Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

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, 172

Heads up - public health in India

Heads up from here, in case you see a sudden influx of med related editing. Here is the actual source since the one linked is wrong. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is WP:SWASTHA. It looks like the main activity will be translating health-related articles from English into various Indian languages. It sounds like an Indian-based version of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am one of the organizers for the SWASTHA project. I was not expecting that news piece and was planning on a later presentation to WikiProject Medicine, but I can preview it now. Yes, the goal is to apply the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force model to about 10 English language article to translate them in about 10 languages of India. The project has three parts: managing the Wikipedia content development and translation; documenting a methodology for any expert organization to contribute content development labor to Wikipedia projects; and documenting ethical considerations when anyone adapts English language medical information to a language where many users are less empowered in Wikipedia or otherwise.

I am not expecting disruption of English Wikipedia but I have lightly drafted a couple of articles which are a bit unusual:

• Neglected tropical diseases in India
• Maternal mortality in India

Wikipedia has always had challenges with intersectional articles. For the NTDs, we already have diagnosis, treatment, prevention, etc content in the main articles for each disease. That means that if there is an NTD India article, it should not repeat much, and instead should say what is different about India.

Regarding translation, the challenge is that if we adapt these for Hindi, we have to produce original content which removes Western bias from the core medical articles and probably replace it with bias for the region of Hindi speakers. This requires producing some original content, and we have no established methodology to present to organizations like universities which would want language students and medical students to collaborate on this.

This is what I have for now. Thanks for raising it. I will probably have more to show and be open for general feedback in a few months. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Eek! When you say "removes Western bias" in this context the alarm bells on my Ayurvedic and homeopathic woo detectors all start sounding. Please tell us that they just intend to correct issues of focus, rather than to "balance" coverage of evidence-based medicine with traditional. Official India is all too willing to support AYUSH in the absence of good evidence. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: This project has a foundation in the standard of quality of English Wikipedia. Discussion about Ayurvedic content is outside the scope of what I plan to do. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and I am unable to say what anyone might do in India, which is a big country with lots of editors.

I will show some Western bias, which would be easy to spot in lots of places. Look at the lead of Tuberculosis. In the Western World TB is a concern as a co-morbidity with HIV/AIDS. For India, HIV has a much lower incidence than in the Western world, so perhaps we omit HIV and instead talk about co-morbidity with a disease which is common in India. The English lead suggests vaccination for as a choice for people who live or work with people with TB and rarely children, but in India, the at-risk group includes young children. In English articles like TB we frequently include United States epidemiology in the lead, but for Hindi language, another comparison could be more meaningful. The English article mentions "consumption" as an old name, and if we sent this to a translator they might try to translate that, but I know that it would be better to just strike English language historical terms.

Most English Wikipedia articles will have these kinds of Western bias and it takes some planning to identify and adapt this kind of text for translation. If you can think of a clever way of how and where to document the identification of this kind of cultural specificity then I would appreciate your advice. If "Western bias" is a term that puts you off, what should we call this kind of editing before translation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Western focus" maybe? I see where you're coming from but I think "Western bias" makes it sound like these articles are slanted in a way that violates NPOV. The examples you mention above aren't really NPOV issues, it's more of an editorial decision to focus on things that are likely to be relevant to English-speakers, versus focusing on things that would be relevant to Hindi-speakers when writing in Hindi. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Talking more about Western geography than India in that article probably is a straight-up violation of NPOV, of the {{globalize}} variety. There are more TB patients just in the city of Mumbai than in the entire United States and Canada combined. A neutral article might include English-language content (like the old name of consumption), but it would have geographically fair content, which means Indian statistics in preference to any other country. Other countries might be included, too, but India should be the headline for tuberculosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: Thanks for allaying the AYUSH concern, but en:Tuberculosis should give English-language readers a global perspective on the global subject. We already have en:Tuberculosis in India to give English-language readers a global perspective on localized subject matter (though it clearly needs some attention). WAID is right that the parent article does need globalization. However, if the goal is to match subject localization to the reader, then wp:SWASTHA/Goals should change the article being chosen for translation, not mangle the translation process. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've purged a predatory source from Maternal mortality in India, replacing it with tags, but really medical editors should evaluate if those claims should be outright purged, or a WP:MEDRS found. Some Medknow journals remain cited too (DOI 10.4103/...), but those are more borderline. Could still fail WP:MEDRS though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

will look over weekend--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome FAR

I have nominated Asperger syndrome for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Therapeutic indication of medicinal plants

In case of most of the medicinal plants nothing can be found on the pages about their therapeutic use. One possible source is the webpage of ESCOP (European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy), which, according to the guideline, can be used as reference. Escop has several publications containing scientific assessment of medicinal plants. Their résumés, including the indications can be found on their webpage (https://escop.com/downloads/category/monograph/). I started to introduce these, but some editors reverted and suggested to discuss the reliability of ESCOP, as a source here. Since there is a demand for authentic information on modern phytotherapeutic use of plants (historical use is interesting, but sometimes useless), I think that it would be useful to use this source. I would be grateful for you comments. --Csupord (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Although ESCOP (a European herbalism society) appears to be a legitimate organization for studying the possible therapeutic effects of plants, the list of monographs offered is commercial (discouraged, see WP:PROMO) and not an encyclopedic source by itself (see WP:MEDREV), as the level of source quality and clinical consensus cannot be assessed from that list of monographs. ESCOP as an article is currently under a deletion discussion here. Clinical research in herbalism is typically of low quality (poor experimental designs, low subject numbers, inconsistent material preparations), discussed partly here. ESCOP publishes Phytomedicine which has an impact factor of about 4, depending on IF source, and among journals publishing herbalism articles, is probably the highest rated, indicating a generally low-quality field of clinical research in herbalism. Csupord has been using the ESCOP monograph list as a source over numerous plant articles shown here, meeting resistance among other editors. Generally, there are few examples of plant compounds succeeding in well-designed, rigorously-reviewed studies meeting WP:MEDSCI standards. --Zefr (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. However, to be objective: ESCOP monographs are available also in books, the reason why I cited them the nnline abstracts was to give access to the orioginal source - similarly as it happens in case of scientific articles. (Btw, is there any difference in the gusiness model of selling articles and selling monographs? As far as I know nobody has problems with citing articles that are available only after paying.) The therapeutic indication available in the outline is the same as in the books. Indeed, there are several poor clinical trials, just in case of synthetics. Of course everybody has the right to form opinion about scientific journals, but I have to tell that this journal is highly ranked and aknowledged in the scientific community. Nevertheless, Phytomedicine itself has nothing to do with the therapeutic indications of the monographs, that are partly based on clinical data, partly on empirical knowledge. In modern phytotherapy both well-established and traditionally based indications are acceptable, see https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/herbal-medicinal-products My aim was to introduce information based on scientific assessment of available knowledbe, both experimenmtal and empirical. I think it is beter to give information based on the assessment of a scientific association than to present historical data from old books - as it is now in the majority of the cases.Csupord (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

It doesn't appear to meet MEDRS, so would likely require caveats similar to what's used for folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr and Ronz: So you'd prefer to see something maybe from a reference book published by an established publishing house that regularly works in medical and scientific areas, such as Thieme Medical Publishers, right? Not just something on their website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm assuming that MEDRS sources are unavailable and that this should be treated similarly to folk remedies. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, no. Topics in herbal medicine should be held to the same clinical source rigor that WP:MEDSCI prescribes. Csupord argues above that it is better to provide the ESCOP monographs as "available knowledge", but I say that knowledge mainly is unrigorous, unconvincing, and usually unsubstantiated, so should not be discussed as if it is, and should not be sourced by dubious "phytotherapy" journals or books. This is an example (among dozens of edits using ESCOP monographs) that Csupord added (all were reverted by other editors), showing false conclusions and folk uses of phytotherapy that may mislead unsuspecting encyclopedia users. On his user page, Csupord reveals that phytotherapy is his topic of university research, so WP:COI in promoting ESCOP literature may be at play. He is also an ESCOP member and leads a "medicinal plant" committee. --Zefr (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

MEDSCI says "present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in...in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs". WP:MEDBOOK says that "a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates" is better than a textbook for student. You seem to be assuming that the source's reliability can be determined according to whether it supports a particular POV, rather than according to the criteria laid out in the sourcing policies and guidelines (which look a lot more like "It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)" than "that entire field is unconvincing, so we can't use sources written by anyone in it"]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the "monographs" published by ESCOP are online pdfs written by their members. So what makes ESCOP a reliable publishing house? Is it a reputation for publishing high quality textbooks and monographs? Are these used extensively in higher education courses? I'm sorry but I can't take seriously a publisher/author that so vastly overstates the effects of herbal remedies when compared to a mainstream source like the European Medicines Agency. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't asked whether ESCOP is a reliable publisher of their website. I've asked whether Thieme Medical Publishers, whose books appear to have been cited in more than 100 articles, is the kind of publisher that MEDBOOK is looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe I am not an authentic person as a researcher involved in this field, as a teacher at a university, as an author of several reserch paper dealing with med plants (including meta-analyses), as an ESCOP scientific board member and as an ex-member of the European Medicines Agency Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products. Maybe it would be easier if I would be an outsider. However, I have to draw your attention that ESCOP monographs are not simply written by ESCOP sci com members, but disussed by all the members in several rounds and supervised by acknowledged supervising editors (https://escop.com/about-escop/supervising-editors/). And if you think that ESCOP monographs overstate the effects compared to EMA monograps, I have to admit, that this is not the case. If an EMA monograph contains only a traditional-use indications, these are based not on real empirical knowledge, but only on the evidence which comes from products that are on the European market since at least 30 years. ESCOP monographs are more pragmatic, since these take into account all the evidences, without time and geographical limits. Let us take milk thistle as an example. The standardized extract of this (silymarin) is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies, but according to EMA the only indication is: "Traditional herbal medicinal product for the symptomatic relief of digestive disorders, sensation of fullness and indigestion and to support the liver function, after serious conditions have been excluded by a medical doctor." (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-monograph/final-european-union-herbal-monograph-silybum-marianum-l-gaertn-fructus_en.pdf) Do we really think that this reflects the real therapeutic use? Csupord (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Csupord

WP:MEDSCI provides key terms guiding choice of quality sources for medical content that should apply to the phytotherapy literature: 1) prevailing scientific consensus (by reputable experts grounded in evidence-based medicine), 2) rigorous well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as required for approval of prescription drugs, 3) applying skepticism about disreputable journals, fields, and traditional medicine practices, which collectively represent quackery, among other examples. The EMA position on herbal therapies acknowledges centuries-long history in Europe of using herbal remedies, and is not an endorsement of phytotherapies as conventional medicines. Csupord emphasizes that ESCOP monographs are based on long-term use of herbal agents, but the EMA states such uses are "without the supervision of a medical practitioner", meaning without evidence-based medicine. Csupord then claims that "silymarin is available all over Europe as hepatoprotective medicine, its efficacy is proven by several studies", but there is no MEDSCI source that would support that conclusion, but rather the opposite: 1) no benefit, no effect on liver inflammation; 2) silymarin should be avoided for its side effects and potentially adverse interaction with prescribed drugs; 3) a 2007 Cochrane review stated there was no evidence for liver effects of silymarin; 4) the 2018 EMA position statement on it shows there are no "well-established uses", and 5) Drugs.com says there is no evidence that "milk thistle is effective in treating any medical condition. Medicinal use of this product has not been approved by the FDA. Milk thistle should not be used in place of prescribed medication". There is no quality evidence or consensus of clinical experts supporting its use.

Nor will there be to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies like EMA or the FDA: silymarin (a seed extract) and similar "phytotherapies" cannot be financed for sufficient pivotal RCTs because such research programs are prohibitively expensive and the compound is unpatentable, leaving the research sponsor no protection of intellectual property for its investment. A 2018 JAMA analysis of clinical trial costs to fully develop a true drug candidate showed a median total-development cost of US$648 M, with average pivotal trials costing $19 M, and that a clinical research program must prove the new (herbal) agent "to be noninferior with clinical benefit end points compared with an agent already available," a standard phytotherapies rarely, if ever, reach.

Jimmy Wales said: "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately." The field of phytotherapy, the journal, Phytomedicine, and ESCOP monographs do not meet these standards. It is justified that edits like those Csupord made will continue to be reverted. --Zefr (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

More Eyes Needed

At Influenza vaccine-a proposed change for adding information about an experimental oral influenza vaccine still in the clinical trial phase is being disputed and more eyes would be appreciated there to assess whether it is appropriate for inclusion and discuss this on the talk page. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Those should go under the section on research, once decent source can be found of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:VideoWiki

Do our readers watch video? The answer appears to be yes.[1]

The 8th most watched video on Wikipedia in December of 2019 is the one at pneumonia with 210,783 views. This is out of a total of 339,132 pageviews.[2]

Appendicitis received 121,249

Sepsis 111,017

MS 104,356

Tuberculosis 101,304

Schizophrenia 101,055

Gout 98,340

I am going to follow up with the WMF to see if this is the correct interpretation of the results. We of course do not know how much of the video they watched and that would indeed be useful data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Appears per here this number potentially includes a lot of noise.[3] Hopefully we will have cleaner / more accurate data in a year or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on with those figures. The Appendicitis article only got 106,251 page views in December 2019, yet the video apparently got more with 121,249. The others all show about a 2/3 ratio of viewers of the video vs viewers of the article, which is, em, unlikely. The most "popular" video, with 389,645 views in December 2019 is a 12 hour long US House Session debate on four articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998. That video is buried in Impeachment of Bill Clinton with a distinctly uninviting caption and thumb image. The article apparently got nearly 2m views in December, but I doubt a third of a million people clicked on that video button to watch the unabridged proceedings from 22 years ago. Those stats don't just have a noise problem, they have a where the heck is the signal problem. -- Colin°^Talk 08:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Did nobody at WMF sanity-check these numbers? I found the media-requests API, where a bit more granularity is available.

The impossible stats occur on other wikis too. de.Lungenentzündung (pneumonia) had 25k views in December, yet 44k views of File:Pneumonia.webm (which is used there--different from en.wiki). Other sources of views are ruled out in these numbers, because the media-requests API is explicitly saying that the 'referer' was the wiki in question. (For example, the appendicitis video had 148,248 views in December that originated from anywhere. And then the 121,249 views for en.wiki has been given above, is consistent with the API. That leaves 27,000 views coming from somewhere, but the video is only used on en.wiki. Commons, you say? Well, according to the API, 40 more views. More can be found with a 'referer' of 'none', 15k in fact. And with a 'referer' of 'external', 1800. Still leaves ~10k coming presumably from other wikis, which don't host the video anywhere. I am not aware of a way to just ask for the breakdown by wiki.)

Can we say that the medical videos are among the most watched? (To the extent that this is not a trivial question anyway; I mean that videos are quite rare on WP, as far as I know.) Even there I wonder: if this count is completely mangled by a technical issue, it's quite possible that the videos show up on this list only because they are among the only videos that are found in articles that receive notable traffic--and the technical issue may correlate strongly with/be caused by simply visiting the article. This might be disproven by finding a fairly high-traffic article with a video that has particularly low views.

Finally, I looked at my browser requests when I viewed the appendicitis video, and it requested the video twice: once in a 7 megabyte file that matched the main file name, and then another 7 megabyte file associated with one of the video's encodings, resulting in a 14+ MB transfer. (I.e. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/b/be/Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Appendicitis.webm/Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Appendicitis.webm.480p.vp9.webm)

Well, I was just curious about this, and spent too long on it. I'm posting it! Outriggr (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• I continue to be happy with the progress and impact of this experiment. Video continues to grow in popularity and importance. Wikipedia needs experiments in video production and publishing. This project has been low cost, low disruption, and been an excellent demonstration of concept and exercise in scoping the challenge. Since 2015 the Wikimedia Foundation has consumed about US$400,000,000, and I would guess that about US$50,000,000 of that money is relevant to the development of medical projects. This video project is among the more prominent of Wikimedia experiments since its establishment in 2015 and its expenditure seems to have been less than US$10,000 in that time, which is almost negligible in the frenzy of consumption in the past few years. I feel satisfied that we recognized the popularity of online video and that WikiProject Medicine's support has led to enthusiasm for this video project despite its modesty. With the WMF dependably pulling in $120,000,000 per year and growing for the foreseeable future, I appreciate that we have low cost agile experiments like this one to present among the many options we have for investment after the 5-week comment period of recommendations and when we move into the implementation page which will guide spending. I anticipate a future of great change as Wikimedia projects move from almost entirely volunteer developed, to including some professional support somehow. I have no idea how that will look, but including video is an obvious idea to develop in preparation for relevance in future media. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyright and licensing rules

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• @Doc James: There probably needs to be a better system in place for attribution. I note on File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Cholera.webm the image File:Cholera hospital in Dhaka.jpg isn't credited on Commons even though it's clearly in the video and credited on videowiki.wmflabs.org. Probably should just be one page on videowiki that credits all the media in the latest version, and one template on Commons that links to that page.

What happens if we delete an image on Commons? Does videowiki react to that in any way? GMG^talk 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo at 2:18 of the video I see attribution provided to Mark Knobil and the license listed? On Commons I see the author listed.

When an image is deleted from Commons that deletion will remove it from the video script[4]. When the video is recreated it will be removed from the video.

How does commons work currently with derivatives? We have it listed that a video is a derivative of all the files that make it up.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

James, I think you've described what you believe happens, but the actual file description page on Commons does not mention this image or author, though it does mention others. This suggests perhaps an attribution bug in the software.

Further, the File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Cholera.webm page on Commons says Author User:Doc James, User:Ian Furst which is not permitted per CC licensing: you need to name all authors, not just the two who wrote the text and assembled the images. You are using CC4.0 but some files are licensed CC3.0 which further requires that all contributors be given equal prominence.

You have a further problem with the whole idea of basing the video on the article text (or even the lead) in that unless you rewrite the video transcript entirely in your own words, you have committed plagiarism by not attributing the Wikipedia article and are breaking the terms of the Wikipedia licences by not crediting the authors of article text upon which this is based. -- Colin°^Talk 10:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As to CCBYSA 4.0, CCBYSA 3.0 is also designed to be explicitly compatible with all later versions, and the use of any media that is CCBYSA 4.0 requires that the composite work also be the latest version. So I don't think that's an issue. What is an issue is a sustainable way to sync the ever changing VideoWiki version with the version on Commons. My thought is that there should just be a page on VideoWiki that auto-generates based on the content that is included in the live video. On the Commons side, we can just include a standard template something to the effect of:

I think that takes care of most of the legalese. We just need a few things to happen VideoWiki side. First, we need an automatically generated page to link to that lists all the media and all the references currently in the live version of the video. This can just be a compilation of all the content included in the individual reference sections for each "slide". Second, we need to update the license for VideoWiki to 4.0 from 3.0. These licenses are forward compatible but not backward. So you can't have a 3.0 work that is derivative of 4.0 content.

The only thing I'm not sure about is if the video includes something from an obscure license, like MIT, which isn't necessarily compatible with the chain of creative commons licenses, but is still accepted by Commons. There may need to be some kind of fail-safe built in that will actively prevent you from using this type of content. No idea how we would actually implement that.

But the important thing is that we incorporate a sustainable and scaleable system like this early before we have a big mess of scores or hundred of videos that all need to be cleaned up because we didn't get our licensing and attribution system sorted out. Hopefully this all makes sense more than it confuses things. Also pinging...umm...@Jameslwoodward and Alexis Jazz: to double check my math on how all the licensing works out. GMG^talk 14:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo you may choose to ignore the 3.0 specific requirements about equal prominence (though imo it is a bit disrespectful) but what isn't possible per CC BY-SA licences is to claim the authors are just James and Ian, which is what the Commons page does and if you click "Use this file" it only gives James and Ian for attribution purposes. Look at the first version of Cholera VideoWiki transcript. This is a copy/paste of the lead of Cholera and yet fails Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. So that's wrong to begin with, both legally and morally. The Commons page (and video credits) needs to find a way to say that this video transcript is derived from the Wikipedia article and link to that in order to satisfy attribution. -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. In that case, the author parameter on Commons should be entirely omitted or substituted to a link to VideoWiki, where the history of authors contributing to the derivative video is listed. Again, imagining and planning for a scenario where this becomes a fully-fledged project, the list of authors will likely be large, and we cannot individually list dozens or scores of authors including anyone who fixed a typo. So there probably also needs to be a parameter on VideoWiki for Wikipedia article = that the template can link to in order to satisfy the attribution requirement. Again, I don't know how we implement that technically, I'm just trying to work out the copyright side of what exactly it is we need to find a way to implement. GMG^talk 15:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that these videos can and should be treated in exactly the same way as Commons treats collages -- namely that each constituent part be present on Commons and be listed separately with its source and license. Images or media taken from external sources are not acceptable as part of a Commons collage unless they are first uploaded separately to Commons and, if necessary, the license passes license review.

The use of the collapse template in the example is not acceptable. It is, however, appropriate to list as authors only those people who put together the work from the constituent parts, with all of the constituent parts cited below them. Of course, to the extent that any of the constituent parts are CC-BY, then their authors must be credited. It is helpful if the person assembling the work actually includes the correct credit line, if one is required.

As far as citing sources of the text goes, all that requires is a simple link to the WP article(s), which can easily be added to the Commons file description above, below, or interspersed with (in order) the video credits. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The authors of the derived works must be credited yes, but would it not satisfy the requirement to link to a page that links back to each individual file on Commons? The difference between this a collages is that collages aren't going to dynamically change from day to day. GMG^talk 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the videowiki changes, then the file in Commons that is its container will be changed by the upload of a new version over the old one. Why is it easier to change a credits page kept elsewhere rather than simply changing the page that contains the file? There is also the question of where the credits page will be kept -- Commons does not have an obvious place for that. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The situation currently is that someone has to 1) change the content on VideoWiki, 2) upload the video to Commons, and 3) manually change the attribution on Commons. All this information is already present, has already been "data entered" on VideoWiki. So it should be easy to automatically generate a list there of whatever media is currently used in the live version of the video. So we wouldn't need to account for contributors who forget to update Commons manually, or who do so wrongly. VideoWiki draws from Commons, and feeds into Commons, but is a separate proto-sister-project. GMG^talk 15:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this project, not just licensing, some of which are documented at WP:NOTYOUTUBE. For example, Wikipedia:Five pillars do not apply to Commons and the Commons:Overwriting existing files policy on file updates forbids making in-place edits with "substantially different content", which is exactly what this tool encourages. The whole thing is a bodge job and it is frankly a relief for Commons that nobody has shown the slightest interest in it. -- Colin°^Talk 15:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic. I do however think that this has to be done in coordination with Commons in order to be done correctly. The framework has been set up. But I believe it requires further refinement. GMG^talk 16:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, but... I assume that this list that would be automatically created on VideoWiki could be transcluded onto the Commons page. It would then appear the same as the current treatment of a collage on Commons. That would be much better than requiring a naive user to click on a link to get the necessary credit information. We have enough trouble getting the world to appropriately credit us as it is.

Colin makes a good point about the overwriting files policy. If this is to work, you need a Commons policy change. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll add a question. Why is this being discussed here? It affects Commons more than WP and even on WP, the discussion should probably be somewhere more general than WikiProject Medicine. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Mainly because WikiProject Medicine on en.wiki has been the major player in actively incubating VideoWiki thus far. GMG^talk 16:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO this should be discussed at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here. We are likely to get much better information if we take these questions to Commons' experts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IF anyone takes that on, could they also figure out why I am unable to upload? Is it just the speed of my connection? (Yes, the idea that I write text on Wikipedia, and get no attribution on the video, is as troubling as the idea that I am apparently unable to edit or flag outdated text in videos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty of starting a thread at c:Commons:Village pump#Community round table regarding VideoWiki. GMG^talk 18:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

VideoWiki -- the multimedia encyclopedia that nobody edits

More people have walked on the moon than have successfully edited and published VideoWiki medical videos

VideoWiki claims to be "The Free Multi-Media Encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Let's see if anyone does:

VideoWiki Medical Articles

Disease	Commons	# Edits	# Editors	Editors
Appendicitis	Appendicitis	2	1	Ian Furst
Cancer	Cancer	5	2	Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Cholera	Cholera	4	2	Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Cystic fibrosis	Cystic fibrosis	1	1	Ian Furst
Dengue fever	Dengue fever	10	4	Matanya, Soupvector, Ian Furst, Hassan.m.amin
Diarrhea	Diarrhea	2	1	Shiprasarangi
Gout	Gout	5	1	Doc James
HIV	HIVS.webm	3	2	Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Hepatitis C	Hepatitis C	3	1	Ian Furst
Hypertension	Hypertension	2	1	Ian Furst
Influenza	Influenza	2	1	Ian Furst
Major depressive disorder	Major depressive disorder	4	1	Ian Furst
Malaria	Malaria	4	1	Ian Furst
Measles	Measles	3	3	Hassan.m.amin, Doc James, Ian Furst
Multiple sclerosis	Multiple sclerosis	1	1	Ian Furst
Periodontitis	Periodontitis	5	3	Marajozkee, Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Pneumonia	Pneumonia	8	2	Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Polio	Polio	2	1	Ian Furst
Schizophrenia	Schizophrenia	4	1	Ian Furst
Sepsis	Sepsis	1	1	Ian Furst
Tuberculosis	Tuberculosis	3	1	Ian Furst
Typhoid fever	Typhoid fever	5	2	Hassan.m.amin, Ian Furst
Urinary tract infection	Urinary tract infection	2	1	Doc James

Edit activity:

• Shiprasarangi created Diarrhea at the weekend, and James has made some unpublished edits to that.
• Prior to this, the last video Doc James edited was in September 2019.
• Ian Furst last edited a video script in September 2019 to change a picture, but didn't publish the change, so their last visible edit was in August 2019, not long after the Wikimania presentation.
• Hassan.m.amin (developer of VideoWiki) last edited a video script in July 2019 to change a heading, but didn't publish that change, so their last visible edit was in April 2019.
• Soupvector made a few edits to Dengue fever in September 2019.
• Matanya changed the Commons file in October 2019 but didn't appear to change the transcript on Wikipedia, so who knows what that edit was.
• A redlink editor Oumaissatimbo reverted back two revisions by Hassan.m.amin to the Cancer video on Commons , and nobody seems to have noticed this possible vandalism.

So we have just a handful of editors, who mostly haven't edited videos since their post-Wikimania enthusiasm died. We have two dodgy-looking edits on Commons. The very foundation of Wikipedia is that it is collaboratively written by a large community of volunteer editors, where anyone looking at an article can make an improvement and quickly fix a mistake. VideoWiki, as an attempt to get editors to create and edit videos for Wikipedia, is a failure. The videos are rubbish too. -- Colin°^Talk 13:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I edited one, just to see how it works. Considerable edits were needed, and the number of problems here indicate the number of problems that exist at the article, dengue fever, since it appears that most of the text was taken from there. Perhaps my time would have been better spent editing the actual article, which is outdated and has numerous prose issues. When I look at the number of edits, and amount of effort, that went into producing a video with outdated information, I wonder why that same effort can't go into fixing the actual article. (That should teach me not to follow Outriggr's edits!) Should I really have to make all these changes in two places? A native English speaker needs to re-write the tutorial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sandy, File:Wikipedia-VideoWiki-Dengue fever.webm isn't showing any changes yet. -- Colin°^Talk 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been uploading for half an hour. I did my pedicure, and it's still at 90%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It may have stalled. So I shall do a manicure, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It does seem to have stalled, so I started it again on a different computer. And it is stalled there, too. So, I wasted a bit of time understanding that we couldn't just put maintenance tags in to the script, rather have to spell out the maintenance issue. And that some things (like numbers and converts) need to be handled differently. Other than that, I now have about three hours' worth of work into what would have been a 15-minute copyedit at the article (which is still needed). How much does this tax the servers ? And I do wish people would be updating our articles before committing them to outdated videos. This video has dated info, which I am unable to easily flag. In the time I spent on these, I could have copyedited and updated a dozen articles. No videos uploaded. Dengue fever article outdated. But I did get a manicure and pedicure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A possible idea for increasing watchers and contributors to the scripts: in stead of keeping the scripts at WP:VW (e.g. WP:VideoWiki/Gout), keep the script inside <includeonly></includeonly> tags at the bottom of the article itself (e.g. Gout). That way all changes are seen by relevant watchers and it is more likely that editors interested in the topic will consider updating the script. If the videowiki system requires it, that page section can be marked for section transclusion out to WP:VideoWiki/Gout. I'd be happy to implement one as an example if in need of testing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Assisted death versus assisted suicide

Thoughts here Talk:Assisted_death#Requested_move_27_January_2020 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to split weight loss

Since July there had been a template at the top of the article on weight loss regarding a split proposal: Talk:Weight_loss#Splitting_proposal I removed the template but others might be interested in continuing the conversation there. It is currently listed as a high-importance article for the project. Biosthmors (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is to split it into intentional vs unintentional weight loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the split is a good idea. They are very different conditions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite an important split (intentional and unintentional). Whispyhistory (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please comment there, so that it'll be easy for everyone to take your thoughts into account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

commented ... Whispyhistory (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

NITAG, help to review the draft

Hi..
I just create draft article about National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups or NITAG in general (NITAG in the US is known as ACIP, and in Canada is known as NACI), refer to WP:AFC. Kindly someone please review the draft and accept if it is acceptable. Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice on referencing

Eg...With Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2...The reference to the "2019-CoV entering human cells via these receptors" previously used this which took information from this and this. However, the reference is now the primary research paper. What's the best way to reference the sentence "ACE2 receptors have been shown to be the entry point into human cells for some coronaviruses, including the SARS virus, and the Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)." ...the secondary source alone or both a secondary and primary or other? Whispyhistory (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not the news story (which is probably primary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS and Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent). Sometimes it's easier, especially with stuff that's in the news, to cite multiple sources. See also WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for advice on combining the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou for replying @WhatamIdoing:...much clearer. I'll read through the links you have sent. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Third Man factor

We don’t really have an active science or skepticism board, and since this topic should fall under the general category of medicine, I’m hoping someone can take a quick look.

While working on cleaning up various articles about Ernest Shackleton and the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition from the early 20th century, I noticed a see also link to Third Man factor from the Shackleton article, based on his personal experiences detailed in the memoir, South.

Looking at third man factor, I’m afraid that there is more of an emphasis on religion and the paranormal than there is on medical explanations for this alleged phenomenon. I’m wondering if someone here can try to fix that based on the most recent research. I always thought this was related to hypnogogic hallucinations from brain hypoxia, but there might be other causes involved. I’ve heard similar anecdotes and experiences stemming from high fevers, as well as intoxication caused by accidental ingestion of plants in the family Solanaceae. The article on oneirogen indirectly points in this direction.

Whatever the medical reasons for this experience, I’m fairly sure there is a better redirect, preferably one under the umbrella of the medicine project. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Update - based on the literature, I would like to propose that the article should be moved to sensed presence effect, with any discussion of spirituality or the paranormal relegated to prescientific, historical background reference. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note, I’ve found the parent topic at its historical synonym, Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence, and I’ve placed merger notices with a centralized link to this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I just don’t think that project or the psychology project is all that active. If you accept that psychology is a branch of medicine, then wouldn’t it be appropriate for this project to address the issue? I can briefly summarize it for you:

1. The article subject term, Third Man factor, was invented by author John G. Geiger and used in several of his books and media works.

2. The subject of Third Man factor duplicates an already existing topic that is authoritatively sourced at Anomalous_experiences#Sense_of_presence.

3. I’ve placed a merge on the former term pointing to the latter.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Psychology is distinct from the related branch of medicine, Psychiatry; psychosis is a symptom that can be studied by Psychologists and Psychiatrists. Then again, perhaps this is just dancing on the head of a pin. Klbrain (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that proposing a merge is a good idea, but I'm known to be a mergist, so take that with a grain of salt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mutation vs Variant

There is some disagreement on whether using "mutation" is acceptable when describing a rare change in DNA that results in a disorder (in this case CDK13-related disorder) or whether we should require the use of the less offensive "variant". This has come up by way of a GA review that can be found at Talk:CDK13-related disorder/GA1. I have found no discussions concerning this issue here, at the MCB wikiproject or the NPOV noticeboard page so do not know what the consensus on this is or if it has even come up before. As it could potentially effect multiple articles it feels more prudent to discuss it here than at a review page. @EllenCT, Canada Hky, and SUM1: who were involved in the review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Both terms are used in clinical practice and mean different things. A mutation is a change in DNA. A variant is a DNA sequence that is different from a chosen reference. Mutations can cause variants to appear in a genomic assay, but not vice versa. We speak of nonsense mutations, but not nonsense variants. And so son. They really are not interchangable, so which term to use depends on the context and intended purpose.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mark viking: That is very true. An event vs. a state. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I really like the idea that mutation = event, variant = state; when I am king, I will mandate that everyone uses this precise and unambiguous nomenclature. Until then, I'll note that it's common for "mutation" to refer to the outcome of the event (i.e., the state), rather than the event itself. This can be verified by Googling "has a mutation" or "found a mutation". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(I've already learned something interesting today! Thanks for posting the explanation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

There are a few medical terms that are now considered offensive, typically because schoolchildren use them pejoratively in the playground: "cretin", "spastic", "mentally retarded". Is "mutation"/"mutant" really in this category?

How long before "variant" is considered offensive? *sigh* Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deviant has made the transition.

Mutation is fine, and WP:UNCENSORED. The encyclopedia should reflect the field as it is, not as we think it should be. Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have a good source at hand, so that this explanation can be added to the top of articles such as Mutant, Mutation, Allele, and Variant of uncertain significance? It shouldn't exactly say read like a hatnote ("If you're looking for the article about the event, rather than the state, then please see..."), but readers should be left with the same impression from reading the lead of the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have textbook sources for "mutation" and "variation" which agree but not for "mutant" and "variant". Graham Beards (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I don't think this is necessary. Both mutant and allele mention mutation in the first sentence, and "mutant" is much less used than "mutation" (there's no point pointing worried parents to the page for "mutant" at the top of the article for "mutation"). Variant of uncertain significance makes clear enough (I think) the relationship between mutation and variant in its lead. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Enterovirus 71 article. Which wording to use?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Enterovirus 71#EV71 or EV-A71?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC on the MSH drug database

We should have a fairy bread index for RFCs. This one would win the best prize.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. Several of you are already there, and I've love to see more of you join and share your views, whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with other comments, adding new ideas, asking questions, or contributing in other ways.

We're talking about everything (including the historical price of bread in the Netherlands – it's a truly wonderful discussion), but the central subject is how we should/shouldn't use a single database, the International Medical Products Price Guide (IMPPG, or 'the MSH database'), in our articles about common generic drugs. Three examples from articles have been given, and your views are wanted on any and all aspects of it.

Based on the specific comments, we'll sort out ways to improve the drug articles that are currently using this database. Based on the general comments, I hope to use all of your advice to write a proposal about how to describe prices, for MEDMOS. But that's for later, not for this week. This week, just come tell us what you think should be done with this one source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)