Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 General talk

General talk

Start new topics for discussion here. (please introduce new topics with ---- and a header on level 3 (e.g. ===Recombinant amyloid===)

Proposal to create a formalised group of wiki docs

I think getting a formal WikiDoc group, with ideas about naming convention, who to target articles towards, and a consensus on the blue boxes is enough for now. That group will eventually hold this Doctor's Mess, as well. Ksheka

As for the proposal, regarding who should be a member of the group - I think we're trying to be too exclusive if we limit ourselves to physicians. Anyone who is interested in health-related topics should be able to write any of the topics, and many topics will need non-physicians to help edit (ie: pharmacists will have useful insight into a lot of the pharmacologic agents we write about, medical students will be pretty good about the general physiology and anatomy aspects, and never underestimate a well-read individual ;-) ). As for leaders for the group, how about just doing it on an achievement-based view (number of pages edited, quality of the edits, etc.), rather than the actual level of training of individuals. Leaders are needed, to settle any disputes amongst the members (ie: what should be in a blue box). Ksheka 11:54, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Gedday... Yes, very embryonic - possibly even an 8 cell zygote! Wikipedia is fantanstic because everybody from all backgrounds chips in. The proposal is certainly not intended to be restrictive, but merely to enable clear labelling. I may just be influence by a few days I wasted on somebody who was claiming to be a doctor… but certainly didn’t act like one. To be honest it put me off Wikipedia a bit: “why am I wasting my time... here this is chaos”. So the thrust of the proposal is really about allowing doctors to identify themselves in the community.

On further thought... a formal committee would only aim to restrict editing to a single page… and that would be the 'Wiki Medical Register'. And then the rest would be wiki as normal... in some ways this is about establishing a brand and attempting to carrying the reputation we have in the community into Wikipedia. bascially because I think we can achieve more that way - especially in controversial areas - as the world medical community is only now making inroads into smoking - we're still not going to be able to influence content to an enormous extent. but if the community trusts us as a group we our 'health warnings' are likely to be respected. --Erich gasboy 19:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

now fun stuff! naming suggestions (es):

Wikipedia Medical Association (WMA) (my current vote):
Wikipedia Association of Medical Practitioners (WAMP)
Wikipedia Association of Doctors (WAD)
Wikipedia Doctors Group (WDG)
Wikipedia Medical School (WMS)
JFW | T@lk
add here and please vote! above

Re Leadership my personal view is that at least while membership is below ~16 then all decisions of the group should be made be consensus. This will tend to make the group conservative but I think that is Ok. Individual members or subgroups can always try to push their own agends - it's just until they cannot use the 'brand' WMA or whatever unless they achieve consensus. (ie most of us are members of our own Medical Associations but, it is rare for one of us to act as its spokesmen. Once membership gets above 16 consensus is likely to be impossible so that's why I put in the idea of the executive committee and voting).

would all this be a lot of work? - well I don't think so. If somone comes, says they are a doctor, acts like a doctor, contributes like a doctor they are very welcome ('Gedday' we all shout in unision!) and we add them to the list (register). If they want to be able to veto consensus decisions then they just need to (in confidence) reveal their true identity (send us an email, or if their home e-mail is DrX@hotmail, ask the secretary at the hospital they work at to confirm their address) and we can just check out their registration/licence on the web. ooh gotta go kids need me!--Erich gasboy 07:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Are we moving?

Angela suggested (see my talk page) that we move all WikiDoc stuff to a WikiProject page. I suggest starting a new WikiProject to supersede the old and defunct ones, and to call it "WikiProject CLINICAL MEDICINE".
I will probably write a new introduction to "Clinical medicine" and include our "agenda" as discussed on the WikiDoc page.
We can also use the associated Talk page as a springboard for an in-depth discussion on page nomenclature (Heart attack vs Myocardial infarction). Please give your views and other points that need to be incorporated into the "Clinical medicine" proposal.
(I will be cross-posting this on the Talk pages of all WikiDoc participants.)
JFW | T@lk 12:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, and a step in the right dirrection. Ksheka 15:53, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

It is nice to have one place rather than all around Wikipedia. We're still talking about doing this all in Wikipedia, right? We ae not starting a new wiki. Kd4ttc 17:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

This project will be firmly Wikipedia. Erich's plans are still decidedly embryological.
JFW | T@lk 18:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes.. pre-embryological... dunno about anybody else but wikipedia seem big enough for all of us... so i for one am not proposing we go anywhere!! although I wonder if (one day) a 'wiki-book' dedicated to information for patient's could be good? also wonder if a highly formalised future wiki could seriously compete with medical textbooks. but that is just pie in the sky thinking. btw i too think the 'mess' is fantastic... I guess we should all recruit new members! I claim Alteripse as my recruit (gedday Alteripse!) - still have a long way to catch up with JFDW tho! the proposal i've made is really just an add on suggestion to the good work already done you all.--Erich gasboy 20:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

In other words, if this were a pyramid scheme, you're claiming a percentage of my production? You'll probably try to skim the vowels or something... Alteripse 13:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC) just as well it's not a pyramid scheme - if it were, i'm sure you wouldn't miss the lower half of the fullstops ;-) --Erich gasboy 15:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Naming issue

I've raised the "naming issue" again, this time on a widely-read page: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Medicine. I hope it will get some more response and lead to some form of consensus.
JFW | T@lk 12:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Good on you! --Erich gasboy 19:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Feeling assertive???

should we put JFDW's beautifull box on Wellness? he he --Erich gasboy 19:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Man, I've had a fight over putting it on abdominal pain!

I just looked at it. I'd vote for letting the person who writes an article decide whether to feature it in a series with a box. On the other hand, I like Erich's suggestion that common symptoms/signs/complaints might deserve their own different box theme rather than the disease one. Or you might consider my opinion worth what I'm charging you for it. P.S., I wouldn't have been tempted to add a couple words to your article if not for that missing comma. Alteripse 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

But seriously, I try to stay away from the CAM pages, however oxymoronic some statements may sound to us skeptical, "narrow-minded" pathophysiological hardliners. Erich, you ought to do something about this red link!
JFW | T@lk 20:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

btw JFW.. had a quick look at the abdo pain debate, user:num nuts may have a point about the blue box not being quite right there. should we have a box for common symptoms and health complaints or some such?? Erich gasboy 00:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC) I agree, see above (and no quid pro quo changed hands here).Alteripse 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

uh oh... now you've done it! ;-) I guess Cam is part of my motivation for the 'proposal'. (Psychoneuroimmunology would be more Alteripse's area wouldn't it?) --Erich gasboy 20:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC) In my humble opinion, psychoneuroimmunology is about as relevant to alt med as quantum mechanics is to the homeopaths (and as well understood, too).Alteripse 01:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

As I've stated on John's talk page, I think it would be a shame if the WikiDocs started flaming the CAMmers and vice versa. My strategy so far has been to stay out of ridiculous edit/reversal wars, and I'm not planning to change it...
JFW | T@lk 21:51, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Rashness bows to your experience and wisdom. I'll stay away. Reading the arguments is sort of like looking at gruesome accident pictures though, sort of draws you in despite yourself... Alteripse 22:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

JFW, Alteripse, agree completely! am still nagged by the thought that wellness probably needs to have 0 or 2 boxes though (?) have you had a look? (now Alteripse, as a latin proponent, I am sure we should all be rightly bowing your experience and wisdom not the other way around!) --Erich gasboy 00:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

So what kind of boxes would you add to wellness? I thought the article was pretty unobjectionable, and not really "alternative," though part of the disputability of alt med is that any thing that sounds rational and reasonable doesn't seem to deserve being called "alt" to me, or argued about, which leaves its defenders only the nonsense. Their definition of course is quite different and they keep trying to insist that lots of perfectly sensible things that wouldn't raise a skeptic's eyebrow deserve to be called "alt", ---I guess they think approving or claiming a few rational things makes the rest of the silliness less obvious.Alteripse 01:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

well personally I wouldn't have any boxes, but I'm uneasy about the advertisment for CAM at the bottom of a page which I agree is not alt at all! If we were to add another box then I'm thinking something focussed on health science which I think is a fantastic inclusive term encompassing all our allied health and nursing colleagues believing in a scientific approach to improving health.

I've picked up on some comments about health, that i think are worth exploring... IMHO... <rant>, I think there is much to be gained by medicine and the wikidocs by snuggly sheltering in with health science and conceptualising medicine as part of health. Health science also rightly aligns us with all wikipedians who believe in science... and there seem to be many excellent scientists here. There are too few of us otherwise. Also in my experience Medicine is generally classified as part of health (I work for Queensland Health for example and, of course UK has the 'National Health Service'. So I think we should graciously subsume ourselves under health science and be proud that although our field is medicine, we aim to improve and maintain health using science</rant> right now that's off my chest! do I make any sense? Erich gasboy 02:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

That is why we have more than one infobox. I especially designed that project namespace for articles only tangential to CAM or as it says related to alternative postions on health, healing, and illness. If you were to take a close look at page history the talk name space is actually a replacement of the see also link list that I added a while back with a more complete list of articles. We could have placed a much more prominent infobox right on top of the article. CAM is a total package. I am personally not remotely interested in {revolting alternative treatment} but it is part of the total package. There are many modern areas of CAM that actually do work. There are many articles that are related to alternative postions on health, healing, and illness such as Syndrome X which figures prominently into questions of diet and exercise. Feel free to add you own infobox at the bottom of the page. -- John Gohde 06:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)