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

Can we still use books as refs?

This follows from statements above by user:UseTheCommandLine, Doc James, User:Axl, user:LeadSongDog,

It appears so many of them are simply plagiarism of Wikipedia. We are coming to a point in time where someone comes to Wikipedia and makes something up. It than gets into a textbook. And along I come to try to reference our text by looking for sources and low and behold the worlds books support us just a little to well. Another example:

• Our article on pneumonia (prevention section) from Dec 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pneumonia&oldid=97517043#Prevention

There are several ways to prevent infectious pneumonia. Appropriately treating underlying illnesses (such as AIDS) can decrease a person's risk of pneumonia. Smoking cessation is important not only because it helps to limit lung damage, but also because cigarette smoke interferes with many of the body's natural defenses against pneumonia. Research shows that there are several ways to prevent pneumonia in newborn infants. Testing pregnant women for Group B Streptococcus and Chlamydia trachomatis, and then giving antibiotic treatment if needed, reduces pneumonia in infants. Suctioning the mouth and throat of infants with meconium-stainedamniotic fluid decreases the rate of aspiration pneumonia.

• Check out this textbook from 2007/2008 page 678 Diseases and disorders. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish. 2008. p. 678. ISBN 9780761477709. They have copied word for word large sections without giving credit and they are selling the book for $340 on amazon.com [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ouch. Not good. Just out of curiosity (having no medical qualifications beyond a vague ability to identify - unreliably - bones of some guy who's been dead for 100,000 years...), are medical textbooks usually that badly written? Wouldn't the 'throw random sentences together to make a paragraph' prose rather give the game away? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This simply re enforces what an amazing resource Wikipedia is. With a minor copy edit and some work on layout one can sell it for big money. My hats off to all the great editors here. I think it is time that we inform libraries that some of the time they are simply buying old copy edited versions of Wikipedia and that the current version is better and free.

By the way the suctioning for meconium to decrease aspiration is not recommended. I have fixed our article and emailed the publisher to inform them of my concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The parent company of the publisher is worth $14 billion. It appears this title however may have been bought by Amazon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt the attributed author on that book knew about the plagiarism. She's the chair of medicine at Washington University, St. Louis, with over 200 publications listed on Pubmed. She probably would not have called herself "M.d." on the cover and many times in the book. Definitely something odd going on. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Andy, sure it isn't our best writing that's been plagiarized, but that's why the book only sells for $340. The book that plagiarizes from our GA articles is over $700 and from our FAs is over $1000. Zad68 13:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this Worldcat search it seems the books are geared at "young adult readers", as for high school health classes. Certainly the 186 listed librarys were mostly public libraries, public schools, etc. Not the sort of mix one would see for a "medical textbook", which is usually mostly held by university libraries. Oddly, the e-book results lean more to universities and colleges than the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Medical textbooks of this size are typically written by a collaboration of many authors. Subsections are often "outsourced" to junior/middle-grade doctors. There is usually a small fee for the junior doctor, but the main benefit is addition to the CV. A single lead editor (or small group of senior editors) oversees the whole project.

Of course it is impossible for one person to scrutinize every part of a book of this size. The main editor relies on the integrity of the junior authors. Authors are typically required to affirm that the material is their own work. While the vast majority of authors are conscientious, it is inevitable that there are a few who will "cheat".

In the case of this textbook, the author of each chapter is given at the end of the chapter. Here, the offending author is Julie A. McDougal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this pdf document online. One of the authors is "Julie A McDougal", e-mail address julie.mcdougal@ccc.uab.edu . If you intend to contact her, it would be best to ask if she is the author of the chapter first before making any accusation or declaration about the chapter's content. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes so she responded and it is the same person. Currently it looks like she is studying smoking cessation in Birmingham Alabama. I guess the question is did she write this content originally on Wikipedia (better check more thoroughly)?

While I think it is bad that people take from Wikipedia and claim it as their own while large multinationals make large sums of money of us without giving us any recognition. I do not want to harm anyone career. Ah I have lost my nerve. What do you recommend next Axl? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Moonriddengirl to visit this discussion. She's got a knack for tracking these things down. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"This simply re enforces what an amazing resource Wikipedia is." To me what it reinforces is how influential Wikipedia is, and therefore how important it is that we get it right. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree Adrian which is why I think many of us are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A related story worth reading: Book That Plagiarized From Wikipedia Is Pulled From Market. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

With good software to check what one is publishing for plagiarism their is simply no excuse for it. We need to get some up and running ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well we have a bot that checks new articles here against google, but perhaps we need the reverse too. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This could make an amazing study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The "smoking cessation" bit was added in this edit on 19 Oct 2005. Back then it was just the GFDL in play. There are indications on the related userpage of edits to Washington University School of Medicine, Pneumonia, and others that suggest that wp editor might be proximate to Dr McDougal. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we (Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation) can afford to ignore this issue. The whole point of Wikipedia is that the content is free and subject to cc-by-sa Creative Commons license. If we ignore the matter, everyone else certainly will. Publishers and authors should realise that it is not acceptable to plagiarize from Wikipedia.

I suggest that you contact the book's publisher and main editor (with a copy to Julie A McDougal) and explain the situation, including a statement that cc-by-sa 3.0 applies to the chapter. The quantity of plagiarism is less than in "Understanding and Management of Special Child in Pediatric Dentistry". The most likely response is that the publisher will ask a different author to write a new chapter for the next edition.

Ms (Dr?) McDougal will not lose her job. However she will not be asked to write for textbooks in the near future.

If you would like me to support you when you contact the publisher, I would happy to do so. Indeed I would be happy to be the "main author" (LOL) if you want. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

" I guess the question is did she write this content originally on Wikipedia (better check more thoroughly)? "

If she did originally write the text on Wikipedia, then it would not be plagiarism. However the cc-by-sa license would still apply to the textbook's chapter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One can release the same content under different licenses to different people as far as I am aware. I will ask here if she is this editor. A number of other sections are very similar as well. I am not sure if this user wrote those as well. Might be good to check other chapters too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay the author in question states that this editor is not her. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Has anyone from WP or WMF done outreach to publishers, specifically to their legal departments, about things like the requirements of our citations, and the use of history pages? I'm not as familiar with the software backend as I'd like to be, but are there tools that allow, say, publishers' legal departments to search the historical revisions of wikipedia to look for plagiarism? (Is that how this example was found, by using such a tool?)

Sorry for the noob-ish questions. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Software dose exist. I do not know how good it is but universities often use it. We at Wikipedia do not as I think it may be expensive.

This case was found by me looking up a sentence in our article on pneumonia (which was wrong by the way) and finding it word for word in Google books. Than noticing that the sentences that came before and after that one where also exactly the same.

That one should not copy and paste from others and claim it as their own is hopefully something that we do not need to explain to the publishing industry. Especially since most of them that have been around for any length of time have sued other people over this exact issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Turns out we have an article Plagiarism detection that talks about some of the available software, some of which runs as services on the net. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure publishers are already aware of these things. However, they might benefit from a helpful explanation of citation style and requirements of the particular CC license we use, as a way of letting them know that we're trying to police this more aggressively, if indeed we want to do that. And I'm also not suggesting that WP buy commercial software for this purpose. when I look up a phrase on google or some other search engine, and a wikipedia link is returned, it is typically the most recent edit. By the time an author submits a paper to a publisher and the publisher gets around to editing it or vetting it, legal, whatever, it is quite possible that the phrasing or something on WP has changed, and it no longer is a match. So, having tools that can allow search within old edits of wikipedia seems like something that would (in addition to being of scholarly interest or otherwise useful for its own sake) be of use to WP insofar as it could force publishers to do more self-policing. Again, I don't know whether this exists on the toolserver already -- I imagine that that would be a pretty substantial drain on infrastructure. But it would lower at least a little bit the barrier to discovery of this in the pre-publication phase. Which means that publishers would have even less wiggle room to claim that they had done their due diligence, it was an honest mistake, etc. if it winds up going to court or something. Again, just spitballing, feel free to ignore me. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 1: If the author wrote the original Wikipedia text, as Doc James says, they can also publish that text elsewhere under a different licence as it is theirs to do with as they like. However, one it starts being built on by other editors, one can't take this improved text and publish it elsewhere other than by following one of Wikipedia's licences.
• Comment 2: Please read WP:OUTING and remove the speculation on editor identity. This is a very serious issue: "attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block". Colin°^Talk 13:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay well it turns out the author in question is not the editor in question and thus this would not be outing. But agree we have an issue. If I am going to expose this author to real life difficulty because she has copied and pasted from Wikipedia I better made sure that my accusations are true. If Wikipedia outing policy prevents me from doing due diligence we at Wikipedia have a problem with this policy. It would be unethical for me NOT to break the outing policy in this situation IMO. You thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OUTING again. It doesn't matter if the attempted outing was correct or not, indeed we must absolutely not confirm whether it was as then we're just as bad. This sort of investigation simply can't be done on Wikipedia -- it must be done behind closed doors in private. I don't know if this means a special group of admins, the arbs or WMF but it has no place on the talk page of this Encyclopaedia. I suggest you find someone familiar with the policy as there may be some text/revisions that need deleted. Colin°^Talk 20:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I do sort of see your position Colin. There however is not other group within Wikipedia's whose opinion I respect as much as that of those here. If you would all be so kind as to join Wikimedia Medicine than we could discuss these issues on a private list. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If I walked too close to the line above, and I may have, feel free to delete as necessary. It does, however, appear that the plagiarism was from the WP article in toto, not from one editor's contribs. No one contributor could own the copyright, accordingly no one could license the text under any terms other than the GFDL. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There's possibly a misunderstanding that plagiarising text from Wikipedia will somehow make a book chapter or even the whole book GFDL or CC BY-SA. Have a read of The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling which refers to GPL but similar issues apply to our licenses. If the terms of the licence (such as attribution) aren't met then it falls back on copyright. The owner(s) of the work can sue for damages/legal-costs and request an injunction to prevent further publication. Who are the owners of the Wikipedia article text? Not the WMF. All the folk who wrote it. Don't know about you, but I don't have the funds for a lawyer, nor do I suspect my contributions would earn me much in damages. Instead we should pursue the ethical rather than legal issues here. Any professional publisher should be upset about this. Colin°^Talk 11:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I posted a review on Amazon. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys be careful. There's plenty text on Wikipedia that was plagiarised. And should you be wrong, the balance of power (being able to afford lawyers and claim substantial damages) is not in your favour. Colin°^Talk 13:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link and comment above, Colin. The majority of legal disputes in the world do not involve lawyers, but rather they are settled when the parties talk to each other and discuss the issue without legal advice. It hurts nothing for a Wikipedian to begin a conversation without consulting a lawyer and if the publisher wants to make statements through a lawyer then that is their business. I see no harm in merely having a Wikipedian ask a publisher if they copied content from Wikipedia. No matter what the publisher says or does not say or even whether the publisher replies or not is extremely interesting, especially when the question-asking is done publicly. I think no one need accuse anyone of anything. I propose sending a note to someone saying, "Hey, that looks like Wikipedia, where did you get it?" and seeing what they say. No lawyers are need for that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia outreach activism process

I am interested in two related situations.

1. Some entity misuses Wikimedia content and they ought to know better. The above case is one example, here is the Springer issue reported in the signpost, here is the case Doc James reported, and there are others.
2. Some entity ought to know more about Wikipedia and Wikimedia content anyway for their own good.

In both of these cases there needs to be some kind of institutional outreach. Ideally, someone (or multiple people?) would write letters and emails to the organization and encourage them to properly engage Wikipedia. In response, hopefully the organization would make a commitment to recognize best practices for interacting with Wikipedia and how Wikipedia can help them.

Historically there has been worry that all organizational interaction would be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which was most likely to mean that the organization would exploit a relatively defenseless Wikipedia community of volunteers. More and more lately I am seeing the Wikipedia community as an international superpower directing the world's most popular media source and wondering what would happen if the community started making very public demands to be recognized as a legitimate peer to any other media outlet and requesting in open letters that organizations which misuse Wikimedia content make good by having their staff serve a fair part in the Wikipedia mission to advance access to the same resources that are already using, critically need, but inappropriately and in ignorance republish with much less respect than they would had this content been published elsewhere. If such a complaint process were developed to ask organizations to have their staff learn Wikipedia so as not to misuse it, the same process could be used to ask other organizations to learn Wikipedia to use it properly.

I really wish that all organizations which seek to advance education, perhaps particularly non-profit educational organizations, would start to consider their public positions and relationship to Wikipedia. I think it would be in their interest to declare publicly that they will have a staff person become minimally competent in understanding how Wikipedia works and how to properly use content from the site. Thoughts from anyone? How would anyone feel about drafting both one-page letters of complaint and letters of outreach with me? If such letters existed, would anyone be interested in sending them publicly and publicly posting the responses they got for them? Is that a sensible, respectful thing to do? If not this, then what should we do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:MED occupies a particularly sticky space when it comes to these issues. I am interested in pursuing the idea and helping out, but also feel caution is warranted, and ideally a protocol for this sort of contact would be written up, publicized here and wherever else appropriate. Also, this may be germane -- though it is kind of sprawling in scope and discussion, it seems like it might be at odds with the sort of actions you're proposing. (I just saw a post to this effect on the wikiEN list.)

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lane I would be willing to support this effort. With respect to Sue's statement about narrowing the scope of the WMF, I think her position is that she wants the community to take on much of these other roles. Which is what we are doing here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure so I guess this is one of the activities that WMMED could take on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I drafted an initial proposal of how this could work at meta:Wikimedia Medicine/letters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

While I understand and sympathise with the frustration over seeing other publishers copyvios, I am far more concerned with the potential for circular referencing. We should be able to handle these instances in such a way as to preclude using violating "sources" that we know to (or even strongly suspect) constitute {{reverse copyvio}}s. The last thing we need is to start using these as the cited basis for dubious content. Imagine the rats' nest this could create: spammer inserts that "Pickled unicorn horn, while scarce, is an effective cure for recurring-remitting projectile leprosy" into our article Alternative medicine, and a book copies that version before the spam is caught. We then would have that book to cite as a "reliable" notability basis for articles on both Pickled unicorn horn and Recurring-remitting projectile leprosy. To my thinking this is something we do not need a legal basis to prevent.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For that goal, all you really need is the {{backwardscopy}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That template is appropriate when we are certain that WP was the source, but not when we just think so without firm evidence. Worse, it does not do much to help find multiple instances by the same author or publisher. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Translation of Klinefelter's syndrome

Hello everyone! I am Adert​​, a italian Wikipedian who is also a translator from en.wiki to it.wiki. To change, together with participants of project medicine in Italian and a translator, we expanded your voice Klinefelter's syndrome. The draft you can find it here. What do you think? I'd like to start a partnership with you to improve with the articles of medicine. Thanks for your attention--Adert-it (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We of course would love to be involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the translation task force. Doc James co-ordinates it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You think, I can begin to integrate the draft into article? On it.wiki currently the article is proposed as FA. Bye. --80.180.186.30 (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2 centesimi: en.WP has sourcing and style guidelines which differ somewhat from received editorial practice on it:WP. For example, we have stricter rules here, I think, about use of primary sources, and the section order differs from textbook conventions. I think it'd be a good thing for whoever does the integrating to have some familiarity with our WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Regards, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. In fact, before you begin, I wanted to advertise. Do you want the help? (Adert) --80.180.186.30 (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes will need to look at it. But we do emphasise the WP:MEDRS policy here in English. Specifically the bit about using secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO, we need to be careful not to get bogged down in trivial misunderstandings due to differences in editorial practices. For what it's worth, my own sensation is that it would be worth taking it relatively slowly at first to try to set up a good working understanding. Again, just my 2 cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that we want the help. We can re-arrange sections and update sources later, if there are some differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Value of student edits

I'm trying to assess whether some of the edits made by students working on Wikipedia in the spring 2012 semester were worthwhile, and was hoping for some help with the medical articles. Would someone be able to look at a couple of articles and tell me if they have useful content, or if they use primary sources and are low value, or just nonsense -- or whatever.

This assessment is being recorded as part of the education program's attempt to evaluate the work of the classes in the program.

If anyone is interested, here are the edits I'd like to assess.

• Narcissistic personality disorder: [2], [3]
• Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality: [4], [5]
• Personality judgment: [6], [7], [8]
• Attitude (psychology): [9]
• Catechol-O-methyl transferase: [10]

There may be one or two more; I'm still working through the list of spring 2012 courses. Thanks for any help with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Of the four pages posted so far, only Narcissistic personality disorder falls within the scope of the Medicine project. To my skirt-chasing eyes (scarcely the best judge of personality!), the two edits don't look especially helpful, but they're probably a step up from some of the more pop content in close proximity. What I think I can safely say is that neither of the sources used really satisfies WP:MEDRS, since both [11] [12] are validation studies of novel instruments. So, overall I feel the experience might have been a good one for the contributor, without really providing an incremental contribution to the encyclopedia. Oh well, back to the real world... [13] —MistyMorn (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I see the student's (inappropriate) use of primary sources [14] was pretty much determined by the instructions of the supervisor: "Your bibliography should contain at least four scholarly sources. Of those four sources, one may be a textbook, but the other three should be primary research." [15] —MistyMorn (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- the assessment and that link are very useful -- much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

_{"skirt-chasing eyes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)}

[16] (resisting the temptation to discuss tool validation). —MistyMorn (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Awesome Youtube link. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Grande! —MistyMorn (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've never even heard of the HEXACO model of personality structure let alone a subsection - Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality...I'll have to ask some psychologists at work tomorrow....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- anything that would help figure out the value of those edits would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not such an active project perhaps, but maybe you could try posting at WT:PSYCH. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is part of the issue. There are very few experienced people maintaining the psychology articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I'll post there later today, but I don't think I'll hear much back.

The primary source comment was very useful, MistyMorn - would you be able to identify any primary sources in the diffs for the other articles? I would guess that there's some overlap in the requirement to avoid primary sources, and I was wondering if the identifying stigmata of a primary source carry over from MED to PSYCH. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You raise a very important point. I hope that it would. Certainly WP:MEDRS covers cognitive behavioral therapy, as it is making deep inroads into medicine. Some areas of neuroscience, especially where it overlaps with pathology and surgery, are covered by WP:MEDRS. Someone needs to write Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:Social sciences to cover those parts of psychology and other social sciences that aren't covered by WP:MEDRS; and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) should be elevated to guideline status, to cover those areas of biology and other natural sciences not covered by WP:MEDRS. The biological and social sciences should be held to at least as high a sourcing standard as medicine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified the prof at User talk:ScottPKingPhD of this discussion.

This is an area in which we have room for systemic improvement. We should have an agreed-upon expectation for clear identification of primary sources, whether that agreement be for in-text mention, for in-citation mention, or for hidden wikitext comments. My thinking is that the best place is in the citation. I've previously argued that we should have a {{cite journal}} parameter equivalent to the Pubmed "PublicationType" parameter. That way we could standardize the presented values to such as (Journal Article) (Systematic Review) (Meta-analysis) etc. Further, these could (at least in principle) be bot-populated. The amount of effort that goes into catching improper use of primary sources is simply ridiculous. We can do better things with our time. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I support LeadSongDog strongly in this suggestion. We already require secondary sources to be used nearly exclusively for an article to reach GA/FA. Not to long ago Schizophrenia was nearly delisted as a FA based on this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just checked. CS1 templates support the |type= parameter for this purpose. We ought to make better use of it.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW:

• The student who created and developed Honesty-humility factor of the HEXACO model of personality appears to have followed quite a different course. This is clearly a serious piece of work, based on at least one secondary source (ref 1 actually seems to satisfy MEDRS) in conjunction with a series of what appear to be carefully handled primary sources (if we were to apply MEDRS) drawn from peer-review journals. My layman's impression is that the student/supervisor may have identified a useful topic for (sub-)article creation. Some of the broader editorial issues one might raise (eg regarding conceptual integration with the parent page) would, I guess, be pretty much in line with what one would expect from any promising new Wikipedia editor. Had I not known this was a student, I really wouldn't have guessed. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Personality judgment: The student, who created the page, has adopted a mix of secondary and primary sources from academic journals. Certainly seems to be a serious piece of work. Note: Looking at the work through layman's eyes and from a "MEDRS perspective", one can't help noticing that while some of the primary studies sourced are recent (eg [17] from 2011), others most certainly aren't ([18] from 1987, [19] from 1977). Presumably, up-to-date secondary sources should be available for the concepts addressed in the latter two, at least. I agree with Anthony (above) that in a developing field of research like the social sciences some guidance broadly equivalent to MEDRS could have helped this student.

• Attitude (psychology): This comprehensible but somewhat unwieldy single sentence contribution [20] is sourced from a "pilot study" (very much primary) from 1984. Per Personality judgment above. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• The Catechol-O-methyl transferase edit [21] is intriguing, imo. The editorial approach here appears to have been a reasoned one, as credited by the supervisor a colleague [22]. In the usual academic way (more or less), the editor has strung together three clauses, each containing a single concept, into a lengthy but reasonably coherent sentence. Each clause is sourced with a primary study. By contrast, an editor following MEDRS might have turned to one of the many recent review articles available on PubMed (eg in the last 5 years, 13 reviews have Catechol-O-methyl transferase in the title, and there are plenty more reviews in which the enzyme has been indexed as a major or significant topic). However, this page is subject to WP:SCIRS rather than MEDRS. And SCIRS seems to have a rather different approach to primary sources. (Maybe others here would like to comment?) —MistyMorn (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Mike: You might like to take this one to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a second opinion. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, MistyMorn; this is very useful. Based on your comments I think it's fair to say these are contributions that are not as good as they could be, but which have not made the article worse, and which can be improved by subsequent editors. What we've seen in some student articles, often in medical articles, is edits that are actively harmful, requiring substantial clean up time. If students cost editors more in cleanup effort than they bring in added content, then the education program is not worth doing. As it turns out, it looks as though there is a net benefit, but there are definitely some black spots. You can see the summarized results as well as the detailed assessments here, if you're curious. Once again, thanks -- I really appreciate you assessing these edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added one more -- not sure if it's in scope for y'all or not. I'm through with the course list so that'll be the last one. Thanks for the HEXACO comments, MistyMorn; it's reassuring to know that it looks reasonable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, per WP:SCIRS?

WP:SECONDARY says Wikipedia is based off of secondary sources, so I think it is inapropriate for someone to string together a sentence with three primary sources for separate clauses if secondary sources can be found. Biosthmors (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But, per WP:SCIRS#Respect_secondary_sources, Primary sources should be used [my emphasis] when discussing a particular result or recent research directions. Is this really crystal clear? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think it would/should be common for an encyclopedia article to be discussing a particular result since we are based off of secondary sources. Biosthmors (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't think that, I don't think that, but unfortunately there are plenty of those who do, and who are only too happy to push the point just as hard as they can... Not to mention gf contributions from students, new editors, and the generally well intentioned. Imo, MEDRS provides much stronger and clearer guidance. (Though, personally, I'm happy to see references to key primary studies included alongside, or in tandem with, high quality secondary sources.) —MistyMorn (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS was one of the main things that got me interested in doing WP:MED project work in the first place. I like having clear guidelines. Actually I wish WP:MEDRS was more strongly emphatic about insisting on secondary sources near the top of WP:MEDASSESS. I do not feel how WP:MEDRS is written actually reflects how I see experienced WP:MED folks edit. For example, WP:MEDRS says, "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies." Frankly this is rather weak advice against using a small in vitro study in, for example, Thiomersal controversy or Insulin. In reality I see editors point to WP:MEDRS in removing such sourced content. WP:MEDRS could use a rewrite in this area. Zad68 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wilson

It is 100 years since Wilson's disease was first fully described. The article is currently GA, and I was wondering if someone was up for a collaboration to push it up to FA. I have listed some useful sources on the talk page. JFW | T@lk 09:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Happy to help. -- Scray (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Imo, the quality of the prose seems generally excellent. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

sounds neat. count me in, to the extent that i have time. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pituitary gland

Could someone who actually knows something about medicine please take a look at Pituitary gland, and specifically at this diff by a new contributor? I'm willing to AGF that the user is an expert in the field as xe claims, and that the previous version of the article was inaccurate, but, of course, that doesn't absolve him of the need to include reliable sources. I'm also concerned about any claim that "isn't included in many college textbooks". However, the user did go to the effort to leave me a long and detailed message on my talk page (see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Pituitary gland), so I felt it would help if someone with more subject matter competence than me took a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It needs some copyediting, obviously, but yeah, that's accurate. I can't absolutely speak for the developmental sequence, but it's perfectly reasonable to speak of the posterior pituitary as being an extension of the hypothalamus. As the posterior pituitary article already notes, that gland is mainly composed of the axons and axon end bulbs of (magnocellular) neurons whose dendrites and cell bodies are in the hypothalamus. Furthermore, the parallelism between parvocellular and magnocellular neurons in the current lead of pituitary gland is badly misleading, because it implies their mechanisms of control are similarly parallel. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the anterior pituitary receives its signals from the parvocellular neurons while the posterior pituitary is composed of the ends of the magnocellular neurons. I don't know about "most college textbooks", but I use the current edition of Tortora for my A&P course and it certainly describes this. Don't have it on me now but I can supply a citation in a day or so. Choess (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The text looks accurate. (I don't know about the pituitary breaking off when the brain is lifted out, but it sounds plausible.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of "bits of the brain" that break off when it is removed, like parts of the retina of the eye, the olfactory bulb, and posterior pituitary. All indeed are sort of direct axonic emanations of the brain that are "hanging out in the wind" (or into the blood supply a long way from the brain), so to speak. In the pituitary those axons secrete neuropeptides directly into the blood or into the portal circulation that goes into the anterior part (which is derived from ectoderm in the mouth, ultimately, quite a way away from the posterior part). So this somewhat parallels the structure of the adrenals, which are also composed of a neural part (the medula, where the chromaffin cells are just modified neurons that come from the neural crest) which directly secretes neurotransmitters into the blood in response to neural stimulation, vs. and the cortex, which is of a different derivation (mesoderm this time, also from a long away away) and does a completely different job of making steroid hormones. Not that long ago, we thought the two parts of the adrenals just lived together physically but didn't talk to each other (as the two parts of the pituitary do). We should have guessed this wasn't so, and it's beginning to look like it's not. They do communicate and their proximity isn't just accidental. see here. So this theme in the adrenals (a neural part and a non-neural part) is repeated from the pituitary, although not with such complete control. SBHarris 01:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Herpes nosodes

This new article, Herpes nosodes, could probably use some attention from someone with medical knowledge. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm... [23] AFD? —MistyMorn (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems that WPMED minds think alike -- Scray (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've renewed the PROD, which on reflection probably wasn't the correct next step. I suppose it really does have to go via AFD? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD, not repeat PROD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Infant mortality

Infant mortality recently had a large expansion thanks to a good student editor. It probably could benefit from some attention. Prenatal care in the United States was an article they created last semester. Biosthmors (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to academic publishing

Can anyone recommend a good book or other resource that describes and explains the academic publishing market today? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

from what perspective? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe User:DGG could assist you? —MistyMorn (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How many peers typically review an article submitted to a prestigious peer-reviewed journal; do they get paid and if so how much; are reviewers still usually anonymous; do all or only some journals charge the author to submit an article and if so is that determined by their quality? I guess those are my immediate questions; if anyone knows, you might save me some reading. But I'd also like to get an overview of the academic journal and textbook industry today. I'll post this at WP:RSN in a few days if no one's got this at the front of their mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

sounds like you should talk to an academic librarian. from what i understand, only having been on the submitting end of things a handful of times, reviewers by and large dont get paid (though editors may), reviewers are usually anonymous (never heard anything to the contrary), and most journals charge the author to submit an article ("editing fees"), though again, my experience might be atypical. unaware of any basic overviews like this, but if you find one it would be great if you could share the link(s). UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of your specific questions are easily answered. Policies vary, but typically a peer-review journal will send a submission to 2, 3 or sometimes even 4 unpaid reviewers who (in theory at least) have little to gain beyond prestige. In most journals reviewers are still anonymous, though BMC, for instance, have adopted signed reviews an open access reviewing processes allowing anyone to access the entire pre-publication peer-review documentation [24]. Others, such as PloS and BMJ group journals have more hybrid systems.[25][26] —MistyMorn (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We do have articles on peer review, on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and on their Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, plus wp:WikiProject Academic Journals, all of which would seem good resources. The Vancouver system article is in need of some care and feeding. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In recent years, the peer review process has been a hot topic in journals like the BMJ [27] and Nature. International conferences have been held since the 1990s [28], with the proceedings published either in journals like JAMA or as (expensive) books. A couple of books with (inexpensive) google previews here: [29][30]. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. That's given me plenty to be getting on with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For the submission to Open Medicine we received 3 reviews. They where anonymous but have agreed for us to release their comments under a CC BY SA license. Thus will be releasing them soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you let me/us know when that happens? Meanwhile, I've found A Guide to Academic Publishing: An Overview, Scholarly Paper, Peer Review, Etc by S. Dawkins. Should do the trick. Only $17.75 at Amazon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Dengue_fever#Formal_peer_review_by_Open_Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: James Norman

I've proposed James Norman for deletion. The article is marked as part of Wikiproject Medicine; the creator and major contributors have been informed. Additional input from uninvested Wikiproject Medicine editors is welcome. --Rhombus (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am finishing up a major rip-out of an enormous bunch of BLP violations. No secondary sourcing at all. This article needs help but probably not deletion. Zad68 14:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That ALCAT business again...

User:Plot Spoiler refuses to answer a straight gf query as to the existence of any COI with Cell Science Systems, the marketers of the ALCAT test, simply providing an edit summary that reads Ridiculous accusations that don't deserve a response [31]. Given this user's history (a previous username failed to meet Wikipedia's username policy because it was "that of a product or company" [32]) and editing habits I feel that the question is anything but ridiculous. Any suggestions on where to take it from here? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When pressed, the user has now stated: There is no COI [33]. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you confident pressing that issue is appropriate and part of Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest (even if it were a COI, but in this case it is only suspcious)? Biosthmors (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably didn't word my last post very well. No I wasn't confident, which was why I posted here. I found the refusal to answer my plainly worded civil question in the standard template I posted [34], per Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, both arrogant and suspicious. But the user has now stated There is no COI [35]. And I feel it's right to leave it at that now, with the answer on record. Hope that's clearer, —MistyMorn (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Our COI policy is useless and those who try to apply it need to break the much stronger "no exposing people" and thus those who do end up banned. I simply ignore the policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A thread at WT:MCB

FYI, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#scope_of_the_medicine_project

—MistyMorn (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pallidotomy - copyviol?

1. I think there is a problem of copyviol of this page;
2. Article says that this tecnique is not more used. Is it true?

Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Pierpao. The implicated text was added by an ip contributor in September 2009 [36] (based on the citation, the earliest possible date for the WebMD content would be 2007). Some reliable medical sources that could be useful include: a review from 2008 [37]; recent practice guidelines [38][39]; evidence summary from 2007 [40]. More at the TRIP database [41]. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you. A lot--Pierpao (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prego. I'll wait and see whether anyone else wants to intervene. Otherwise, I guess I'll see what I can do sometime next week. Saluti —MistyMorn (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Pathologic description needed for image caption.

This picture for use on the work in progress page rectal prolapse requires a caption. I contacted the original uploader (nephron) a few weeks ago, they don't seem to be around. Are there any pathologists that could make some general comments about the cells? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean other than "Low magnification micrograph showing microscopic changes consistent with rectal prolapse. H&E stain. The image shows a marked increase of fibrous tissue in the submucosa and fibrous tissue +/- smooth muscle hyperplasia in the lamina propria." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

yeah, other than that. TY for info I will put it into the new caption. 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Auto generate ref name from first author last name + year of publication?

^ Is there any way of doing this? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there is for Harvard referencing, using {{harv}} or {{harvnb}}, e.g. the wikicode {{harvnb|Tepi|2012}} generatesTepi 2012

These can be modified by the use of the |pages= parameter, or augmented by the use of the {{rp}} template. Adding para^[42] to the {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, etc in wp:LDR form should link it, as for {{cite web |last=Tepi |year=2012 |title=Auto generate ref name from first author last name + year of publication? |work=Wikipedia |date=2012 Oct 29 |ref=harv }}

I'm not aware of a specific wp:MEDMOS equivalent, though it may exist. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Same ref being added by a number of editors to a number of pages

This ref [43] is being added by User:Socialpsychra and User: Keyblade5 to a lot of pages. It is not pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Pubmed really the most relevant indexer for psychology journals, or are we getting into scope creep? Perspectives on Psychological Science is pretty high-impact (4.890 per JCR 2011), and it is held in the NLM, and even if it is not indexed on Pubmed it is indexed on several other services. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I content maybe reasonable. Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Addition_of_text_with_ref_which_is_none_pub_med_indexed Is this WP:DUE? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They'd still need to determine whether it is an independent, secondary source, and whether the edit uses the source appropriately (not cherry-picking, e.g.) I don't personally have the necessary full-text access to make such an assessment. I simply state that I would not reject it solely on the basis of the choice of journal, or that of the absence of Pubmed indexing. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colin- I am a student and part of the myoclonic epilepsy article you took a look at. I'm very confused by the plagarism issue. If the sources are cited then how it is plagarism? Some of parts of the article was 100% copied from a book but I thought that didn't matter as long as it was cited where we got the information from. Please let guide me in the right direction here. thank you R.EEGbrittry (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)