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 4 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

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,103	11,529	38,030	18,710	893	70,364

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Journal access needed

Global Asthma Network was recreated by an editor who first created it with copyvio, and it was speedied. The recently recreated version still has copyvio, but there is an OTRS tag on the talk page, indicating, I guess, that the same editor is affiliated with the Global Asthma Network and is releasing the wording from copyright ?? In other words, there may be a COI at work.

But of more concern, can someone with journal access check the text? I can't access the full journal reports, but I suspect:

1. Most, or many, of the sources are citing text unrelated to the Global Asthma Network, rather general text that is off-topic to this article. That is, how is notability met?
2. Original research may be present.
3. Because the editor's previous contribs have all been copyvio, I'm concerned that checks vs. the journal text should be done.

Side note, I am off for the morning, no time to address the spa owner who posted overnight on my talk and altered a previous post by Formerly 98 ... an hour or so will be needed to a) undo her alteration of 98's post, and then b) educate her on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which I don't have. (PANDAS is the subject of long-standing, off-Wiki, anti-SandyGeorgia recruiting, so I expect this will be time consuming ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected PANDAS. Which account was altering 98s posts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, Formerly 98 and Jacob for the help at PANDAS (there has long been a series of SPAs and IPs there, and according to the off-Wiki recruiting, SG is the nazi who protects the article, so more eyes and feedback are appreciated to take the heat off of MOI the Evil One :) This alteration of 98's post (now corrected by 98) was likely only because of a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but we also have this account name, which seems related to the IP and the spa owner, and then we have the other recent IPs editing the article, as well as User name Pandasisreal. I have just gotten home from a long day, so will focus on dealing with my talk page tomorrow. Thanks to all who helped, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Side note: I hope that whenever WP:Flow discussions appear, that the English Wikipedia doesn't choose to let IPs edit/vandalize the comments made by logged-in users. I don't think the setting needs to be admin-only (every wiki gets its own setting, and some other projects are choosing to use the admin-only approach), but this alteration wouldn't be possible if comments by experienced editors were basically semi-protected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump ... is anyone able to look at that article (Global Asthma Network, that is)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Student editing again (term-end)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is term-end, when poor student edits show up in time for grading. Can we get a list of articles hit, so we can later clean up? I am aware of so far: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Autism (FA, reverted as of now)

    Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Hearing loss (a complete mess, but some of the mess pre-dates students)

    Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Posttraumatic stress disorder (have not had time to look)

    Not done, primary sources, WP:UNDUE text, WP:MEDMOS should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

4. Quercetin (reverted earlier today and WP:3RR warning issued, with a user Talk page explanation) -- I am new watching the Wikiproject Medicine board and am unfamiliar with the practice you are referring to Sandy of (high school?) students being encouraged by teachers or thinking alone that entering content with weak English syntax and no observance of WP:MOS or WP:MEDMOS is a way to pass a school test. This is requiring significant effort and time to get a message through; is a screening/reverting tool available? Brief explanation of what you know please? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

    Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Some background. User:Jbmurray brought his class to Wikipedia years ago. And with the help of lots of long term Wikipedians produced some great results. The WMF put together a formal effort to encourage school to engage with Wikipedia. While Prof Murray is an expert Wikipedian and highly involved many of the subsequent teachers were not. A number of issues have occurred.

We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are officially working with UCSF College of Medicine. This is an intensive effort which involve myself and Jack among others giving a couple of days of lectures on how to edit Wikipedia in person. The students are also 4th year medical students. Results are promising but not scalable.

We have a fair number of other classes running projects without as much involvement from the core medical editor community. The prof with this class has however been open to feedback. Class ends Dec 23rd 2014.[1] Was also discussed above.

The student you bring up is not with that class. They are from Boston College per the urls they use to the inside net of their school. We need staff to help use with these students. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, except: " While Prof Murray is an expert Wikipedian and highly involved many MOST of the subsequent teachers were not." JBMurray's project took an enormous amount of community resources, and was successful because of his experience as a Wikipedian and the number of other long-time experienced editors who helped him produce several FAs. But it was an experiment that did not scale, yet was brought forward and publicized to such an extent that we now have hundreds of ill-prepared students adding content to medical articles alone. The students do not know how to communicate on Wiki, and never return to edit after their term ends (so attempts to bring them up to speed on Wikipedia policy and guideline are a waste of time). The profs LOVE IT, because they get free teacher's assistants (us). We get to check the edits for plagiarism, copyvio, sourcing, poor writing, the works. Profs rarely even weigh in.

Medical articles are particularly hard hit because of our stricter sourcing requirements, and because there were initiatives to get psych articles edited by students.

The WMF seems to have put out publicity that furthers this program (and other related Gender Gap bologna), but to my knowledge has been tongue-tied when it comes to press releases and internal recognition about the problems caused, particularly in the medical and psych realms. In fact, misinformation has several times come from the WMF. See WP:ENB. The Education Program has ruined editing for many long-time editors, myself included. I can no longer keep up with the bad edits, so I tune in at term-end to see what damage has been done, and hope I can correct a small bit of it.

There is a new trend in Wikipedia editing, where volunteer editor effort is deprecated, while WMF staff or WMF-sponsored programs rule. That is, paid editing dominates, and the rest of the on-the-ground nimwits get to clean up the messes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely appreciate your help following up on these students edits. Yes it is not scalable and this needs to be address. We basically need staff to take this one.

Basically we need copyeditors like those found at all reputable publishers. The question is who will pay? Will the school provide some funding? IMO they should. People pay for open access publishing, why not Wikipedia publishing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. Some of this is part of that women and health class, and some seems to be unrelated. I emailed the professor and one of the campus ambassadors. This class is in my city and I would like to support it. I am meeting the campus ambassador in person in a few days. If the professor would have me, I would meet them and the class too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks Blue. I have already recommended you to her. We have a start of a conversation on my talk page User_talk:Doc_James#BrooklynProf_-_Thanks_for_feedback Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this illuminating discussion. It seems instructors of university-level biology classes (or perhaps just one) are encouraging students to write/edit for Wikipedia. Although this is desirable for educational reasons, it's not helpful when those of us who take editing seriously have to repeatedly deal with the zeal and persistence of novice editors to have their content stick in the encyclopedia, so repeat insertion of content even with reverting and WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK warning continues. One novice user stated on his/her Talk page that the revisions were part of a biology assignment, creating the image that appearance of content on Wikipedia was evidence of acceptance and achievement for the course. This mess just perpetuates the problem, with no end in sight.

Fyi, Sandy, on the Quercetin page, even after considerable Talk page discussion and WP:3RR warnings within 24 hr, the student editor is back, so I am now moving to an Administrator's block request, a sad position to have to take. Now by reviewing the history of contributions, it appears that a team of students is inserting unqualified information into the article. --Zefr (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fully protected the article in question and restored to its previous state. A couple of them were plagiarizing content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Zefr, I'm sure that you didn't mean to imply that novice editors were only an inconvenience to "serious" ones. We were all novice editors once upon a time. I wouldn't be here if Arcadian hadn't quietly cleaned up my mistakes. Doc James probably wouldn't be here if JFW hadn't spent weeks talking about how to properly source material correctly. If we want new editors, then we have to be willing to help them along, just like people helped most of us along.

I would like to see more support from the schools (e.g., someone at the school checking for copyvios and plagiarism), but I also want novice editors, including student editors, to feel like Wikipedia is a place where their efforts to contribute productively are encouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The students from the most recent UCSF class said that they were interested in continuing editing. I will check in 3 months. I have not seen many students continue editing after the course ends. This is what makes it difficult.

Student appear to come for a mark rather than simply come to improve Wikipedia. They are externally rather than internally motivated and thus appear to be a different group of editors.

Yes we need the schools checking for copyvios or plagiarism. I would be even happy to set up a program where they could pay to have this done ( ie would hire and train people ) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A way forward?

I have been thinking about this today (after Guettarda bright it up) to see if there is a way of being proactive and making for a better environment for students. Perhaps if we draw up a list of articles that are significantly incomplete yet pretty broad - that students could easily find secondary sources with good material that is otherwise missing or otherwise unreferenced? That way (a) we get more articles improved, and (b) students don't get disheartened getting their edits reverted.....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know. I have just dealt with a lot of plagiarism. We also have a chemistry / pharmacy class. This is not scalable. We need staff. Building an encyclopedia is slow. It is not something a student can wipe off in two days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am trying to think how we can get the best out of this situation - we could direct them to prioritise taking a start or stub class article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cannot even figure out who this class is Indeloxazine. At least three copy and pasting [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about stubish articles though since that can give them too much free reign to try to write up a report (which we don't want) without having an article format there already. Students (or just new users in general) need a good series of examples of how Wikipedia works before they are turned loose on editing. I sat back and watched talk page discussions for many months before I ever made a single edit. That doesn't work so well for students though since their goal isn't really to contribute to Wikipedia, but get a grade. It's the answer that really isn't an answer, but I would say students need more structure here rather than just being given a list of articles that could use improvement. Whatever the case, definitely not an easy answer here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They need a couple of days of lectures on Wikipedia by someone who is experienced.

By the way the class is 19 PhD students Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Tricky then - maybe pointing them to a subject template? Part of me thinks that this isn't rocket science surely.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out if they received an instruction. Have sent one an overview of our guidelines. These educational efforts are not scalable. Here we are battling over the use of systematic reviews versus guidelines as sources and we have students adding dozens of animals studies that are primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually per Indeloxazine User:Formerly 98 tried but as the assignment is soon due they just continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 reverted a bunch of stuff with an edit summary that contains a relevant link. There are zero talk page discussions and zero personal messages to the new user. We have no reason to believe that the new editor has even looked at the history page, much less understood the edit summary.

I'm left thinking, "December: the time of year when all new editors working on an article about a drug are assumed to be students trying to get credit for a class, rather than shills for the pharmaceutical companies". It makes for some variety, but it's not a good attitude in either case.

People who are citing good-quality primary journal articles are usually doing so because they are real-world professionals who have some experience with writing peer-reivewed papers themselves. Our rule about using secondary sources is great for Wikipedia, but it is definitely not what medical and science professionals expect. Almost all of us have made that kind of mistake. Here's an example of someone citing a good-quality primary study on his second-ever day of editing, and if you look at the name at the top of that diff, I'm sure you will all agree with me that even people citing 1991 primary sources can turn out to be a good editor.

Perhaps our problem is that we're getting too many good new editors. If we saw a lot more people citing garbage blogs, then maybe we'd be properly grateful for the few who are citing the scientific literature.

If you want to help these editors, you need to go to their own user talk pages and leave personal messages. Thank them for what they're doing well and for caring enough to help. Explain that we have weird standards for sourcing. Offer to help. Don't just assume that reverting (however necessary that might be) is an effective way to engage and educate the newbie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course we want to welcome and guide them. I have done this for a dozen or so today. What I am asking is for is help.

Is this a PhD student in pharmacology? Yes definitely. The similarity with the rest in the class is unmistakable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To see why we get such problems, see Wikipedia:Training, with the more-or-less official introductory online training modules. These give the estimated time to complete the training:

• "Training for students: a four-part training intended for students doing assignments on Wikipedia, with more detailed introductions to core Wikipedia policies, editing basics, and more specific editing advice for students" - from p. 1 "In total, the four modules should take about one hour to complete."
• "Training for educators: a four-part training for professors and other educators who want to run Wikipedia assignments for class, with introductions to core Wikipedia policies, editing basics, and an overview of best practices for designing and implementing Wikipedia assignments" - "In total, the four modules should take about one to one-and-a-half hours to complete."
• "Training for Wikipedia Ambassadors: a four-part training for Wikipedia Campus and Online Ambassadors, with introductions to core policies and editing basics for those new to editing and an overview of best practices for Wikipedia assignments" - "In total, the four modules should take about one to one-and-a-half hours to complete."

- some of the "ambassadors" and the odd prof/instructor will have more experience than that, but it seems many won't. No wonder we get such poor results. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber surely the ratings system provides a rough approximation as to what articles need attention / improvement the most? We have 20,000 start and stub-class articles... surely students could be directed there? I think an obvious prerequisite for class editing would be to leave FA and GA-class articles alone?--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 the more I think about it the more I think we try and direct people to look at this group of articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean direct students to FA and GA? I think what SandyGeorgia is saying is that student editors do not always understand our editorial standards and so require a lot of scrutiny. At least if they were expanding some of our 20,000 start + stub class articles they will be quantitively expanded, bringing some new content to readers, rather than replacing or alering our existing GAs or FAs. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If they expand those underdeveloped articles, then we will just complain that they're working on "little-watched articles" and thus it is inconvenient for us to scrutinize their work (which will often be on pages that nobody really reads, either). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar WAID. But the problem is that their editing always requires review and work. I guess it is a question of whether any of us wants to work to integrate poor content into an already-developed article, or work with a less developed (and less complicated) context. It would seem to me that the latter is easier and students will have a higher chance of generating something that can stick - too often the new content plopped into existing articles duplicates other parts and is worse written and sourced, so just gets deleted - huge waste of time for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Really what we want is:

1) The students to paraphrase in easy to understand English

2) To use high quality secondary sources and format them properly

3) Follow the section ordering and language advice at WP:MEDMOS

4) Actually read the article they are editing to determine what it already covers

5) And finally not capitalized and bold every second word

Often they appear to be batting 0 for 5 and at that point it does matter what article they are working on. They however do get greater leeway on none FAs and GAs to play. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

agreed with that 100%. especially 5 :) the problem is that they don't.... and pointing them to stubs seems to me a way to reduce the work for us and maximize the chance of satisfaction for them of seeing something stick. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup and I have no idea how to get them to follow these 5 basic instructions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

examples

• Renal colic - 254 words..possible DYK there....
• Dyspepsia - big segments missing
• Encephalopathy
• Enuresis

Boston College and Barnard College student editor problems

Copied from User talk:Doc James, in response to the professor of the Quercetin article: We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work.

So, now, you are openly operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the silly klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the time I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Wikipedia editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ian (Wiki Ed) The professor described above is a Wikipedian who has been engaged and interested for years and the students are studying upper level health topics, and are the kind of audience which we want to have a good experience. There are significant problems with what the students did and I regret that students of this sort regularly are unable to navigate Wikipedia infrastructure to lead to students and Wikipedia functionaries having a mutually positive experience. If there is anything that you can do to help relieve tension here then it would be appreciated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blue, pls do not change section headings. I started this discussion so we could track in one place all of the cleanup needed as a result of this school term. One particular prof's course does not account for all of the articles listed. Also, the professor is not engaged; look at his contribs. He hasn't edited, pretty much, for two years, he isn't checking his students' edits for copyvio, he doesn't have a course page registered, we don't know who his students are or what articles they are editing, they aren't adding course templates to talk, and so on. NeuroJoe is completely disengaged. For that matter, we don't know if he ran the course in 2013. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns are serious. I do not know how to respond at this time. I made this section heading so that this discussion would be easier to find in archives, because "Student editing again (term-end)" does not convey the information that I need to sort for myself the nature of the problem. You have asked me in the past to quit changing section headings. I acknowledge that I continue to do it, but I commit to stay away from those you start. I apologize and will not do it again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Blue, no problem ... I just didn't want to lose sight of the numerous articles that may need repair, or the place to keep track of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I am seeing now that the title I chose does not reflect the multiple unrelated problems identified, and also includes the less or non-problematic case of Barnard College. I am not sure this can be sorted at all at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds discouraging, Blue :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are also discussing a third class of 19 students from Kentucky. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition to NeuroJoe's unregistered course, we still have to clean up, at least, after:

• Education Program:Brock University/NUSC 1P10 Professional and Therapeutic Communications (Fall 2014) (Hearing loss)
• Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2014) (Posttraumatic stress disorder)
• Some other unidentified course editing FA autism.

(WHEN will the Education Program understand this venture is killing volunteer editing?) Doc James, could you add the Kentucky course to the list above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Kentucky course also appears to be working under the radar. I have managed to send them instructions through one of their students. They stand out when you look at this list Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Doc James, I'm watching the time you are investing in those students and articles, and wondering when it is time to put together a list of the students, bypass the Education Program (who won't do anything anyway), and go to ANI and request they all be blocked per WP:MEAT. Your time is too valuable for this. They don't even know how to conduct talk discussions, and haven't identified their prof or course, and you've been at this for much too long already. When is enough enough? In times before the EP, this would have been blocked as meat puppetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If things do reach the point for any future student issues going to ANI too, I could see folks there opposing action just because they are students (i.e., be patient with them). I would hope citing WP:NOTTA that students don't get extra privilege compared to new editors and making clear attempts had been made to work with them to a reasonable degree would get the point across. I could see a gray area between some editors who would think a person didn't do enough to help students, where those of us who have dealt with "motivated" students at the expense of our time tend to have a little less patience when things get this problematic. Just something to be wary of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the solution is Sandy. Yes I would rather be editing content (been meaning to improve the lead of Alzheimer's and STIs. I do sort of feel that many schools take advantage of us. I assume that most of the time it is unconscious (except in the case of the U of T where I have a feeling that it was conscious). At UCSF I volunteer to be involved but I been sucked in on the rest :-)

I am beginning to believe that schools should be paying a fixed amount per student that funds teaching assistants that are shared between these classes. These teaching assistants would review edits and continuously reinforce the MOS and RS guidelines, as well as recommendations to write in basic English rather than technicalize. They would provide feedback to the prof and would have an effect on the students marks. (students would then take them seriously)

The question is what leverage do we have to enforce this? Maybe once up and running classes that are editing under cover can be simply blocked per meat. But I am not sure the wider community would go for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

King, it is time to put together a list of the years long issues that WPMED has faced with students. There are plenty of people who understand that we aren't dealing with "regular" editors, in the sense that these editors never stay on or come back, in spite of the significant investment of time we make in them. No amount of mentoring seems to make any difference. Doc's time is much too valuable for what he is doing here.

Doc, we have a log of multiple issues at the Education Noticeboard incident archive. If the ENB doesn't get a handle on this (and they haven't yet, so I don't believe they will), it is time to compose an RFC or a comprehensive post to ANI, for some new admin action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking into hiring a "teaching assistant". If we could get support that classes are required to use this service and provide some funding to support it that would be excellent. If classes do not would the community support that they will lose their ability to edit Wikipedia if problems occur? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive blocks of text rolling in

It appears that the time to hand in assignments is approaching. It appear that no one has taught these students about WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDHOW or WP:MEDMOS. Most of them have also not read the articles they are editing.

The reason being that most appear to be writing their articles in word perfect just like any standard paper and than dropping it into Wikipedia.

Here are a few (some okay, but all a lot of work) — Doc James 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• Equine therapy: has been hit a couple of years in a row.

•  Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Diabetes mellitus type 1 29,000 characters and better than most [3]

•  Done I started, found seriously outdated or primary sources (all in Society and Culture additions), began removing, then decided not enough to save, removed to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• ADHD They did not even bother reading what was there before hand User talk:Lizabetic

•  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anxiety disorder

•  Done out of time to be unpaid TA, all of this needs to be looked at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC) (done now. thanks for the difs. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

• Premenstrual dysphoric disorder [4]

•  Done. There was some proper use of MEDRS sources (one use of PMID 16417420), but almost all sources were primary and very outdated.[5] Reverted, tagged the miserable article, retained a MEDRS source added by students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Did some digging, found the course, Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014), absent prof, no course talk page tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anorexia nervosa 30,000 bytes of content into the middle of the article.

•  Not done This article is a complete mess (and was before student edits), and if we behaved responsibly in here, it would be reduced to a stub. Further, the new content added by the student uses primary sources (and badly at that) like PMID 19517577. I can't even find a decent version to revert to, but something needs to be done at that article, and it will take time and journal access. This is another Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014) project, with another absent prof (BrooklynProf)[6] and NO indication on the course page of which other articles we need to check for same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Systemic lupus erythematosus

•  Not done. Education Program:University of Ontario Institute of Technology/New Media Theory and Practice (Fall 2014), Prof Jaobar, and lots of cleanup needs. Some very old sources, MEDRS check needed, missing PMIDs make it very hard to check. Not enough time to fix this-- needs sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:SandyGeorgia and @User:Doc_James, I will take a look. --Jaobar (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Posttraumatic stress disorder

   Done, lots of problems still (see above) Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not get it, why do students SO LOVE capital letters? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

oh crap... Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Clitoridectomy, another mess from the same course (Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014)) with the missing prof (User:BrooklynProf)[7] ... and I'm only halfway down that course list. So far, I've found one article they edited that isn't a total mess (just relatively less bad, that is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Did what I could, copyvio check needed, tagged the article UNDUE because of extreme reliance on a couple of very old sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

These also coming in soon

• Dextrallorphan
• Norcocaine
• Osemozotan
• Hydroxybupropion
• Bromperidol (done, all copy and paste violations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Gabaculine
• Phenoperidine
• Xylazine (done. this one was horrible. blanked and redirected. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC))
• Eliprodil (done Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC))
• Halazepam (cleaned and tagged Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Tetrindole (done Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Fenclonine (done Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Omiloxetine (done Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Cyclorphan (done Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC))
• Talipexole (done Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC))
• Indeloxazine (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• Gavestinel (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• Benactyzine (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• TAS-102 (quick check done Jytdog (talk))
• 4-Hydroxyamphetamine (reverted the changes, buncha primary sources and badly formatted refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

For anyone who is interested. They also LOVE their caps and their primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been interested (and have known that) for three years :) By the way, please talk to Ocaasi about the ADHD edits ... it appears that he was part of this and she was part of that.

As I've long said, it's not only student editing; it's paid editing in here (whether students for a grade, profs for free TAs or staff for salary). Volunteer knowledgeable editors are just supposed to clean up for free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This question has probably been addressed numerous times before, but why exactly is the WMF promoting student editing in medical content if this happens with the vast majority of classes? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dollars, and jobs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a great idea in theory but not a good one in practice.
  • The opposite of Wikipedia (a great idea in theory but an okay one in practice)
  • These foundations are not on the ground dealing with the effects
  • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Barnard class is actively working on addressing the issues (we've been in communication with the people there), and Ian (Wiki Ed) has been helping with student articles, even ones not affiliated with our program. We'll definitely be doing a post mortem once the busy part of the term is over to change a few things to hopefully avoid some of these headaches for next term (for example, we had students from non-medical classes editing medicine articles, and so they were not sent to our medicine resources as we didn't have them flagged as med classes, which is clearly something we need to fix). But we're not actively encouraging more medicine classes to edit; rather, we're trying to provide support for classes who approach us, so that students can contribute in productive ways, as they do across many other disciplines. While there are a lot of problematic edits coming from classes unaffiliated with Wiki Ed, those classes are operating independently, and I don't think it's fair to say Wiki Ed is not "on the ground", because we are in there working with student editors, as are many other community members. We're trying to figure out a way of making it more obvious to all community members which issues our staff will be prioritizing, so volunteers who want to help can concentrate on the non-Wiki Ed classes. Again, I'll post an update here in a few weeks once we've determined the changes for next term. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed). By not on the ground I mean that I have not see people from the Foundations fixing references and providing feedback to the students involved on Wikipedia.

I agree many of the issues are with classes run outside the Foundations. My apologies as I do not mean to misdirect my frustrations toward these programs. Especially since these programs do not have any greater authority over these classes than we do and are providing support behind the scenes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another course

• Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014)
• Cshanesimpson, prof, another example of a prof who is not engaged, and the course page is incomplete, so we don't know how many or what articles are affected.

Scores of articles, including:

• Eating disorder not otherwise specified, unsourced text being added, poorly formatted.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the prof did training as a trainer for WP editing yesterday Difference between revisions, after, as far as I can see, 2 edits to article space. We run (very good) similar courses in the UK, but restricted to about 10 participants, all of whom are normally highly experienced. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

cool ... prof did training yesterday, course page isn't filled out, students have been adding text all semester, and we have a webcast up with even more recruiting going on, kool-aid drinking with no mention of the problems we're facing in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

oh AN3 report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And now effectively meat puppetry, with another student from the same class reverting my MEDMOS order of section correction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reached out to the professor to make her aware of the situation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Helaine for contacting me regarding this issue. Many professors are monitoring student pages, but would like to hear from the community when these issues occur. The Wikipedia-editing assignment has been completed for this course and students are no longer editing as part of the course. Consequently, we likely have some "rogue" editors that I will follow up with personally. Cshanesimpson (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And another

• 148.166.169.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 207.210.135.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:Neuroassignment

Doesn't appear to be User:NeuroJoe students are at Sacred Heart University

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

With respect to how to prevent this from happening again is being drafted here Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_A Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We are outnumbered

It appears that we are outnumbered at least 100 to 1.[8]

Massive amount of plagiarism with no one cleaning it up. Have proposed a mass roll back. Please comment there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to thank them for their good edits

Most of the edits are good. While you're dealing with the chaos, don't forget to thank students for their good edits.--^Melody _Lavender 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another

Now that I understand more about how to use the Education Program interface, this just popped up:

• Education Program:University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2014)

Indicating Sleep hygiene as a new Good Article (Talk:Sleep hygiene/GA1); I see multiple issues, including term-paper/essay-like statements, uncited text, very old sources, and WP:LAYOUT issues (eg WP:MSH and more).

Is there a lower GA standard for students? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure nuff. From the course page: "Submit your article to Wikipedia’s “Did You Know?” feature. Try to get “Good Article” status. Not all will be accepted of course, and that’s okay. Extra points if yours gets in, though." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunset Yellow FCF

Could use some eyes on this. We have an edit-warring, fairly new editor who thinks that health effects of food coloring is not a health related issue, but rather is "sociopolitical" so is not subject to MEDRS sourcing. thx. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In future, let the other editor (me) know when you go canvassing support on project noticeboards please. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And calling me "edit warring" when I reversed one edit compared to the numerous edits you reversed is a bit rich! You have a very combative style, JYtdog. MLPainless (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As you've been warned before MLPainless, these talk boards are not the place to quip about editor behavior (again focus on content not contributor). Also it isn't inappropriate to post at related Wikiprojects asking for more eyes from uninvolved editors. If there was actually discussion going on here that would be one thing, but if anyone did as asked and came to the article, you'd know about it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless I did mention I would go to a board and you said OK. I am sorry for not posting a link that I actually did it and for doing it here instead of WT:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Feingold diet and using Quackwatch as a source

has turned into a bloated monster... oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lanced the bloat, wondering if there's a source which places this diet is a historical context but don't have library access today. 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the use of Quackwatch as a source for medically oriented articles. See my comment here MLPainless (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just follow MEDRS. Quackwatch does not make the grade. MLPainless (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We use Quackwatch and Science Based Medicine all the time to deal with non-mainstream topics, where the regular scientific literature generally doesn't go into depth. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You mean you? It is extremely unwise to use Barrett's blog as a source of scientific comment. This should be prohibited, and the prohibition added explicitly to MEDRS. Doc James? MLPainless (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been repeatedly found so be okay for fringey health topics at WP:RS/N. So far as I can tell the "mainstream" lost interest in this diet in the 1980s, and it has enjoyed a kind of populist zombie existence since then (mixing in things like flouridation conspiracies) as subsequently covered in Quackwatch. We're not sourcing anything at all weighty to QW. Would be happy if other mainstream sources existed (which is why I was asking about something for historical context above). But do they? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the example Igave above (CFS) shows why we cannot use QW as a source. Really, need I say more? MLPainless (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The community consensus tends to be otherwise:

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus changes. I'm relating data that shows it's an unreliable source. CFS was already acknowledged in the literature while Barrett continued with the "debunking" of CFS on his blog. We had a long argument about it. So now I'm giving you this new information. And as Keynes said "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" MLPainless (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the worth of QW's take on CFS, but even assuming you're right, the logic that any publication that was ever imperfect becomes unreliable in toto would see us throwing out an awful lot of prestigious journals! The use of QW for the Feingold diet is fine, but if there are better sources then bring them forth! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been used extensively as a reliable source here, and should continue to be used as such. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is an indication it's not reliable for MEDRS level content, but isn't as much of an issue when describing fringe topics for reasons described above because it has a relatively good reputation in that specific area. Not all content will be based on journal articles (although the bulk of it will be in this field). Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A pseudoscientific source is unreliable for all encyclopedic content. -A1candidate (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

you are going to have to fight that out with Arbcom, A1. This isn't the place, unfortunately. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to fight but to reach for consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a fine self published source for alt med topics, when appropriately in-text attributed. It's reputation for fact checking (the requirement for passing WP:V) is borne out by the fact that multiple high quality sources themselves use it as a source or praise it. The position that Quackwatch itself is pseudoscientific is nonsensical. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is non-peer reviewed, has no impact factor and is not indexed by any scientific databases. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many other sources we consider reliable for Wikipedia (even in med articles depending on the specific content) fall within that category too in general. The qualities you are referring to are metrics for journal articles. We're not talking about a journal article here and we don't limit ourselves strictly to journal articles for all content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So can we agree that Quackwatch is not a scientific journal? It is a blog; a self-published website. -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine for the specific use here as has been mentioned on this page and in the multiple RSN, etc. links. It seems your concerns have been addressed there already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

QW as a pseudoscientific source was not addressed. -A1candidate (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One link above even had using it for such topics (quackery, pseudoscience, etc.) in its title [9] . . . The general consensus in all those has been that QW can be reliable for describing fringe content. I'm really not seeing where the legitimate opposition is at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A1, you have to know when to walk away. Nobody here is going to be interested in overturning arbcom (and for that, I am not even sure we can - please see WP:CONEXCEPT) nor interested in rejecting QW or SBM for the things where it is so useful. You are getting no traction; please drop the stick. I won't be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the link Kingofaces43 provided, many editors said it should be only be used on a "case by case basis". -A1candidate (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see us using QuackWatch a lot less. It may be useful in a few cases, but it tends to be used "because I like it" rather than "because there are no other good sources".

I have seen a few editors over the years who cite QuackWatch as their first choice, even when much better (e.g., peer-reviewed review articles) are available. If you're here to make sure the world knows that you're opposed to ineffective quackery, then citing QuackWatch is a way of showing your credentials. If you're here to write an encyclopedia, then you'll look for other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I have with QW isn't its reliability or lack thereof, it's the name, particularly in the article text, particularly in the lead. No matter how on-point the content might be, the name immediately casts a pejorative light on the subject which makes NPOV harder to maintain. Basie (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is unevenly applied on Wikipedia and often comes back to, I like it here and everyone uses it rather than what are the best sources we can find in health related articles. I agree also that the source title Quackwatch colours an article's tone immediately.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

I agree. (I think that implicit pejorative tone is actually why some editors like using that source.) In the instant case, I'm not sure why anyone cited it. It supports statements like "the diet omits these chemicals", which just about any source on the subject will support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing said here changes the arbcom ruling, or the usefulness of Quackwatch and SBM for calling pseudoscience, pseudoscience. They are both useful sources. Yes they need to be used with care. But they have their place in the MEDRS world. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IGNORE. This is a good situation to invoke that. -A1candidate (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I looked over the Arbcom ruling, and if you interpret it as an endorsement of Quackwatch, then it is a remarkably tepid one. The end result is mostly "Oops, we didn't mean to issue a ruling on content", not "Quackwatch is a reliable source!". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a source to be used with care (i.e. in-text attributed for the most part, used sparingly, etc). When better sources are available (i.e. journal articles) I agree that we should replace when appropriate. However, QW is a notable (in the general sense) alt med source, which has been widely cited and praised as a useful resource. For some alt med articles, it can be so fringe that QW may be one of the only available source to place it in context to the medical use outside in-universe alt med sources (which is specifically how WP:PARITY is to be used). In the end, since it is widely praised and used by other reliable sources, we should not have a blanket claim that it can't be used. Yobol (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you Yobol, I have been trying to remember that WP:PARITY link. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We have MEDRS-sources so there's no need to use QW. -A1candidate (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is a pseudohistorical revisionist nonsense, that often use fake citations. It has inspired a number of irrelevant crackpot theorists(at least 2 other websites) who would copy the same fake citation for backing their opinion without ever looking into the source. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is essentially one person, Stephen Barrett, now 81 years old. What do we know about him? I did a little research and found a page at www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm that has some interesting data on him (I cannot post the link here because WP bans links to the site, probably because it is not a RS itself). I think everyone here supporting the use of Quackwatch as a source needs to be aware who Barrett really is. If any of the info on that page is true, QW should be immediately removed from the project as a source. MLPainless (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It has a form of peer-review. QuackGuru (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

From the not-linked site above: "And worse, the "double-blind study" is considered to be heinous, and was banned by world government during the Helsinki Accord in 1964."

Happy to agree quackpotwatch is not a RS itself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is a guideline not a policy and we are supposed to use common sense in interpreting it. Some editors, I think, interpret its scope too broadly. Do we say we cannot write about famines because starvation is a medical issue? If a theory is notable but ignored by the medical experts then we need other sources such as news reports or social science papers. For example, when writing about anti-fluoridation activists, we need to use these types of sources, because medical experts do not write about activists, they merely write about the medical effects of fluoridation and other rs rely on their medical opinion. TFD (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It would appear Barrett is currently on the receiving end of a lawsuit by "Doctor's Data" that seems to be moving successfully against him, with punitive damages of $20M ... more at www.bolenreport.com MLPainless (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That is relevant how? You do realize anyone with enough money can file a lawsuit, irrespective of the merits of the case? a13ean (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is also why we don't typically include lawsuits in Wikipedia content until there is a result to use as weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And courts decide all kinds of strange things (especially, it seems, in the US). It's hardly going to change the mainstream view that the healthcare offerings of Doctor's Data are ... suspect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yah, last year Doctor's Data was still advertising provoked heavy metal testing, and their website said: Analysis of the levels of toxic metals in urine after the administration of a metal detoxification agent is an objective way to evaluate the accumulation of toxic metals. One cannot draw valid conclusions about adverse health effects of metals without assessing net retention. […] To evaluate net retention, one compares the levels of metals in urine before and after the administration of a pharmaceutical metal detoxification agent such as EDTA, DMSA or DMPS. The last three are chelation agents, and this whole statement needs a great big {citation needed}. The scientific community agrees that serum and urine heavy metals can be used to diagnose heavy metal poisoning, but NOBODY in the mainstreams believes that standards exist for "provoked testing" where you give a chelator and THEN test levels in the urine. But Doctor's Data was doing that, and forgetting to tell their clients that their test result levels of "high" could only be read for the non-provoked state, and that all bets were off if you'd been given a chelator (after which everybody excretes more). The tests results were then invalid, and in my opinion and Barrett's could be expected to lead to false diagnosis of heavy metal poisoning. Barrett in 2010 caught Doctor's Data doing this, and wrote about it. Doctor's Data threatened to sue him unless he retracted. He said "What am I supposed to retract? You know full well your tests are not valid under chelator provokation-- nobody's are." So they sued him. The case has dragged on through deep comprehensive discovery, which is designed to bankrupt. I think somebody is hoping the judge isn't sophisticated enough to understand the difference between provoked and unprovoked mercury urine levels, even with Barrett's lawyers trying to explain it. Doctor's Data even had some "hired gun" chemists testify that urine mercury testing is scientific, without explaining the fine details of when it is scientific (unprovoked), and when it isn't scientific (when done like Doctor's Data recommended). And that's what's happening.

Oh, and Tim Bolen has been following the whole thing as though it was a college rape allegation, and he was Rolling Stone. Meanwhile, Doctor's Data has taken down the wording above, and you can't find it on their website in 2014. But they did that quietly, without admitting anything. Now they say: [10] Additionally, the comparison of urine element concentrations before and after administration of a chelator can be used to estimate net retention of potentially toxic elements. Subsequent urine element analyses, also following the administration of a chelator, are useful for monitoring the efficacy of metal detoxification therapy. That's language not as strong, but it still requires a big {citation needed} because in the opinion of myself and the mainstream literature, there is no science behind it. SBHarris 06:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Barrett and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

I detailed above how I had an email argument with Barrett, the 81-yr old behind QuackWatch, in the 1990s about Chronic fatigue syndrome. In those days, his site stated openly that CFS was nothing more than a scam. That's how he put it. That's despite the fact that there was already a lot of published science on CFS at that time. Modern medicine has proved beyond doubt that CFS is real, as screeds of research shows.

I went back today to see if Barrett has updated his views. It seems he has stepped back from his idiocy, but not far. He is still referring to CFS as a "fad" diagnosis. [11]. He states now that in order to be diagnosed with CFS, the following needs to pertain: "fatigue persists or recurs for at least six months and is severe enough to reduce the patient's activity level by more than half. In addition, the fatigue should be accompanied by several other symptoms, such as severe headaches, low-grade fever, joint or muscle pain, general muscle weakness, sleep disturbance, and various psychological symptoms."

Unfortunately, he is incorrect again. The CDC has a definitive list of diagnostic criteria here that does not quite agree with Barrett's. Barrett's (pejorative methinks) reference to "various psychological symptoms" is a hangover from his days of outright denial, when he told me the whole thing was a scam and probably just a psychological problem with the patient.

So not much has changed. A dinosaur remains a dinosaur! MLPainless (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) -- advice of major medical bodies vs EBM

Remember that discussion we had at WT:MEDRS about advice of major medical bodies vs EBM? The conflict is breaking out at Oseltamivir. Doc James is elevating the Cochrane perspective that there is no real evidence to use this drug, over the advice of pretty much every major infectious disease medical body on the planet. He is not providing any sources that there is even a controversy. This, to me, is exactly the WP:ADVOCACY for EBM that I was describing at WT:MEDRS and in my view this violates our obligations under WP:NPOV to actually present the mainstream view with the most weight; it is just off track. Thoughts, other eyes on the article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is is unheard of a Cochrane review is not reliable enough for the lede. To satisfy NPOV we can summarise different points of view in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer. The question is weight in this article and the basis for elevating cochrane reviews over pretty much every major infectious-disease body on the planet. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm as big a fan of Cochrane as the next guy, but one source cannot overrule every other medical source out there. If Cochrane comes to a conclusion and the wider medical community rejects it, we have to put the weight of the article with the community, not with Cochrane just because it carries that name. Yobol (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review was not being used to overrule other sources. When sources disagree we can include both. The Oseltamivir#Efficacy section can be summarised in the lede. This includes a summary of the Cochrane review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem using it in the text of the article, but since it basically goes against most of the rest of the medical community, I don't think it deserves to be in the lead. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This version seems fair to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseltamivir&oldid=637069978 And this entire discussion belongs on the article talk page in my opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and this is not true QG. until today the Evidence (e.g Cochrane} section was first, and far longer, and buried and sandwiched, the statements by the major medical bodies. Clearly given way more weight. Compare the version before my edits today and the current version. Formerly, I opened this discussion b/c Doc James and I were getting into an edit war and I wanted more voices and eyes. But yes, I will stop responding here. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly the situation. But better on the talk page agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

? yes exactly the situation. but we are working it out there, i think.... Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Spam

I don't know if all of you have noticed, but there's a WMF survey underway. The link is in your watchlist notices or here: http://www.allourideas.org/wikimediagadgets There's more information on Meta.

It's pairwise comparison of possible tools (like HotCat) that people might like to see available everywhere/improved/made into a permanent part of MediaWiki software/things like that. The way the survey works is very simple: it offers you a pair of options and you pick your favorite, as many or as few times as you want. Our medical translators and editors working at multiple wikis might particularly want to have their say, since one likely outcome is taking a tool in use here at the English Wikipedia and making it available everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oseltamivir

Please see Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC:_WP:WEIGHT_in_the_Oseltamivir_article_given_direct_contradiction_between_Cochrane_review_and_the_consensus_of_medical_authorities Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Keloid

Could someone take a look at Keloid Disorder and Keloid and figure out how best to get a single article on this topic? As indicated by Talk:Keloid Disorder, the doubling arose over this disputed revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Great pictures. But requires work. Have tried to pull it into line Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Autism edits

Subtle (see link to child abuse): [12] Gobs of edits, removing ASD and linking to autistic which is a redirect to autism spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

reported to AIV;[13] too redirects many for me to fix, and with two instances of subtle vandalism, there may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, but I can't fix all that.[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All fixed by the blocking admin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on Neurobiological effects of physical exercise - need some quick feedback on coverage

Like the header says, I'm working on this article in order to bring it up to GA-quality. I need to source or re-source a lot of content, and probably cut a fair bit of the preclinical content which now has clinical evidence. I'd like feedback on the scope/topics included in this section on the talkpage: Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#Work in progress. Is anyone aware of any additional topics that are worth covering in the article that I haven't indicated in the bullet next to a citation? (note: these citations are all current medical reviews on humans)

I'd appreciate any feedback/thoughts. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: @Jytdog: In deference to our conversation at MDMA, I'm limiting quotes to ~250 words; larger quotes create a reference tooltip that is too big for some screens, so I'm not going anywhere near the 500 word limit that concerned you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

) lovely person, you. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IMS is back

So the former WikiCorrect-Health account has been renamed to Protein1EFN and it looks like IMS wants to get moving. (this was discussed a while back, archive is here). But briefly, IMS main business is providing intelligence/reports about the pharmaceutical industry - they are a big established company with a good name - and they want to start offering clients a service editing WP articles. Their first (awkward, badly handled) edits were to the Transcranial magnetic stimulation article, which one or more of their clients apparently wanted improved. The editor(s) at IMS made several mistakes, but I have emailed and spoken with the guy running that division, and he says that they very much want to do things right, especially so that they do nothing to harm IMS' good name. (their self interest is to our benefit, here)

Beginnings are fragile times, and I think that for everybody's benefit it would be useful to think about how to structure their work here so that it is as transparent and compliant with Terms of Use, policies, and guidelines as possible. I am copying and editing a comment I made on that account's Talk page, to open a wider discussion.

Every employee who edits WP for IMS needs an individual account, that only he or she uses. WP accounts are personal. They can be anonymous with regard to the person, but they need to be used only by one person. With regard to work each of those individuals does in WP via his or her account, per the Terms of Use, the fact that he or she works for IMS, the client or clients on behalf of which the work is being done, and any other affiliation needs to be disclosed (ideally on the relevant article Talk page, and on the editor's User page). And they should agree to follow the WP:COI guideline rigorously - no direct editing of articles, but rather, changes suggested on the article Talk page with an edit request template. And ideally, somebody from IMS will disclose all the accounts someplace central, and it would also be useful if the boss would provide a way to contact him or her here in WP, so that problematic edits by employees can be reported (as well as being handled primarily by our own processes - blocking, etc). I think there are probably two main ways to structure this.

• set up something like a course page - here is an example: Education_Program:Brock_University/NUSC_1P10_Professional_and_Therapeutic_Communications_(Fall_2014) - these are project pages, where all the participants are listed and all their edits are logged and tracked, and there is clear contact information there for everybody involved and for the responsible individuals. I have no idea how that would be created or what Project (if any) would "host" it. We could also set up some kind of banners/templates for easy use/labelling....
• list all accounts and activities on the boss' user page, and have each employee link to that page, on their user pages.

There may well be other or better ways to ensure transparency and allow the community to track/audit their work.

I am posting a notice of this discussion at WP:COIN, too. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can set up a Wikipedia-space "project page", as I've done for my Wikipedian-in-Residence roles at Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK and Wikipedia:WikiProject Royal Society. As you say, where COI is a concern it is key that this lists the editors involved. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have no judgment on this proposal, but if anyone would like to explore the Wikipedia Education Program's software interface, training starts at Wikipedia:Education program and goes on with a request for a userright at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. I help people use this interface. Anyone with an affiliation with WikiProject Medicine is welcome to contact me for a tour of the functionality of it.

This software was designed to be used by professors with classes in universities. In my opinion, it could be used by a Wikipedian overseer to manage any group of new editors, but this software has never been used outside the context of school groups so the first people to try this will likely encounter some bumps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The safeguards look good as far as they go, we may want to go further. I'm concerned about the sentence "they want to start offering clients a service editing WP articles," which suggest that they will be advertising the service, and will in some ways parallel WikiAds (whatever the name was) or similar services. I guess the minimum safeguards would be to properly explain WP policies, ToU, and guidelines to their customers and to insist that if the service itself did not post the proposed changes in favor of letting the client do so, that the client must disclose as a paid editor, i.e. IMS must police its customers on this. That is pretty hard to do, but I think we have to insist, otherwise the service just becomes a ToU avoidance scheme. I may have more concerns later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones thanks for your input, and for watching this. Yes I have been trying to communicate to them the realities of editing WP - that no one can make a good faith promise with regard to any given edit "sticking" or staying stable. So far they ~seem~ very earnest about wanting to be transparent and abide by all policies and guidelines. We'll see how this goes! Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think they should need to disclose who is paying them. They declined to do so last time I asked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

agreed - transparency and full compliance with the Terms of Use is going to be essential if this is not going to turn into a disaster all around. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't keep up with what the Education Program is doing to med articles, and now more paid editing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I completely hear you. IMS appears to be committed to doing this and to following the rules, which means that they will post edit requests on Talk pages. If their edits suck (in any of the myriad ways that edits can suck), it will take one of us forever to get around to implementing it, and their business will fail. It will be in their interest to learn, as quickly as possible, what kind of edits will fly, which will be DOA, and which will be marginally OK but maybe promotional (which type will also languish since nobody respectable among us will want to be tarred with implementing PROMO content). The only way they can make their business really workand be transparent, is to make really high quality, truly NPOV suggested edits. That is my perspective at least. It has real potential to lead to a win-win. (it also has real potential for them to fill Talk pages with crap suggestions which will languish... but that will not last long). I think the potential for IMS to start doing stealth paid editing is very low. They are a real company, not a baloney outfit like the paid editors we have been plagued with. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You assume there are enough of us to monitor them. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

i hear you on that. i intend to keep a close eye on them, and to set things up so that it easy to do so. not everybody will want to. but i really think the worst potential outcome here is going to be Talk page clutter, if their proposed edits are bad. How do you see this potentially harming articles? They propose crappy content and unsophisticated editors implement? I am sorry that you are distressed. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

and it may be that the community says "no thank you". I don't know, actually, how we could do that, though. Is there a way to stop them, if they want to do this? Would we want to? (I haven't asked those questions b/c I didn't think it was possible to prevent them if they are going to do this; and it seemed best to be set things up with the best possible chance of success. maybe i have my head up my ass somehow. if so please tell me!) Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Efforts to stop them could include the NYTs and FDA. Companies do not like bad press. And the FDA does not like covert advertising. But I do not think we are at that point yet. I am okay with them providing feedback on the talk page. If they do so poorly like they have in the past than my hope is the community will have no issues with us ignoring them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks doc james. those would be relevant after they started, and only if they acted badly. i meant, i don't see any way to prevent them from starting. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am a little bit concerned about what I might call "COI-laundering" (for lack of a better term). I expect that there will be a certain lack of transparency about the nature of the commitments or representations IMS will make to their clients versus the disclosures that are made to Wikipedia, and a certain additional amount of nudge-nudge wink-wink about what IMS might formally commit to on paper versus what IMS might be expected by a paying client to do.

Aside from a certain amount of common-sense cynicism, I base this on situations and responses like this one, from the original Transcranial magnetic stimulation kerfuffle: [15]. (At the time, Protein1EFN – editing under his old username or sometimes while logged out – made a series of edits which added positive studies and removed or soft-pedalled critical material. I offer no specific evaluation here of the appropriateness of the material or the changes to the article's slant.) I was quite troubled by the response that Doc James got in response to his query about who had funded or requested the changes. The IMS employee averred that no one had specifically requested or paid for the changes, but that the topic had come up at an IMS workshop dedicated to IMS' new Wikipedia editing program, where they had "received requests from the industry"—whatever that means.

Are we likely to encounter similarly-vague and evasive responses in the future? As a representative of..."industry", will I be able to launder my conflict of interest and avoid disclosure of my connection to any Wikipedia edits by not paying for specific edits, but just paying to attend a "workshop" where I can share a word to the wise? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

*First I'd say that the FDA is not going to stop them because as near as I can say they are following the FDAs guidance to a "T" (and in my humble opinion, anyone participating in this discussion should read that document immediately if they have not already). I think they've made a good faith effort to get into compliance, and as near as I can tell the "addition of positive information and removal of negative information " that occurred consisted entirely of updating and correcting mischaracterizations of what cited sources actually said. Maybe I'm just a voice in the wilderness here, but I find the level of concern here striking given how casually we allow unidentified IPs, those engaged in litigation against manufacturers, and activists of all sorts to edit at will. As I documented here on a prior thread, the. TMS article was more accurate after they edited it than before. Thats more than you can say for about half of randomly chosen edits to medical articles here. Forty percent of SSRI edits and 43 percent of Tylenol edits are by IPs. I find this obsession with a self identified entity that is subject to FDA sanctions if they post anything that is incorrect difficult to understand.

I'll be way too honest here and say the following: Given the reception of hostility and suspicion that I've seen directed toward this group that seems to be self-identified, legally obligated to present information accurately, and sincerely trying to follow the rules, in addition to the hostile response I recieved when I first started editing here and attempted to correct inaccuracies on the fluoroquinoline articles, I would not recommend this path to anyone. If a friend of mine noted that horribly inaccurate information about his company or her organization had been posted here, I'd suggest that they just go find a local Starbucks, log on, and fix it as an IP. Because unlike many who attempt to approach Wikipedia in a spirit of transperancy, IP's are welcome or at least much more likely to be left alone. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

mm I hear you but how does this help manage IMS' potential presence here?

::::What I'm saying is that everyone ought to try to relax a little bit. Corporate <> evil. All this intensity and suggestions of "covert advertising" and "insist that they leave comments on the Talk page only, and then ignore those comments" are way over the top based on any behavior that has been seen so far. We have openly SPA accounts that operate here daily, and they are not under legal obligation from the FDA to 1) present materially truthfully, and 2) only correct unfavorable incorrect information if they also correct any favorable incorrect information found in the same article. An no one has insisted that they be restricted to leaving comments on the talk page, and that maybe it would be best if we then ignored those comments.

In contrast to strong reaction to IMS, I have on many occassions posted here requesting for help with SPAs posting blatantly inaccurate information on medical articles and gotten no response. I think people need to think about consistency and what their underlying assumptions are. Based on the current reactions, they seem to be that posting inaccurate negative information about drugs is just fine, but ANY post by a corporate entity is a bad thing, even if it makes the article more accurate. But deaths caused by information that is too negative don't offset those from excess pharmaceutical promotion, they're just more deaths. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so you just wanted to rant a bit. :) fwiw, everybody knows that WP:ADVOCACY sucks and destroys articles, and everybody knows that it is damn hard for the community to manage conflicts generated by editors with ADVOCACY issues. I hope you are aware that there have been acres of pixels blackened with discussions about paid editing/COI blah blah blah. That happens to be what we are faced with, with IMS. I think we have a responsibility to manage the problem, and I think the better we manage it, the more we increase the chance of a decent outcome. If you want to part of that, it would be great. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades thanks for commenting! Doc James was very clear above (as was I), and I have been very clear to the program head there in e-mails (and have sent him a link to this thread), that if IMS users do not fully comply with the ToU (which means actually disclosing their clients) they will get blocked in a heartbeat and their program will fail. No dancing around the ToU. I am fully committed to ensuring that and to seeing them shut down if they try to fudge it. This only works with transparency. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes so far I have not been impressed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Siva Nadarajah, General Manager at IMS Health. My division manages the Wikipedia contribution service at IMS Health. Thank you so much for all your valuable input and discussions around our presence here. First and foremost, I'd like to apologize for the wrong start. I can clearly see my team has made serious mistakes and violated some of the policies of Wikipedia. I'd like to confirm and give assurance that we are very committed to follow the rules of Wikipedia. We'd like to propose the following: Please let us know if any of you have concerns around our approach.

1) We will create individual accounts for each and every editor who will be contributing. These accounts will be tied to the individual's IMS company email account. In the event of the employee's departure from the company, we will deactivate the account so that the person does not use the account outside of IMS Health.

2) We will disclose our clients in each and every edit request. That is actually required by FDA (based on the 2014 guidelines). IMS is legally obliged to do this.

3) We will create one master account for IMS Health and list all individuals who will be contributing. This account will be tied to a single email account within IMS Health(example: wikipedia_master@imshealth.com). This account will be not be allowed to make any edits or suggestions. I don't want this account to be tied to a person because people may not stay with the company forever.

Please let me know your thoughts. Also, if it makes easier to have a call, please send me an email.

Thank you so much and I really appreciate all of you spending your valuable personal time cleaning up the mess we created. Siva Nadarajah --Nadakumar (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

CME for WikiProject Medicine Contributions?

I'm still very new here, and this may well have been suggested in the past. I was wondering if others in the community thought it would attract more contribution from the medical community if WikiProject Medicine were to offer Continuing Medical Education (CME) for some unit of contribution. This would be analogous to UCSF's program of offering course credit to medical students for WikiProject Medicine work. Most health care professionals have to do some version of CME to maintain their licensure and board certification (MD, DO, NP, PA, RN/BSN, PharmD, etc.) so I think a broad range of contributors could potentially be attracted to helping out. Might need to work with the AMA or some other CME-certifying body to design the initiative. What do others think? Thanks. Carlos Rivas (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For Canada we can currently claim M2 CME credits for Wikipedia (but one can use nearly anything for M2)

I looked into applying for the more valuable M1 CME credits. The amount of bureaucracy is such one would really need staff for the application.

If you are interested in taking this on you have my support. We also have the option of taking Wikipedia articles to a professional standard followed by publication such as for dengue fever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But for publication, now that Open Medicine is closed we don't have a currently functioning journal to publish in with the exact licensing as used by Wikipedia. Doc James (and all of these following questions aren't directed only to you), I wonder if we could somehow get by with just using an open license (BMJ Open uses CC BY-NC) instead of the exact type of open license that Wikipedia uses. Why can't Wikipedia editors decide to publish something CC BY-NC that has already been published CC BY-SA? Why can't we also decide to release it under a different open license? Does that open editors up to liability from WP:WMF legal? Or do they just not look kindly on this idea? I'm curious. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

JMIR is interested in publishing Wikipedia articles and uses a compatible license. Open Medicine may be still sort of functional. The "SA" means that we cannot change the license to CC BY or CC BY NC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I believe that it is possible to re-license your own work under as many terms/conditions/etc as you wanted. However, I don't think that you can re-license someone else's work (ever, because you don't own it), and unless the article was written entirely by you (from a copyright perspective; typo fixing and formatting is irrelevant for this determination), then you can't release someone else's work under a different license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. The license you grant over your contributions in the editing window small print is fixed and irrevocable: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution" (just above "save page", my bold). But it may be worth exploring if journals a) insist on a single exact license, like the English Wikipedia with text, or b) have a minimum level of openness, but are flexible above that, like Wikimedia Commons. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that you can't offer additional licenses; that only means that you can't stop offering CC-BY-SA to the world. See c:Commons:Multi-licensing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multi-licensing is the relevant one here, and you can only vary the license to use some other similar form by another lot of license writers, or to remove the SA aspect, or fully release as PD. So your belief (above) "that it is possible to re-license your own work under as many terms/conditions/etc as you wanted" is not right, though "under as few' terms/conditions/etc as you wanted" probably is. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. See "It is within one's rights to license those contributions under any terms one prefers, so long as one does it in addition to also being covered under the CC-BY-SA license (and, if you are the sole contributor, GFDL)."

The reason this matters is derivative works by other people. Let's say that I draw a diagram, and I multi-license it to be CC-BY-SA (as required here) and CC-BY-NC. You take my diagram and make a significant (copyrightable) change to it. You publish your derivative of my work, but only under CC-BY-NC. That's okay under multi-licensing. You're not required to use all the licenses I offered you. You are permitted to pick only one. If I offer only CC-BY-SA, then your derivative work must also be licensed as CC-BY-SA. If I offer you half a dozen, then you can pick whichever license you like best for your derivative work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material to Eating disorder not otherwise specified

User:Nutrition.and.Health has recently been adding unsourced material to the article Eating disorder not otherwise specified. I have informed them on their talk page that sourcing is required, and have directed them to WP:MEDRS, however they appear to be ignoring this advice, and have reverted me a third time. It may be helpful if members of this WikiProject could inspect the recent history of the article; I am curious to know if people would agree that the recent additions are not of sufficient calibre for a medical article. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction is that we shouldn't have articles on NOS (not otherwise specified) entities. What decent-quality articles do we have with this sort of title? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are a recognised & common classification, why not? Compare Cancer of unknown primary origin. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the section on eating disorder NOS is to large for the eating disorder article than splitting of as a subpage is reasonable. Care must be taken to not simple repeat eating disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they're notable, they're notable. I say we shouldn't assume notability because they are used in a classification structure. Not otherwise specified is a common "suffix" added to entities in classification schemes, and one shouldn't be considered notable simply because it's been printed in one. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My point is that not every subdivision of a condition should necessarily have its own page. Many can be covered and redirected to the parent article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Submit to 3RR-- probably a grading deadline. Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has got involved. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone find it mind-boggling that User:Nutrition.and.Health edit warred, reverting seven times, never responded on talk until the article was locked down, and still was not blocked? [16] There's a good example for anyone who claims that students are or should be treated like any other editor. Any other editor is blocked at 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't unheard of for an editor to flout all the rules and effectively be rewarded by having their preferred text preserved within a protected article, as has happened here. And editors who try not to break 3RR, who try to engage in dialogue and go through the proper channels, end up with a slap in the face. Somewhat disheartening, and exasperating. But thanks for filing the 3RR report anyway, even if it was effectively ignored; it's nice to know that people care. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is absurd. Is the admin who protected the article related to the education program? If so, are they supposed to be acting in this fashion, in which students appear to be getting preferential treatment? Yobol (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Yobol. I was heading out to dinner for the evening after filing the AN3 report, noticed that hours had passed and nothing had been done, and in exasperation I asked at the WP:ENI thread that the article be locked to force the students to start talking. The admin (not part of the Education Program, but a new observor on that noticeboard) complied with my request. When I returned from dinner, five hours after filing it, I found that the AN3 had still not been actioned. We can't blame the admin who protected for "the wrong version"-- that happens because PaleCloud and the rest of us didn't editwar, while the student did. Protection of the article aside, it's still interesting that the student wasn't blocked, when most of us would have been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, protection of m:The Wrong Version of an article is almost required under policy.  ;-)

Sandy, I like to think that we cut newbies a little slack, because old hands like us are supposed to know better, while they might not have any idea what the rules are. In this case, though, it was probably deemed pointless. If the article's protected, then also blocking the editor(s) is needless. Blocks aren't supposed to punish the edit warrior, and they needn't be issued if the edit war has been stopped through other means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but, d'oh, I'm well aware of all of that. The point I'm making is that AN3 is so backed up that a report sat there for five hours before anyone even looked at it, and I had to go elsewhere to ask that the article be locked, when the article could have stayed open to the other students and regular editors if the AN3 had been actioned in a timely way. Not only did it sit for five hours-- it was quite egregious. The editor had reverted seven or eight times, and had not responded, ever, to a single talk page query, either on user or article talk, and had been warned three times. Historically, that would have gotten a swift block. At the time the AN3 sat unactioned, there were multiple other AN3 reports above it in the queue that had also not been actioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Medicine Webcast Wednesday December 10th 2-3:15pm EST

A Metropolitan New York Library Council Wikipedia webcast will be streaming live on Youtube today, and archived on the METRO Youtube channel afterwards. To access the live program, simply visit METRO's YouTube channel between 2:00 PM and 3:15 PM on Wednesday December 10th. Registration is not required. A direct link to the webcast page will also be posted on METRO's event page before the live program. An archived recording will be available following the session. Visit the webpage for more information. Let me know if you have any questions! per User:OR drohowa

I do. Who are you, and what is that in UTC? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it will also be available for latter viewing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Howard is the Wikipedian in Residence for the Metropolitan New York Library Council. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Expanding plagiarism detection

I am looking at expanding the copy and paste detection bot globally. Am looking at hiring staff to help. They will not only collect data on the size of the issue for publication but also edit Wikipedia. Are people here okay with that? Please join the discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I delved into WP:Copyclean (particularly WP:SCV) after my return to WP but it often takes me to subject areas I'm not especially interested in. Somewhat off-topic, but I might try staying within the bounds of the health articles and see if I can help make a dent. I wasn't aware of User:EranBot/Copyright, will start tracking it. Basie (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we've only got three articles tagged for copyvio-related problems: History of pain theory, Amlodipine, and Male rape. The last may have been cleaned up (tags often persist beyond their purpose); I know that the main editor was trying to deal with it a couple of months ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If the last few weeks are anything to go by, that'll only be the tip of the iceberg. Plus, every copy/paste is not only plagiarism but potentially a copyright issue. Cheers, Basie (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sphygmographs and sphygmomanometers

A sphygmograph

Does anyone from this project know anything about the early history of sphygmographs and sphygmomanometers - devices for testing the spelling capabilities of medical students blood pressure? Our article on the sphygmomanometer looks fine to my unqualified eye, but we also have a stub article on its predecessor, the cumbersome-looking sphygmograph, and I wonder whether it might be worth either expanding it, or possibly merging it with the latter device? Either way, a source or two would be useful (I've located this [17] from 1882, but more recent sources would clearly be preferable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that picture is not a mislabeled medieval torture device? a13ean (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

in case anyone missed it...

TIME's "Person of the Year",[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata for ICD9/10 codes in template

Lots of our templates ({{Digestive system procedures}}, ...) contain a large amount of displayed ICD and other classification system information. This information is useful, but I think that it makes it somewhat more difficult for readers to see the actual title, particularly when there are overlapping systems of classification (eg ICD 9/10, TA/TA/TH, etc.). Is there a way to transfer this data to Wikidata, so that the classification system can be preserved, but not always in the template title? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984 can probably help with that, he was also involved with transferring disease infobox data to wikidata. --WS (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatric survivors movement; List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy

there is an editor adding lots of folks to the list article above, and identifying them as "psychiatric survivors" or " elecroshock survivor", etc, in WP's voice. these seems kind of...problematic maybe. I don't know enough about it to comment tho. Psych-y people maybe want to have a look? Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Next we will have list of people who have taken Prozac which will include the names of 10 to 20% of the Western world. Seriously. Maybe we need a higher bare for this sort of content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Notable_cases applies, but it is not an absolute prohibition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My post was kind of vague, sorry. What I wanted to ask, is: should we have descriptions of people as "psychiatric survivors" in WP's voice? I reckon Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity might apply, but this what I what I wanted to ask. The question behind that, is: is that label a fringe-y, WP:ADVOCATE kind of thing (almost every person recently added is described as some kind of "survivor"). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course we shouldn't be describing people as "psychiatry survivors" in Wikipedia's voice; the term involves some extremely dubious and fringe-y framing. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm guessing that almost all the "psychiatric survivors" should be described as activists or something of that nature. Best guide is to find reliable sources that describe what they are known for - if there aren't any, they likely shouldn't be on the list anyway. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for this. It seemed fringey to me but i have not read a lot in that area. The people recently added have written books or the like about their experience and seem to self-identify as "survivors".... hence my bringing in MOS:Identity as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing what are your thoughts on the "survivor" label/identity in WP's voice? My intention is that if it doesn't belong in WP's voice, to remove or attribute it and I want to be clear it is correct. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the question of WP:IDENTITY, I think that self-designation really only applies when there's a split among reliable sources among various different terms. Gender self-designation is an outlier in the respect that a person's self-designation can override consistent use in reliable sources. My guess is that while these people refer to themselves as psychiatric survivors in their own texts (which will likely be too fringe to pass muster as WP:RSes), in the literature they will be referred to more neutrally as something like "activist" or "member of the psychiatric survivors movement", etc. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. I decided to do this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CVac

Dear medical experts: Here's one more of these old AfC submissions. Is this a notable topic, and should it be improved and added to the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: It may merit a sentence in ovarian cancer under the #Research heading, but there's only information on the clinical trials and nothing in systematic reviews. I found [19], [20], and [21]. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Keilana, I don't know anything about medical research, but I presume that you mean that it's too soon for this to have its own article because it hasn't yet been accepted by the research community as effective? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Yeah, in effect. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let it go, then. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Paternal age effect

This article is mostly primary sources and in need of a serious trimming. Anyone interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Medical Group Visits

Dear medical experts: There are a lot of citations attached to the this old AfC draft. Is this a notable topic? Should the page be kept and improved? It's about to be deleted as stale. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a mess. Anne Delong, I really want to thank you for all the work you do in notifying us of AFCs; because of your notifications, I've sometimes found an AFC worth working on, but this one isn't. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed paper citing Wikipedia

The paper is here. Is it a problem that they start off with "According to Wikipedia"? Everymorning talk 14:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's strange because I don't see immediate red flags except maybe a lower impact factor for a medical journal (not sure if 1-2 is considered normal or low). The abstract looks pretty sloppy though in general, but it looks like these authors have published a bit too. Very strange that wasn't caught in peer-review. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"According to Wikipedia" is now a common rhetorical trope often used at the start of a piece to grab attention by legislators, jornalists and academics. There is a degree of dramatic tension as you don't know if the statement following will be incorrect or, as here (I presume), boringly correct. It does look odd beginning the abstract of a medical paper, I agree. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one thing to have it in an opinion piece which aims to intrigue and ask questions, but to start a paper presenting results seems odd. Nonetheless I don't see it mattering too much either way, it isn't really giving us any added legitimacy.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it looks like all the article does is give some IP his/her 15 minutes of internet fame (meaning, maybe someone should check that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliability theory of aging and longevity

I would appreciate the informed opinion of editors here on this hypothesis (obviously not a "theory"). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

NCCAM as a MEDRS?

I'm not sure if we have dealt with this source or situation before, but generally single primary sources, even if they are high quality (non-review) pieces of research, are not considered to meet the bar of quality we require of a MEDRS source. We generally prefer reviews of multiple (hopefully high quality) pieces of research.

What happens with NCCAM, which often uses such sources (single pieces of research) in their statements, and then editors use NCCAM as a RS, but claim it's a MEDRS? Is it a MEDRS when it's not quoting a review, but a single piece of (usually favorable) research?

The situation at hand is my restoration of MEDRS tags which questioned the quality of NCCAM refs. My edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by Miracle dream (talk): Our MEDRS standard is higher than NCCAM, which is an advocacy agency, controlled by AM partisans. (TW))" A well-known defender of alternative medicine then reverted me.

The POV of whoever added those tags, which I share, is obviously disputed, including by TimidGuy, whose edit summary said this: "Undid revision 638019361 by QuackGuru (talk) rv Why are NCCAM statements MEDRS violations? This is clearly compliant."

Now I'm here and want to see what a discussion determines. I obviously believe that NCCAM is not itself a MEDRS source. It all depends on how it's used. An appeal to authority is especially dubious when referring to NCCAM, which secures its funding by endlessly wasting taxpayer money on research of non evidence-based methods which have no hope of working, even while it's forced to admit that most alternative medicine is not backed by good evidence. I subscribe to their reports, and it's always dismal reading for any true believer in nonsense methods, such as homeopathy. At present it seems that QG is alone against several pro-AM editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

NCCAM publications do not meet WP:MEDRS. NCCAM-funded double blind experimental research published in reliable peer-review journals may well meet WP:MEDRS. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK,I am the editor who add these sources. From what I see, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a United States government agency that investigates complementary and alternative medicine and part of U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Hence, when you told it is an advocacy agency and controlled by AM partisans, I felt really confused. By the way, in this situation, I don't know whether we need to notice other editors involved this edition.Miracle dream (talk)

[MEDRS] says: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include....U.S. National Institutes of Health.... The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." NCCAM is part of NIH, so it is MEDRS compliant, but where on the quality spectrum within MEDRS? Is the NCCAM source being used a "scientific report"? if so, then it is the highest quality according to MEDRS. If the NCCAM source is a "public service announcement", then the source is "generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature", but still MEDRS compliant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.201.237 (talk • contribs) 02:04, December 15, 2014‎ (UTC)

No one is disputing that the NCCAM is a RS for its own opinion. Note that your quote does not mention NCCAM, but mentions actual "medical and scientific organizations", which are something very different than NCCAM.

NCCAM is a government organization created to research CAM, and it is populated and operated mostly by pro-AM people, who then give money to their buddies, who often perform horribly deficient research, but it keeps them in business so they can claim that their dubious method is the "subject of intense research". What a laugh! NOT. If this network of pro-AM cronies weren't running the show, it would have been defunded and closed a long time ago for wasting taxpayers' money. Numerous calls for doing so have been made.

Individual pieces of primary research, even of the best kind, and regardless of who performs it, are generally not considered MEDRS. That position is our only way to prevent massive OR about biomedical content here. We wait for replication and confirmation, and then we consider the reviews and meta-analyses to be MEDRS. Even Cochrane reviews are becoming dubious sources, so even with reviews we must be wary.

Our MEDRS guideline is much better than the standards of NCCAM and most peer reviewed medical journals. We should be proud of that and not lower our standards. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)