Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Commons is really messed up

An X-ray was deleted as the uploader was "a medical STUDENT and he cannot own these radiographs." and "don't trust another wiki". [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things to point out. Firstly, that deletion discussion is from five years ago. Secondly, most copyright discussions (both here and on Commons) work more like CSDs than AFDs -- an admin, experienced with copyright work, comes to a decision based on his own investigation, though potentially aided by the input of others. Thus, one cannot say if MichaelMaggs took the statements you cite into account. All we have is his explanatory statement that "Radswiki lists no source", so it should be that which one would need to rebut to have the five-year-old decision overturned. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 12:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty is they are inventing copyright law by trying to use far fetched deductive reasoning. And than deleting images based on their new inventions. Some commons admins are taking huge steps away from what is done in publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

James, as you know, the issue of copyright status of x-rays is unclear. There is no legal precedent that I am aware of in any country. The Wikimedia lawyers need to tackle this issue. I know that you have tried to draw the matter to their and the community's attention. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

There however is real life precedent and it is that they are not really copyrightable. We are far from the first people to publish X-rays. I have checked with a few journals and authors who back this up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I know that journals regularly publish x-rays without specifically seeking copyright status. Do those journals then claim copyright of the x-rays? If so, on what basis could they claim this? Or are they in the public domain? In which case, could we upload all published x-rays to Wikimedia Commons with a free licence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that editors consult User:Moonriddengirl for advice regarding copyrights.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have invited Media copyright questions editors to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I see no reason whatsoever that an X-ray would be any less subject to copyright than any other photograph. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

X-rays are explicitly stated not be subject to copyright in some countries. In others there is no explicit statement and the situation is less clear. Lesion (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is a case on Commons where a UK patient uploaded CAT scan images of himself. These were deleted. I tried to argue they were not photographs at all but non-creative computer output but the uploader claimed copyright and this was rejected. Thincat (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is a sad indication of the misunderstanding of Commons editors, including the closing administrator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been asking academics how thing work in the real world. Have spoken with an important person at the NIH (in an none official capacity), a widely published radiologist from Sweden, the founder of a radiology image wiki, and others. They all agree that diagnostic X-rays are not like pictures. That they are unsure if the images are copyrightable. But if they are they are definitely NOT owned by the X-ray tech. And those that have published X-rays have not asked for official permission from anyone before doing so. They do not see why a patient would be unable to publish their own images.

Now we at Wikipedia/Commons can say that everyone else in the world is currently "breaking the law" however I think we need to be very carefully if we are to make this position explicit. Could make us look foolish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Commons policy is very clear: all images have to be in the public domain in both the source country and in the United States. If an image isn't properly sourced, then the source country may be unknown. If the source country is unknown, then this seems to favour deletion per Commons:COM:PRP as the source country might be a country in which the image is copyrightable. One of the mentioned images was unsourced, and the other one was from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a very low threshold of originality, which is why we don't allow British signatures on Commons until 70 years after the death of the signatory (see Commons:COM:SIG#United Kingdom) or simple text logos (File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was deleted after we found out that a British court decided that the logo was copyrighted in the United Kingdom). A medical X-ray image is almost certainly copyrightable in the United Kingdom. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Legal advice from the Foundation suggests that Xrays are photographs and thus copyrighted though who owns the copyright varies country to country. Irregardless, they aren't free. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Stefan2, only your last sentence is of relevance to this discussion. And that statement is pure speculation.

Masem, that page does not suggest that x-rays are photographs. Of note, it states "We could not find any case law directly addressing the issue of the copyrightability of x-ray images." In the absence of such guidance, the author (Pholm) draws an analogy between x-rays and photographs. Pholm's last statement is "Depending on the circumstances, a radiology technician, radiologist, consulting physician, physician group, hospital, or some combination thereof, may hold any copyright that exists." Yet in the absence of case law, it is impossible to know who owns the copyright. If it is impossible to know who owns the copyright, in what sense does copyright exist? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have posted a RfC on WP:LAW, a more legal insight into this matter might help the discussion. LT90001 (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Like most pages I have seen on Wikilegal, it is worthless. It gives the illusion of containing useful and learned advice, but is actually pure speculation by an intern, and only considers US law. It is merely the opinion of one person with no stake in the matter and no experience of the subject. I fear the longer this discussion goes on, the more random speculation with accumulate. This is an example of where crowd-sourcing fails -- too many know-nothings with opinions -- and of where the dogmatism on Commons conflicts with pragmatism in the real world. WMF should state a position they are willing to defend in court (as they have done with photographs of PD art) or else require Commons delete all radiology images without OTRS evidence from institution where the image was obtained. Perhaps the denuding of Commons of such a huge collection of encyclopaedic photographs (leaving behind a collection of erect penises) will help the WMF focus on how their education project has gone off the rails. The doubt helps nobody. I don't think there is any realistic chance of an uploader or reuser being sued here (unless someone is stupid enough to scrape an x-ray from a journal), but the ongoing doubt causes people to waste their time uploading images (sometimes with verbal "permission") only for some Commons admin to get all hot headed and delete it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear from the page itself to what extent it represents the official and legal stance of Wikimedia Commons/Meta-wiki. I am not active in those projects so I am unfamiliar with their processes. I assumed good faith when Masem described it as "Legal advice from the Foundation". The author, Peter Holm, is a legal intern working for Wikimedia Foundation. It is certainly plausible that this is the official stance.

I don't think that it's helpful to characterize editors as "know-nothings". It is an ad hominem argument and could be construed as a personal attack. These editors are not stupid, and they are acting in good faith with the aim of improving Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps "misguided" would be more accurate.

It is interesting that you mention medical journals. According to Stefan2 and Masem's interpretation, every medical journal and medical textbook publisher is infringing copyright. Although exactly whose copyright they are infringing is impossible to know. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the disclaimer at the top. Masem is wrong to call it "legal advice from WMF". It is no more authoritative than a blog post. WMF have no official stance other than to state that issues of copyright are entirely the responsibility of the uploader/community.

There's an endemic problem on the Internet (and we all fall into the trap) of voicing an strong opinion on a subject you really know nothing about. As they say "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Combine this with a position of power and you have a sorry mess. A five minute internet search and suddenly someone is acting like they are an expert in Swedish copyright law. I don't really understand why someone should wake up one morning and decided to delete a featured picture that has been on Commons for five years and is used on many articles in many Wikipedias. Commons could benefit from more admins saying "Honestly, I don't know the legal situation here, and perhaps nobody does. So I'm going to do something else where I know my actions are correct and helpful.". Pragmatically, that would help Commons because it would respect the actual situation where it is ultimately the uploader's responsibility and nobody else. Pragmatism would help here because if the whole world acts like radiology images aren't copyright, then the speculation of lawyers is just unhelpful and hinders Commons mission to provide educational content. That would leave admins time to spend deleting content where they know the copyright situation or content with other legal and ethical problems. The admins aren't "misguided"; they are ignorant and should recognise their limitations. That people don't like this pointed out to them, is understandable.

The medical publishers claim the copyright for themselves. Which is of course ridiculous and unethical. Colin°^Talk 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for pointing out the disclaimer at the top of the page. It states "This page is not legal advice or a representation of the viewpoints of the Wikimedia Foundation." Masem is indeed wrong to describe the page as "Legal advice from the Foundation". The page is no more than Peter Holm's opinion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Erm. It should be emphasized that there is a significant difference between "there isn't any case law on this point right now" and "this particular right does not exist". The former simply means that no one has brought this particular question to trial and followed it all the way through to a judge's ruling—at least, not as far as the WMF's legal intern could discover in putting together a blog post. I suspect that if we started scanning radiographs from radiology textbooks and uploading them to Commons, some useful case law would very quickly accrue.

The issue probably hasn't come up in a significant case-law sort of way because the people who write the textbooks are generally the same radiologists (or the friends and colleagues of the radiologists) who collected the images. Hospitals which employ the radiologists want their employees and contractors to publish papers and textbooks because it is good for everyone's reputation. In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems that unless the radiologist is self-employed, they don't have any claim to the image at all. The copyright, should there be any, belongs to the employer. What we are trying to establish, with various enquiries, is whether anyone actually does ask for permission or give permission. So far the answer seems to be no. In other words, the journals and textbooks are claiming copyright for themselves for images where they don't have copyright. It would indeed be foolish to start scanning from radiology books, though one suspects the publishers may have more to lose from any court case than a wikipedian. What unfortunately seems to be the situation is that a gentlemen's agreement won't satisfy the admins at Commons. -- Colin

" In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. "

— TenOfAllTrades

So if they think that the copyright owner would have given permission, it's okay to use the copyrighted image? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking, Axl, but TenOfAllTrades's quote isn't correct. And giving "permission to use" one thing and quite separate from transferring ownership of copyright. My impression is that journals are claiming copyright on images they have no right to. The copyright (should it exist) would remain with the NHS Trust (say) that employed the radiographer who did the scan. From talking to one journal and to authors, it appears the journal's official line is that they expect the authors to get necessary permissions, but don't check themselves, and the authors in turn are unaware they need to get permission and have never done so nor had any problems (provided the patient isn't identified). Colin°^Talk 09:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right that I should have written more clearly—it wasn't my intent to suggest that the combination of permissions and (often) hospital policies encouraging and allowing physicians to publish medical images constituted a formal grant or transfer of copyright, or indeed that they even mention copyright. The physicians who write papers for medical journals generally have to sign off on a statement that they hold the appropriate copyrights and/or have obtained the required permissions, but as far as journal publishers are concerned there isn't any follow-up; they take those signed (but probably dubious) author statements at their word. My point was that even if the journals had worried about the issue, they get by on a combination of we've-always-done-it-this-way and nobody's-going-to-sue-so-it-doesn't-matter—reasoning which we, on Wikipedia, cannot find acceptable.

While I'm hesitant to further muddy the waters, it is also worth bearing in mind that in some jurisdictions many physicians are independent contractors rather than employees—even for physicians who nominally work at or in clinics or hospitals. While I doubt very much that the reason for such arrangements had anything at all to do with intellectual property concerns, it does have significant intellectual property ramifications. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes most physicians are independent contractors. Does not really mean much as they are still not taking the images but are publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any circumstances where a physician would own copyright, unless working in some Third World practice where he'd have to do his own x-rays, or in episode of House, where the physicians appears to do everything. A self-employed radiographer would own copyright, unless his contract said differently. Given that it is typically physicians who publish the papers, the most they will have is "permission to publish", not "permission to give Elsevier the copyright to my work". Colin°^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The copyright laws are very different in different countries. In some countries such as the United States, the copyright to a work for hire belongs to the employer. On the other hand, in other countries such as Sweden, the copyright belongs to the employee, unless you create computer software (see § 40 a in the copyright law). Many countries use the laws of the source country to determine the copyright holder of a work for hire. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one is ever going to sue about any of these images. There is no cause to delete them. Stop pretending that your "contributions" are in anyway helpful. Lesion (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I just spoke with a radiologist and another very well published research from Sweden. They laughed at the idea that the tech owns the image. They state that if anyone does it is the hospital. And that all can use the images without needing permission. One is checking with legal at his hospital as he manages a health region there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it strange that some commons admins wish to push this issue. They are more or less pushing to have all radiological images deleted even though we have obtained the equivalent permission as publishers. They are exposing themselves and Wikipedia to no risk by leaving things as they are, while publishers might be exposed to some risk by continuing on as they have been. We really have better things to do than trying to create case law. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a "precautionary principle" which doesn't let them get away with "everyone does this so it must be ok" or "nobody will mind" sort of attitude. I think this is good for cases where lots of people really are breaking a law and depriving artists of their earnings (like for illegal movies and music downloads). But with these images we seem to have a situation where copyright shouldn't be sticking its nose in -- there are no artists making a living from selling these pictures -- but does simply because the technology is similar to photography and an image is produced that looks a bit like a photograph. And this situation will not be resolved because it isn't in anyone's interest to spend money fixing a problem they don't have in practice. What should Commons do in that case? Do we need some kind of "You really have better things to do with your time" kind of policy? Where technically deletable images are not deleted because it really is in nobody's interest to be anal about it. I'd support that along with some kind of template on the images to say that issues of ownership and copyright surrounding radiology images are unclear and untested and that professional practice has historically allowed physicians and patients to do what they like with images. We have the odd situation that user-uploaded images are investigated but not ones from open access journals -- yet it doesn't appear the latter are any better. Colin°^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC is open regarding this question at Commons [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month for October?

Gastrointestinal cancer, one of 14 high-importance articles listed as stubs in the project. And it looks horrible! Any interest? Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the articles that have been previous collaborative of the month, I think it would be a very positive thing to start this again ... Lesion (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• I tried to keep up with it for a while. The problem with a collaboration is that it only works if you have more than one person actually show up and do something. The response is frequently, "you be bold, but I'm busy with my own stuff". If I were making suggestions, I'd add that it's helpful to have several high-quality but still free/online sources identified in advance, and at least two people who are committed to doing most of the work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, good point. Is anyone aware of groups that have effective collaborations? (WP:Hurricanes with its substantial amount of good articles may). One way of arranging it could be to have one or two editors who are willing to do a substantive edit, and then having another group of editors expand sections. I have a feeling that some editors (like me) would be up to editing a section or two but may not have the time, specific knowledge or bravery of other editors to make larger changes. LT90001 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Committed help

• Biosthmors
• Lesion

Minor edits / section editing

• LT90001 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Good sources

• American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008
• Helicobacter pylori: gastric cancer and beyond (2010)
• Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer (2009)
• Oral cancer: Clinical features (2010)
  • note: as the article currently defines gastrointestinal cancer, oral cancer is not included in this topic ... agree that the mouth is part of the GI tract. Let's see what the sources say Lesion (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think oral cancer would be more likely classed as head and neck cancer than GI ... Lesion (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• <ref name="Yamada 2009" >{{cite book|last=Yamada T, Alpers DH, et al.|title=Textbook of gastroenterology|year=2009|publisher=Blackwell Pub.|location=Chichester, West Sussex|isbn=978-1-4051-6911-0|edition=5th|pages=}}</ref> -- I've got this as a .pdf and happy to share by dropbox if anyone wants a copy. Lesion (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Various Cochrane reviews from the topics "Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases" and "Colorectal Cancer" [3]

Please feel free to deprecate or propose alternate sources in the list above.

Model article

• If there's an article or two on Wiki that has a style this could emulate, it might be worthwhile to put it here LT90001 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)'
• ?

I am sorry to sound discouraging, but I don't think that the article should be expanded in this way. "Gastrointestinal cancer" is a collection of disparate diseases—different pathological processes, different treatments, different prognoses. The article should be no more than a simple list or a disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe ... Efforts might indeed be better directed at the individual pages for the subtypes of GI cancers? This page may be high importance, but I wonder how many people will visit it compared to say, how many visit gastric cancer ... Lesion (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I think think that's a great idea. If we're going to do collaborations of the month, I don't think we should expand too quickly or we'll run out of steam; this small article (whilst with not too many views) seems like a good place to start. It seems like the next month's has also been nominated too (malaria, in the above discussion). I think it might be a good idea for the collaboration discussions to be kept on the main talk page to encourage interest, discussion and also to ensure that the collaborations don't die out from lack of interest or attention (which they might when isolated). LT90001 (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking summary style article might be good. Basically a subheading of each type with a short paragraph giving key epidemiology stats, prognosis, causes and treatment. As long as the sections were kept short this basically would look like a list. Lesion (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, summary style with not too much detail is good. LT90001 (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For example, head and neck cancer is a much more substantial article than a simple list. Lesion (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I like what Lesion has been doing there.

I like the idea of descriptions that are longer than a disambiguation page would be, but still pretty brief. If you want something more list-like overall, it could probably get tagged as a {{set index}} ("all the things that are called GI cancer"). But if you just want to mention the rarer ones, and leave fuller explanations for the main ones, then then list at the end of Leukemia#Classification might be a reasonable model for the rarer ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done before the month started?

From the great work of Lesion/Axl, I would say we're way past presenting something embarrassing, which was my main concern, so maybe we should pick something else? I think getting things from embarrassing to acceptable is a better result overall than focusing on the good to make it fantastic. Does anyone else want to find an embarrassing article that might not be too hard to cleanup? Awesome. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Digestive disease? --WS (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

GI cancer still needs a bit of attention IMO. Personally I wouldn't expand any section longer than the esophageal cancer section is currently... Lesion (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done yet! I'll update the liver cancer & colorectal cancer sections with sources soon. I see what you all mean about expanding this a little. We can use the sourced updates from the stubs to update their parent articles as we go along... many of them are quite deficient. LT90001 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to keep working on GI cancer (thankfully it's no longer a pile of crap) but digestive disease looks like a good crap target, thanks WS. I say we make that the October collaboration of the month. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd have no trouble with making GI cancer be September and October, and then DD be November, but whatever's chosen, someone needs to update the page at WP:MCOTW and ideally spam a few requests for help to people's user talk pages. If people don't know about it, then nobody can help. We want something more like a barn raising than like one person doing all the work and a couple of us cheering him along from the sidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'll consider that consensus. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews

The WMF has agreements with a number of cell phone companies to give free access (without data charges) to all of Wikipedia to 470 million people. If people however click on our references via their cellphone they will incur data charges.

Have been in discussions with Wiley regarding the release of the abstracts of Cochrane reviews under a CC-BY-SA license and hopefully the entire paper under this license one day. My hope is that it might be possible to place theses abstracts somewhere within Wikipedia and link them from the references thus allowing our readers via the cellphone partnerships to get free access. I have discussed this with Kul and he does not see it as a concern. What are peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Material released under CC-BY-SA can be changed by anyone for any reason (e.g., adding the word "not" in the middle to completely change the meaning). If I were an author, I'd insist on CC-BY-ND (no derivatives/no tinkering with the wording). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The standard copyright in open access publishing is in fact CC-BY. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

the standard copyright desired by most advocates of open access is CC-BY. Some OA publishers use variations on this.As for ND, one of the presuppositions of OA publishing is secure archiving, so an authentic copy remains available. Just as with WP. People can mess up our articles, but we get the proper versions back again from the article history. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We could of course begin by placing copies of Open Access (CC-BY) publications we use on Wikipedia right now. And than this could be a justification we could give to push more publishers to use open access copyright. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Wikisource intended for such hosting? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not the correct place for such work -- some other WMF site would be better. Colin°^Talk 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is to get access to people via cell phones (via the agreement that some companies will provide free access to WP). It will allow another potentially 470 million people to verify what they read on Wikipedia without incurring data charges when what is referred to is a CC BY document. Doing this may also convince Cochrane to release their reviews under an open license.

Maybe people who are accessing WP from the developing world via their cellphones do not care about the references and may not be interested in becoming editors. But I am not willing to write them off without even giving them a chance. This move would allow them to 1) find free reference material 2) edit Wikipedia, all for free. We are not putting this material within the articles. This material is just as much for editors as it is for readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing writes "Material released under CC-BY-SA can be changed by anyone for any reason (e.g., adding the word "not" in the middle to completely change the meaning)". This is not true. The licence does not make it a wiki. The original abstract by the original authors (+ whatever editing the journal does) is copyright and the authors have rights over it and any copies made. If the text is is published in a form that does not allow open editing (which I would certainly advise), then it will come to no harm. If you made a copy and published such a copy with textual differences (beyond the most trivial) -- an adaptation -- then you would (a) no longer be able to claim it was the abstract for that paper (but rather, a work based on the abstract and are required to clearly state that it has been modified) and (b) no longer be able to claim the original authors were the sole authors. Furthermore, you mustn't imply the original authors endorse your change. The CC licence asserts the user's moral rights, so if the original authors feel your change represents a "derogatory treatment" of the work (which changing the meaning of a scientific paper absolutely would) then they can demand you remove any mention of their names from it. Colin°^Talk 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Which, unfortunately, won't stop people from doing it anyway. Under the current rules, at least they can get sued for copyvios or file a take-down notice when they do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do people think adding CC BY articles we use as refs to someplace on Wikipedia so that those who get free WP access via their cell phone can get free journal article access as well is a good idea? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That sentence has no. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Which sentence has "no"? Not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Dependent predicate, maybe? I think you're missing the words "is a good idea", or words to that effect at the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah see it now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Neuroscience class

People might want to keep an eye on the topics that are being proposed for new articles at Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to inform the participants there of the existence of this WikiProject and that they can get help here about the specific requirements and standards for medical articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and very good of you to help them out, Biosthmors. Having run through the list of titles I would recommend that students do a search for existing content on many of the articles before creating their own articles, as I think that would be (a) needless duplication of existing content, (b) liable to create an article that will have exceedingly low readability; or (c) creating an article that already exists under an alternate name.

For example, these articles (eg. Perisynaptic (Terminal) Schwann Cells; Cholinergic Neuron; Twice Exceptional Neurobiology; Lower Limb Neuromechanics; Neural Control of Limb Stiffness) may have existing articles full of content that could do with a sectional expansion or rewrite; (Temporoparietal Junction) looks to be a spelling mistake; and some are probably best covered as two separate articles or a section in a parent article (eg Estrogen and Neurodegenerative Diseases).

That said, there also appear to be some really good articles proposed including (Neuroeffector Junction, Nerve Staining, Frontostriatal circuits) that could do with some expansion, and I think it's great that this class is working in WP. Next month I will start wiki-linking from existing articles to any articles that have been created. LT90001 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A centralised point of discussion for this topic can be found here, on the WP:Neuroscience talk page. LT90001 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And the course page now links to that section at WikiProject Neuroscience as well, so presumably the students will be reading everyone's feedback. One title with the word "syndrome" is in it so far. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Development of existing partnership with UCSF

University of California San Francisco's medical program is continuing to develop their Wikipedia collaboration. See their report. This is supported by some participants in meta:Wiki Project Med. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a developing course page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013. I've made some recent edits. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country‎ article

Recent changes are being made to this article by very new editor ‎MissMargaretBlack (talk · contribs). Eyes other than mine on these changes, or the article as a whole, seem as though they would be very useful. I have not yet examined all of MissMargaretBlack's changes, as I am busy with other matters on and off (especially off) Wikipedia at the moment. I'm reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits intermittently, like I usually do these days. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, please go easy on the newbies. These changes seem to be well-written and sourced. There doesn't seem to be any conflict editing or reversion or deletion of the work of other editors. Unless there's something specific that you're referring to I see no problem with this new editor's contributions. LT90001 (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I don't know about WP:Don't bite the newbies (I haven't bitten MissMargaretBlack); it's that, as repeatedly shown at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard, there are very good reasons to be alert to new Wikipedians editing Wikipedia medical articles or Wikipedia articles in general. It's a common matter that extends far beyond student editors. The significant majority of the time...newbies need guidance and their edits need correcting and/or tweaking. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

New article about a Florida urologist Thomas G Cangiano up for deletion

I WP:PRODded Thomas G. Cangiano because as-written it does not clearly show that the person is notable. However, he is close, which means that if there is something I missed or something the author missed he very well might be actually notable.

Please read the article and clarify notability and de-prod the article if he is notable or if he is not, consider adding {{prod2}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes/Medicine

There once was a bot maintained by Rich Farmborough that fed recent changes to medical articles (articles with this project's template on their talk page) into page like a watchlist. Since Rich was blocked from bot work, it has fallen into disrepair. Is there an alternative page that displays recent changes to medical articles? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for articles to edit, the closest equivalent I can find is here, the Medicine reclassification log. That said, it is my personal feeling that there is adequate oversight of medicine articles. LT90001 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Adequate oversight"? I'm not sure I understand you.

For about 18 months - until about a year ago - I would begin my day by opening that Recent changes/Medicine log and slowly work through the changes since my last session - checking for vandalism, checking sources, welcoming new editors, etc. I found this to be very rewarding work and, I think, quite useful; but got busy and dropped it. I'd like to start again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I've had a look for some more options and the only other two I have found since are for someone to directly provide you with their watchlist (as you can copy/past watchlists), or to use the Article Alerts system. Sorry for any misinterpretation; the work of the WikiGnome to which I believe you allude is valuable and often under-appreciated. LT90001 (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Peter James at WP:VPT pointed out Transcluded changes - template:WikiProject Medicine. Does anyone mind if I put this on the WP:MED front page? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Related to this seems to be what should be an important function, in my mind, so thanks for actively working on this global issue at mw:Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Ranking_articles_by_Pageviews_for_Wikiprojects_and_Task_Forces_in_Languages_other_than_English James—to make the vision a reality. So why can't we just have a WikiProject Medicine watchlist? Or any other WikiProject watchlist? Why can't we have a featured articles watchlist? Or a good articles watchlist? Or whatever kind of watchlist we want? Sorry that's more something for the WP:Village pumps but still. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Diarrhea in Developing Regions

Hello Wikipedia, My name is Jordan, I am an undergraduate at Rice University, and I am here to propose the writing of a new Wikipedia article on Diarrhea in Developing Regions. Diarrheal diseases are among the most prolific in the world, accounting for a significant fraction of all infections, as well as a massive number of child mortalities. Given that children with diarrhea are significantly more likely to die, most within the first two years of life, Diarrheal diseases are a serious threat to the livelihood of children globally. Clearly, diarrheal disease is a significant issue in developing regions, and I hope to use this Wikipedia entry to outline the impacts of diarrheal disease, elucidate the primary causes of the issue (usually linking back to poverty and limited access to vital resources and human capabilities) and finally discuss both potential solutions and those that have already been implemented in these at-risk regions. I will draw my information from a variety of academic sources, mainly from journal articles, but also from information and data made available by some of the major organizations interested in this topic such as the CDC, and WHO. Though a page already exists on the topic of Diarrhea, it approaches the topic from a highly scientific/medical perspective which is incompatible with my approach and proposed writing on this topic, which will take a point of view more oriented around the concepts of poverty, justice and human capabilities. Another related page, Diseases of poverty, already exists, however this article approaches a number of different diseases with depth; if I were to add to this page, my content would dramatically outweigh the content on any other disease. Instead of extending on these pages, I propose the development of a new page on the topic of Diarrhea in Developing Regions, which will focus on the topics I outlined above. In order to supplement the existing articles, I plan to add small sections to these pages with a brief summary of the information that will be present on the proposed page, and add links between these three pages. Any comments, questions, or suggestions that I can use to improve my work are greatly appreciated! -- Best, Jpoles1 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a very worthy idea to me. Some random thoughts:

• Presumably you'd have some emphasis on watsan and on other technical aspects of development?
• It's quite hard to get an article started nowadays - if you're less experienced creating articles, it could be a good idea to start a draft in your userspace and then take it "live" when it's improved a bit.
• Sources are vitally important - they should underlie everything you write (but don't just copy & paste).
• If you need any help with the obscure wiki-technical stuff, just ask.

Good luck! bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This sounds great. The main article at Diarrhea should have a section called ==Society and culture==, which could give a paragraph or two summarizing your subtopic, and a link to the proposed article at Diarrhea in developing regions. That will improve the main article and also dramatically increase the likelihood of people finding and reading your new one.

Look over WP:MEDRS for information on sources. We generally like secondary sources, such as review article and higher level textbooks, rather than original experimental results. Secondary sources have the advantage of summarizing a lot of work, which helps us get the overall feel instead of accidentally "cherry picking" an experiment that seems interesting but might not be representative. You might want to look over sources like PMID 22796685, PMID 22480268, PMID 22436130, PMID 22419779, and PMID 21975154 as examples of possible sources. If you need help finding or evaluating sources, then just post a new note here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The ICDDR B probably has some useful resources. bobrayner (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What you are interested in writing about is infectious diarrhea otherwise known as gastroenteritis. Our article on this topic already covers it fairly well. Diarrhea from eating too much fruit is not a significant public health concern, neither is that from taking laxatives. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi All, I really appreciate all of the help being provided to support this small project. Though I recognize that articles on the subjects of both Diarrhea and Gastroenteritis exist, I hope to approach this topic from a non-medical perspective (I know, I'm probably not in the most ideal wikigroup for such an endeavor, but I think it's a productive discussion all the same), but rather from a human capabilities point of view, which focuses more on the impacts on human development and quality of life. A more detailed proposal for my work, including many of my sources, can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e8yzk7dj1MxIRIfa6aqykydIlhybukAgITgp4QDW9DY/ Thanks Again, Jpoles1 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that article sounds like a great idea. Keeping in mind what has been said above about sources and citations and duplicating content, as a registered user you can simply be bold and create the article yourself. There are certainly a lot less notable and relevant articles that already exist. Welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy your stay :D. LT90001 (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

All articles combine both medical and non-medical content. The article on gastroenteritis has a section on "society and culture". What you are proposing is a co tract. A duplication of content we already have. The sections you mention in the doc are all medical in nature.

We have a section on epidemiology in the gastroenteritis article. We could start a subpage on Epidemiology of gastroenteritis were country by country details can be added if proper refs are found. We could also great a subsection on Management of gastroenteritis and Prevention of gastroenteritis were greater details could be placed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not. A WP:COATRACK is when you say that the article is about diarrhea in developing nations, but you instead write a page that is almost entirely about something barely related, like your complaints about the World Health Organization or the importance of vaginal childbirth, and says almost nothing about the alleged subject of the article. You might be thinking about a WP:CFORK (content fork), which involves duplicating information—but specifically, duplicating information to push one point of view, not to split up things because of their WP:SIZE.

Jpoles1 is proposing a perfectly fine {{Main}} article about a subtopic that can be properly given a WP:SUMMARY in the existing articles about gastroenteritis or diarrhea. Diarrhea in developing countries is just as good a subject as AIDS in Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perineal dilator salesmanship

The article perineal dilator cites a handful of sources from one company about its product. The device is also mentioned at Episiotomy as if it were a common option. Searching PubMed gets just a few hits focusing on severe situations like vaginal agenesis. [4] I am leaning toward the notion of doing something drastic to the article - suggestions? Wnt (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've trimmed the promotional stuff and poorly-sourced medical claims. [5] Good find, Wnt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope, completeness, and accuracy of medicine and drug information in Wikipedia.

What's the latest reliable findings on this, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Havn't seen anything new recently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I also feel that what I want to see does not yet exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Wikipedia and medicine for what has been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Should we commission an independent study to determine the reliability, safety, clarity and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia's medical and pharmacology information?

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I remember the WMF doing something like this for Wikipedia as a whole lately, not sure if and when results are out. IMO quality of some articles are as good as any professional published literature; however, the quality of many articles is poor. Readability is also hit and miss. We are definitely less readable than most government sites / charities but IMO most people want more detail than the government sites and charities allow.

In summary we have a massive amount of work to bring Wikipedia up to a consistent high standard. We need to figure out how to get more independent and intelligent people involved. I hope that the outreach to medical schools will accomplish this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you think we need a thorough, rigorous independent analysis of the coverage, quality, safety and clarity of en.Wikipedia's medical content? If so, do you think that need would justify whatever WMF resources and volunteer effort it takes? (Personally I think we have an operational imperative and a moral duty to do whatever it takes to get this data.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to do a trial of medical students giving one group Wikipedia, another group UpToDate, and a third nothing. Than have them write a medical exam and see which group did best. It would answer the question "which source is better for answering the questions one the licensing exams". We proposed it at the U of T Samir and I and were unable to get ethics approval.

I would say that most of it is not very good. But not horrible either. Some of it is excellent. Do we need a study to prove this? I think we would do better by spending our energies fixing the errors Wikipedia is full of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To chime in on this answer, I agree that it would be better to continue editing as it is. Such a study would have to be hit-and-miss given how much articles differ in quality, and because Wikipedia is not static it may only be relevant for a short period of time. On the other hand I empathise with your desire to improve and validate the quality of medical articles. As an aside, as well as the small risk of inaccuracies which I believe to be small, I feel the biggest problem with the medical data on Wikipedia is what is the omissions from articles; that is, relevant medical content about changes in aetiology, epidemiology and pathology and/or diagnostic tests used that have not yet been added to articles. LT90001 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

James and LT90001:

• Re: "I think we would do better by spending our energies fixing the errors Wikipedia is full of." "it would be better to continue editing as it is." I'm not proposing anyone stops editing, or that we change our editing norms. The most I would hope for from this project would be prior criticism of the study design, and to at least read the abstract of the results.
• Re: "Such a study would have to be hit-and-miss given how much articles differ in quality". I'm presuming a design that would adequately take that variation into account.
• Re: "Wikipedia is not static it may only be relevant for a short period of time." This is true of all dynamic topics (such as epidemiology).
• Re: "the small risk of inaccuracies which I believe to be small." Your belief is valuable but until we actually know with some confidence how often people consult our medical content (a stat Blue Rasberry is seeking support for elsewhere on this page) and how much unsafe information it contains - from a well-designed scientific study - all we, the WMF, our partners, our critics and the people we serve (our readers) have to go on is our opinions. I'm personally a supporter of evidence over expert opinion, even my own. It is comforting to believe our content is safe but the possible consequences if that is a false belief are concerning, and all the necessary data and WMF funds are readily available.

All I'm looking for here is an acknowledgment that this kind of information is important. Forget about contributing any of your own time or energy to the exercise. I can't move on this with any vigor or expectation of success without significant genuine moral support from this project. The ball's in your court. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would still like to do the study I described. IMO that is one of the best and simplest ways to compare Wikipedia to UpToDate or another source. Do we have people interested in doing this study? How would it be done? We have had groups do comparisons of specific topic areas like nephrology and psyc but not of medical content generally. If someone was keen to do this I would be happy to provide feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Article in the NYTs about WPMED

[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editing will force students to think clearly and avoid jargon, he said." Well, we can always hope. Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

While we will try to help them avoid jargon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I just submitted a request for a small very small grant to rework the project page

Hello all. I've wanted to help rework the project page for a while now. I've made quite a few edits, but I'd like to take it to the next level (with consensus of course, and an old idea I had along these lines was shared here.) Given that this ambition has been on my to-do list for too long, I've decided to submit an Individual Engagement Grant to the tune of $300 (now reduced to $10) dollars to force me focus on the task. Your input at m:Grants:IEG/A redesigned WikiProject Medicine page would be appreciated. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What sort of changes do you think will improve our project page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Making it more concise/professional looking by playing around with User:Biosthmors/TestProjectPage, perhaps. Improving the navigation bar. Maybe doing some consolidation. I think there are too many options and people can get lost or overwhelmed (I remember a newbie said that a while back about our project page. They didn't know where to start.) Stuff like that. There's a ridiculous amount of whitespace in the FA section see User:Biosthmors/sandbox for a mock-up that's more concise. Too bad I messed up the dates there. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, I can't say I agree with this. Firstly and primarily, I don't think this is fair or equitable considering the large amount of non-paid Wikipedians who put time and edit into editing this encyclopedia. Secondly, I don't think this is fair because I am sure the editing effort will involve other editors who will not be compensated. Thirdly, I would be discouraged that money solicited by Wikipedia's advertisements for administrative fees would be spent on such an end (which to me is a little misleading). Fourthly, I am in totalis against the idea of paid editing. Fifthly, I think that this disincentivises further unpaid edits to the project and its pages. Lastly, this is already an active Wikiproject and that an improved page wouldn't really add that much benefit, whereas a targeted grant (if there was some imperative this money be spent on Wikimed) would be better spent on improving a top-priority stub or low-quality popular page. So in conclusion, although I can see renovating the project page is very important, I quite strongly object to this grant. Kindly, LT90001 (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The grant program does not provide direct support for content creation. I have doubts that this grant proposal will be accepted, but if it is, it will mean that the project is considered organizational rather than content-creating. Looie496 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel strongly that the page must remain easy to edit. I do not mind it being improved but I want even newbies to be able to make changes to it. I would struggle to edit the military page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you enable section editing, craziness like that page is much more simple to tackle, but I get the point that newbies will not have this enabled. I support improvements on that page. "Visual analogue" goal progress bars look great. Generally I think a more colorful, professional looking page will foster more interest in the wikiproject. Lesion (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the responses so far, I'm going to reduce the grant amount down to a token payment of $10. I'll have to submit mid-term and final-reports, etc. on this project. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Lesion. And thanks also to Doc James, because I think it's great you mentioned the problem of material being tucked away into templates. My other "micro-grant" (for $40 dollars) is to address that problem in relation to training materials. See m:Grants:IEG/Comprehensive and wiki-like training pages where I propose to take slides like this one: Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Talk pages (click edit there) to present them in one scroll down page. I propose to do this for all the WP:Trainings, which can have many slides. If anyone has a problem with me getting $40 dollars to do this, I can also reduce that dollar amount down to a token $10. Or if you don't have a problem with me getting $40 dollars for this, then maybe you could support my grant proposal over there. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am happy with the amount you have applied for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

International medical information conference

Should we invite the "information dissemination decision-makers" from the WHO, the world's major medical education charities, and relevant government and specialist bodies to a conference, to discuss strategies and create opportunities to collaborate in the building of easily identified comprehensive and reliable free medical medical information online? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Medical conferences and http://www.allconferences.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Which conference? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we host something. Or, more precisely, you. It should be held in North America or Europe and my health won't permit me to attend. I have something small in mind. A summit, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hum, there must be a similar conference that we can all just go to and meet at. If we can get interest we could have a whole section of medical talks at Wikimania. I am not much of a conference organizer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The next Wikimania will be in London. I wonder if BMG or a med school or somebody would be interested in a BOF ("birds of a feather") session (because it would be good to "flock together" with people who are interested in the same things that we are). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note at the Wikimania website. I presume the WMF will pay airfares and accommodation for invitees. If the Wikimania organisers aren't able to provide the space or help organising tickets and accommodation, perhaps WM:UK would be willing to arrange something for us concurrent with Wikimania and close to the venue. I'll keep on the Wikimania organisers for a commitment, and keep this board informed.

If anyone has reservations about this I'd appreciate them speaking up early.

Ideas about whom to invite are welcome - either the type of organisation or specific individuals. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of our partners are much more wealthy than we and should hopefully be able to pay their own way. I would invite the CDC, NIH, WHO, NHS, Cochrane, PLoS medicine, Open BMJ, Translators Without Borders etc. I think a number of these organizations are planning on coming anyway :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Peyote

There has been some edit-warring on this page over the inclusion of negative names for peyote. As I've been involved, I'm reluctant to do more, so I would be grateful if someone from this project would look at Peyote#Long-term psychoactive use, which seems to me not in accord with WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to reword this in accordance with WP:MEDRS, which states that some primary sources can be used, but with caution. Doing a quick google scholar scan reveals no secondary sources, so I think it's reasonable to report the findings. LT90001 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine Pages

I think there should also a focus on the alternative medicine pages. I feel that these pages seem in many cases to give too much credence to practices that often seem to be lacking in evidence or only supported by poorly conducted trials. It seems, particularly in the case of Chiropractic that too much weight is given to trials that show little benefit, and their seems to be NPOV issues where people's livelihood is based on what scientifically is often regarded as pseudoscience. After all, it's just as important to show what 'medical' treatment has no effect (or is possibly dangerous) as to show what is effective Macgroover (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Alt med is controversial. Please join in the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neuromodulation (Medicine)

Hello again, medical experts. The above submission at Afc may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen Clinic and Daniel Amen

More eyes needed. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the kind of borderline-notable stuff that would benefit from a merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Media mention

Have you seen this? Should we respond? Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia? NCurse _work 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say so, but I haven't read the article. I've just been plotting to start a centralized place to do so from. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr Azzam's project has been described before in the lay press—I think that Doc James highlighted it. The article already gives the message that we want to send. There is no need to respond. _{Although I want to copy-edit the article.} Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes both myself and User:Ocaasi are very much involved in this. While not 100% correct it is not bad. I encourage people who are interested in commenting to do so. I would encourage everyone to watch list this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/UCSF and help out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, I'll point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013, which looks like it will be the Wikipedia:Course page. I plan to jot down my ideas for assignments there (or on the talk page there) this weekend, before I share them with User:Amin Azzam. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Health information on Wikipedia

• Health information on Wikipedia

NCurse, of course we should respond in some way. Biosthmors, yes, Wikipedians should have a central place to coordinate other Wikipedians who want guidance in doing PR on behalf of the movement. Lots of people already do this anyway so it seems worth regulating if people can be asked to voluntarily agree. Axl, these media mentions are becoming more numerous and I think that a proper response is a Wikipedia article documenting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people ask me if health information on Wikipedia matters and I do not know what to tell them. I need help. In my mind, if Wikipedia articles are getting significant amounts of traffic then these articles are important. If they are not getting much traffic then they are less important, and if they get a lot of traffic, then they are more important. How do other people here feel about that rationale? Some content is more important than other content, but generally, traffic is a reasonable measure of importance, right?

I have trouble explaining to people that Wikipedia articles get significant amounts of traffic because the data behind this belief is not robust. I made a page on meta - meta:Wiki Project Med/traffic - which I am about to send to the Wikimedia analytics mailing list and maybe some other places and to Wikimedia Foundation people. In this page I say that I want data and WMF backing to support my making the following statement - "Health information on Wikipedia gets significant amounts of traffic." If I am empowered with evidence to make that assertion, then I would feel a lot more able to say, "Because significant numbers of people are using this health information, anyone who has a stake in providing health information ought to consider the Wikipedia articles which themselves are significant sources for this information." Thoughts from anyone? I might like comments on the meta page. To what extent does this sound like a reasonable request?

Also... I have been asked by a certain journal to write something about Wikipedia and medical information. I would like to be able to say something about traffic to health content on Wikipedia, if anything could be said that the Wikimedia Foundation could back me on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Traffic numbers seem like a reasonable request to me, but traffic doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, how many of those visits are bots mining WP info? Perhaps Google PageRank could be useful. It is one purported measure of a page's importance and it is undeniable that one reason WP articles get so much traffic is the articles' high rank in a typical Google search. --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Often the sidebar of a google search includes the first para of a wikipedia article, where appropriate. are those counted as hits, or is google caching that information? anyone know? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I support this 100%. Without rigorous data, we're flying blind. I've asked Sarah, who is part of the community liaison team, for input. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No they are not counted as hits. It also appears that google has gone with the NIH for health info rather than Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We can make comments such as WP medical content gets about 200 million hits. I say that it is one of the most used medical resources in the world and likely the most used resource. Doubt the WMF would be in an any stronger position to comment on this than we are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also this story on Daily Dot website that urges doctors to edit Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Start codon

Anyone know if that was an improvement off the top of their head. I seem to remember AUG though without context. I'd have to look it up. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks right. AUG is the default start codon—as indicated in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two kinds of start codons, one for mRNA and one for DNA. AUG is correct for mRNA, but the article should probably have something about DNA as well. ATG is listed as a possible start codon/initiation site in DNA codon table. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RFA notification

Some people here might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zad68. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Who's that? ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you have not have posted that. It falls foul of WP:CANVAS. (It's not as though Zad68 needs extra support to pass.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If a single, neutrally worded sentence, posted for a large and diverse audience of people who are likely more familiar with an RFA candidate than any other group on Wikipedia (the best and the worst), somehow falls afoul of CANVAS, then that alleged rule needs to be written down somewhere. If you go look at CANVAS, I think you'll find that this note meets all of the criteria: limited, neutral, non-partisan, and open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Biosthmors, I have no idea who this is. Lesion (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is certainly not a non-partisan audience, especially when you characterise him as "one of ours". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Describing an editor as "one of ours", when inviting others to participate in a discussion about that editor, is really not helpful. It's natural for humans to think in terms of groups (and group loyalty) but we should treat editors as individuals, on their own merits. Sorry. This isn't intended as a slur against Zad68, who I'm sure is a fine upstanding editor. bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I re-factored the title to be more neutral. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

medical marijuana, NPOV/CITE policy, at MedMen

So this article looks entirely promotional to me, written entirely by one person. It has been tagged as WP:MED by someone else. One of my issues is that all of the links to media establishing WP:N are actually hosted on the website of the article topic. This, to me, would seem to run afoul of WP:CITE where it says that external links, when they are duplicates of other media, should be in compliance with NPOV.

I removed these links individually, as well as some sources I believe to be non-RS, and made sure to tag them as such so that they could be reverted individually. I have started a discussion on the talk page.

I would appreciate other eyes here. If i'm in error, please let me know. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look yet, but thanks indeed for the flag. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your removal of sources was probably wrong. The source was listed like this:

<ref name="NPR">{{cite web|url=http://themedmen.com/uploaded/press/npr_itsyourheatlh_altmed_061013.mp3|title=NPR Interview|accessdate=September 24, 2013|publisher=NPR}}</ref>

The link is at the org's website, but the source is a story by NPR, which is an independent and reliable news agency. We might remove the link (under WP:LINKVIO), but the source should have been kept (and perhaps repointed to the URL at npr.com). This is a scanned copy of a page out of a newspaper. Unless they've gone to a lot of work in Photoshop to insert a passing mention to their company, there's no possible neutrality issue here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LakePharma

Hello medical experts....the above article will soon be deleted. Is there anything worth improving here, or should we let it go? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I say let it go. entirely promotional. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. — DroEsperanto (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gynecomastia

I have removed a whole gallery of pre and post op images as seen here [7] twice now as I consider one to be enough. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To me, multiple images reinforce the idea that intervention is normal and should be done, IMO, serving as a subtle advertisement for the intervention itself, so I am fine with this. For anyone who has seen Fight Club, I surely wouldn't want the character Bob without his "bitch tits". Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree there is no need for an entire gallery of images as there was. LT90001 (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really necessary that we have a redirect called bitch tits to gynecomastia? I would prefer to deal with this like how cleft lip and palate deals with hare lip. Yes there it is a redirect, but in the article at least it is implied that it is a historic term, and probably more offensive now than anything else. However on gynecomastia, "bitch tits" is not even listed as a synonym. Need a source to support this questionable redirect imo ... Lesion (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it questionable? What else could it logically refer to? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It was used 70 times in the last month, for whatever it's worth. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I failed to find a reliable source treating these terms as synonyms after a quick google search. "Bitch" and "tits" could be called sexist, and I personally think it would be pretty offensive for people with the condition. The page stats might indicate that we should keep it, but as it currently stands, we just have a redirect, with no discussion about the term. If it is a colloquialism, let's state this. If it is derogatory colloquialism as with hare lip, then let's say that too. Lesion (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've looked for a source myself in the past to do the same and couldn't find one so I've just left it as there's no other logical place to point the redirect. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• This source might be suitable [8]. I'm paywalled out, but I can see from the snippet preview on google scholar that it talks about this: " In common street parlance, men do not typically say that they have breasts, but refer instead to “moobs” (male boobs) or “bitch tits.” Both terms are compounded from English words that have multiple meanings. ..." Lesion (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

We could make a sentence of it in a society and culture section perhaps. Or we could put it in the lead. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no preference. Consider:

This condition may be commonly referred to as "bitch tits" or "moobs" ("male boobs").<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wassersug|first=Richard J.|coauthors=Oliffe, John L.|title=The Social Context for Psychological Distress from Iatrogenic Gynecomastia with Suggestions for Its Management|journal=Journal of Sexual Medicine|date=1 April 2009|volume=6|issue=4|pages=989–1000|doi=10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01053.x}}</ref>. Lesion (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for digging that out! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we need to grace the article with this, as they are not commonly used and somewhat offensive. I do not think that the use of these slang approaches the use of other common synonyms (such as hare lip), so I am happy if a redirect exists but these are not mentioned in the article. LT90001 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like them either, but isn't it more encyclopedic to mention them? I don't think it is good to have redirects with no explanation on the target page as to why that term points there. Per the stats posted above, some people do apparently use these terms to search for the topic. Lesion (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And doesn't stating that they are not commonly used create dissonance with the source, which says "may be commonly referred to as"? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the qualifier of "derogatory" as that's what the source says. The word I had previously inserted, slang, was too blasé. I apologize. This change helps put the words in the appropriate context, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James—one pair of photos is enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Scarless wound healing

I came across the Scarless wound healing article not too long ago today. Thoughts on it? Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PubMed has some hits ... merge to wound healing imo ... Lesion (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Marked for merge. LT90001 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done