reason Magazine, which is a very reputable print publication that has won all sorts of fancy awards. The point is not for us to decide which sources of information are reliable, or which points of view are agreeable, but to document consensus where consensus exists, and notable disagreement where notable disagreement exists. If there is a source you can find that disputes the allegations on reason, politico, or Daily Kos, by all means link to it. If the whole thing gets too unwieldy, summarize it and move it to a separate article. Sjeng 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe (but am too lazy to locate) that there is a bona fide WP policy that blogs (and social networking sites and search engine links, etc.) are not suitable for factual references. That said, the rule is not hard and fast. If a blog contributes evidence, like the NIDA spokeswoman quote on politico, there is no reason not to use it to cite a fact. However, unless the blog post provides a significant amount of data about an article, I don't think that it belong in the "External links". The other blog entries merely reference the politico entry or this article. They document the flow of outrage about the meddling, but they don't document any new facts. –BozoTheScary 16:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Older comments

The following comments complain that the page is a stub and an advertisement for NIDA. I have moved them to the bottom of the page because I think they distract from the more recent concerns about vandalism. I think both issues have been dealt with, although more on the history of NIDA and the non-scandalous things they do is still very much welcome. Sjeng 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Neutrality

This article reads like an advert. It says that NIDA "revolutionizes" and is "very important". Informative language is very rarely in the present tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UberMan5000 (talk • contribs).

This appears to have been addressed. –BozoTheScary 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub

This article is a stub and needs to be marked as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyejuice (talk • contribs).

This appears to have been addressed. –BozoTheScary 16:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Caompaigns

I think there's some problems with the new ad campaigns section. First, I don't think that has anything to do with the NIDA. The ONDCP is the ones that put out ads. Second, it was the GAO that funded the study on it. The ONDCP is the propaganda department for the public, the NIDA is the propaganda department for scientists and doctors. I'm reverting the section until we can get some kind of citation that the NIDA is involved in this. Gigs 17:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a citation to the Slate article. The article states that it was a cooperative effort between the ONDCO and NIDA. Hence relevant, IF the article is correct. If there's some source/reason why the article is wrong please provide it.radek 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case what was added was a copy/paste from the ONDCP article and needed to be rewritten. It didn't make sense in this article. Gigs 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I second the request for neutral info

I work for NIDA (as a scientist, not a PR flak), and I can tell you that despite the naive/hamhanded edits made by another NIDA employee, the great majority of people at NIDA are pragmatists and empiricists. We're not like the ONDCP and we're not like the DEA. When NIDA doesn't stick its institutional neck out (e.g. in terms of research on cannabis and psychedelics), I think that's mostly a matter of trying not to rouse the ire of Congress.

The stub headings suggested by an earlier contributor (Divisions, History, etc.) should be expanded; the entry in its currrent form is wildly imbalanced. If I have the time and energy, I might eventually edit it myself (with appropriate disclosure of my status as an employee). 70.22.0.223 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said to the earlier editor who put in the stub sections (was that you?), fine: go ahead and put in the appropriate sections. But please don't put stub sections (i.e., headings with little or no content below), as they're inappropriate. Either fill them out or fuggedaboudit.
By the bye, about your anticipated "decloaking": due to the ill-conceived nature of this so-called "encyclopedia", it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you disclose your status as a NIDA employee or scientist; in fact, it could work against you. Because of the nature of anonymous editing ("Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, or corrupt"), coupled with the misbegotten "no original research" policy, you have just as much right (and credibility) as the next pimply-faced 15-year-old when it comes to editing this, or any other, article. And [insert name of deity here] help you if you incur the wrath of one of them who happens to be an "administrator". Welcome to Wikipedia. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
ILike2BeAnonymous, I think that you have seriously misread the comment you were responding to. I think the point that the NIDA employee was making was not that his status as an employee gave him more authority than anyone else, but rather that he would disclose his employment status so that no one could mistake his edits for what was earlier done by a NIDA employee. If anything, his posting is a request for extra scrutiny, not a request for leniency or extra allowance. He has stated what he sees as a POV problem with the article and made a suggestion for how it should be changed. And his observation is right: ever since the broader community got a whiff of what one NIDA employee did (apparently as an official action), everyone has piled on NIDA and the present article is seriously imbalanced (and I write this as a staunch libertarian, advocate of drug legalization, and skeptic of governmental research on drugs).
What we have now here does not do any credit to Wikipedia, and the NIDA employee is right to point it out. There are five sentences dedicated to explaining what NIDA is and does and four sections (23 sentences) that are essentially trashing NIDA. This article now is definitely POV. I for one, appreciate the NIDA employee’s willingness to disclose his POV and his disclosure of his status: it would be just as easy for him to register and a name and edit away. Instead we get a rare case where someone is upfront about his POV and you trash him for it with a reading that defies belief. -Fenevad 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trashing "him" (how do you know the person's gender?): if anything, I was warning them about what to expect here. I suggest you re-read what I wrote, with a little more comprehension this time.
Besides, with the total lack of verification as to who anyone is here, how in the world could anyone be sure that an editor was or was not a NIDA employee? Since that's impossible, it's basically a crap shoot.
And finally, I wish everyone would stop bitching about what they perceive to be an unbalanced article. If it bothers you so much, you should, as they say around here, be bold and fix it. Nobody is opposed to that, so far as I can tell. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

REMOVED IMPOLITIC COMMENT I MADE EARLIER -Fenevad 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

NIDA employee here again (and yeah, I'm male). Fenevad, thanks for having understood me. "ILike2BeAnonymous," I wasn't the one who put in the empty stubs; I won't edit the article until/unless I have the time and energy to do it properly. It's going to be no small task. 70.22.0.223 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding “bitching,” it serves a roll role. Some people have spotted a problem, but don't have the expertise to fix it. Pointing out the problem and admitting you can't fix it serves a valuable purpose, just as if my car quits working and I take it to the mechanic to get it fixed because I know I can't do it. I am not an expert on NIDA, so I can't "be bold and fix it", but that doesn't mean that I don't see the problem and can't point it out in the hopes that others who are experts can fix it. +Fenevad 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Remove. While the article has far more content that is embarrassing to NIDA than content that is not, none of the content violates POV. I think that the tag should be removed. NPOV is not about weighing the quantity of words "pro" the article subject against those "con" the subject. It is about the tone and valid supporting references. –BozoTheScary 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(NIDA employee says...) Hmm. I followed the link to the NPOV policy and found this statement: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I think the POV tag is justified on those grounds.70.22.0.223 05:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point, but in this case it is not a matter of too much negative as too little positive. The policy, as stated above, is intended to keep someone from circumventing NPOV by overwhelming an article with negative minutiae or reams of content-lite commentary or prominently displaying the negative over the positive. The implied remedy for the above concern would be to trim the details of the overlarge sections. In this case, the negative sections are quite modest and spare in their details and prose. Applying this remedy would be to gut truly relevant details from the article.
As someone stated above, there is nothing wrong with someone at the NIDA editing this article to provide some positive details. There is something wrong with someone at NIDA using this article as a viral marketing outlet, as was done last August and September. I would strongly recommend to you that you create a user account, state that you are an NIDA employee on your user page as ample disclosure, and flesh out this article with NPOV details about the agency that are not a paste from NIDA resources. I have little doubt that someone knowledgeable of something other than the agency's perceived flaws could justify organizing the bulk of the current article into a "Criticisms" section at the bottom. –BozoTheScary 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Leave it (but I can't vote because I placed the tag). The page definitely violates POV at present, just as much as the neutered pro-NIDA version did earlier. I did not place the tag lightly because I didn't like the coverage of NIDA in the article. If anything, I agree whole-heartedly with it, but I have to admit my own bias in the matter. Right now this article is the equivalent of an article on the U.S. Department of Defense with three sentences saying what the DoD [is -15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)] and nothing else but sections on U.S. "attrocities" in Iraq. (To make it very clear, I am not a shill for NIDA. I first came to this article via Jacob Sullum's blog post on NIDA's censorship efforts and I am adamantly opposed to the "war on drugs" and governmental research on drugs; such research does, however, exist, and should be covered factually and neutrally. Wikipedia is not here to advocate for a political position on drug use or the "war on drugs".)
Think about this way. If you went to a "real" encyclopedia to learn about NIDA, what would you expect to find? I dare say that the present Wikipedia articleisn't it. My problem with the present article is that it is not about NIDA: it is about NIDA controversies. I cannot read this article and find out matters of basic fact about the organization. There is next to nothing in here about what it is active in, how many employees it has, who it reports to, etc. I would have real problems with the removal of the critical materials, but they need to balanced with something about NIDA itself. This article make it appear as if there are no pro-NIDA sources anywhere other than NIDA itself. Even though I agree with the assessment of NIDA provided here, I simply can't believe that no one out there has anything positive to say about NIDA... +Fenevad 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
(And I don't have the expertise to add what is needed to bring this article into some sort of balance. I recognize the problems, but I can't fix them... +Fenevad 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
Agreed that there is a problem and that the article is far from encyclopedic quality, but I would argue that it is not a POV issue. Looking at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup, better options might be "Expand", "Expert", "tooshort", "sections", "context", "generalize", "RRevised", "cleanup-confusing", "cleanup", "Lopsided", and/or "globalize". I personally recommend "expand" and "Expert" at the top with "Lopsided" one or more times among the criticisms. –BozoTheScary 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think that one of these other tags is more appropriate and can convey to readers and editors that there is a need to balance the article, I wouldn't object to you replacing the POV tag with it. I still think it's a POV issue, but if others disagree, I'm fine, as long as the problems are noted. =Fenevad 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Real" encyclopedias haven't had a particularly good record of accurate coverage of drugs. At the 1998 NORML conference, one of the speakers said there was an edition of Britannica that had two references for its marijuana article, one of which was Harry Anslinger. I think this article could benefit from more coverage of NIDA's history though, which would give it a more balanced appearance. It's okay to have some stuff on criticism, but that shouldn't be the focus, unless we're going to move this to Criticism of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or something similar. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about a nice tall glass of SOFIXIT?

I'm going to revamp this article in accordance with some complaints that were made. Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lester Grinspoon criticism to add

Dr. Lester Grinspoon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School who sued the DEA when it declared ecstasy a schedule 1 controlled substance in 1985, said he doesn't quite trust studies performed by the National Institute of Drug Abuse."The NIH is a wonderful institution as a whole and truly their interest is in science," Grinspoon said. "But the NIDA really lost it where science is concerned and has become a ministry of drug propaganda."

Philipkoski, Kristen. "Lucy In the Sky, With Therapists", Science: Discoveries, Wired, 2000-11-09. Retrieved on 2008-02-15. 

—Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)