User talk:Zefr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Concerning this edit, no medical claims were made. Therefore WP:SCIRS, not WP:MEDRS applies. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. As a follow-up to the discussion above and on my talk page here, it is important to realize the scope of Wikipedia is far wider than WP:MED. Furthermore biochemistry falls more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED.
Concerning the following comment you left on User_talk:Rozo93 (The material you're trying to add is not encyclopedic in quality because it is not factual for the human body). As long as the statements are backed up by reliable sources, in vitro and animal studies are fair game to be included in Wikipedia. The problem of course is that many may extrapolate test tube and animal results to humans. As long as it is clearly stated that evidence for human application is lacking (e.g., because double-blinded clinical trials in humans have not yet been conducted), then it should be OK to include such material. I realize that not everyone will agree with my view point, but at the same time, I think it is important to state that the scope of WP:MEDRS has limits. Boghog (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Boghog. It's good to have your point of view on SCIRS and MEDRS. For most of my 12 years editing Wikipedia, I have been liberal about including -- even writing myself -- preliminary medical research from in vitro and animal studies as signs of progress to understand physiological mechanisms and eventually be better able to address disease factors or prevention. I felt this was a balanced perspective for the non-medical reader to appreciate that research activity is a promising sign of interest by scientists and progress in the field. But, in recent years, what has become more apparent to me is that scientists themselves, when interpreting their results in publications, and then by inference, the same interpretation being adopted by media and Wikipedia editors, make exaggerated outrageous statements that translate lab findings to certainty that the effect exists in humans. Seeing this woven into Wikipedia articles has turned me to be stricter in applying MEDRS for editing that leads the reader to believe preliminary findings actually have relevance to what could occur in vivo.
I agree with your position beginning in the sentence "As long as it is clearly stated...", and will try to take a more balanced view. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)