Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Docsim (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 19 August 2014 (→‎Parkinson's disease and Robin Williams). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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.

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,103  11,529  38,030  18,711 893  70,365 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


Stub prediction

Hi everyone,

A pair of wonderful editors, Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker, have done us a favor and analyzed all 9,000+ plus of our stubs to see which ones probably need to be re-assessed. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. About 750 of them are, according to their formula, probably not stubs.

I tried doing this manually a couple of years ago, and getting this narrowed down to a list of only 750 articles is an enormous improvement. Obviously, we need to do some re-assessing. The first in the list is B-class, not a stub. I think what would be helpful here is to re-assess everything, but if you run across something (especially with a high percentage) that is still a stub, please flag it either here or on the list's talk page.

Finally, if you want to do more than just a couple, then I suggest installing User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. It lets you rate an article without first clicking through to the talk page.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a typo? As Polysome is a stub I'd completely misread what you've actually written. Apologies. Little pob (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polysomy was marked as a stub-class article until I fixed it a few hours ago. It's now marked as B-class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great resource. Do they plan on periodically updating it? --WS (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on whether we actually re-assess the pages on the list. Just having the list isn't much good, but if we use it, we have a good case for requesting regular updates. (I've also wondered whether they could do the same for non-stub-rated articles that are probably incorrectly rated.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From listening to CFCF, I'd have thought spotting further B-class articles mightbe useful for the Translation project. 86.157.144.73 (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitiligo

There is a disagreement as to the relevance and MEDRS compatibility of a source. this source is being held up as a MEDRS compliant source and is being discussed in a "Theoretical causes" section. I tried moving it to a "Society and culture" section as more of a religious text than medical but was reverted. Comments welcome. Yobol (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've not been able to settle this over at the article, and now have the following as a Level 2 heading in the article:
Parallels to the biblical Tzaraath
Medical discourse in the late 19th century analyzed commonalities between vitiligo and the ancient biblical term Tzaraath and proposed that the characteristics of vitiligo are strikingly similar to the biblical description of Tzaraath, as well as to the early Septuagint translation styles of the Hebrew masoretic biblical text.[26] Similar observations have been made in early 20th century rabbinic literature.[27]
It has been suggested by medieval rabbinic figures[citation needed] that factors involving the dietary and sexual habits of parents prior and during conception of the vitiligo patient may be a precursor to vitiligo development in later stages of the lifecycle of the offspring.[28]
Similar issues with the Leukoderma article (same editor)including quotes in what looks like Hebrew and a statement suggesting suffers are "impure". Could an admin take a look at this? The editor seems peacefully oblivious to the concepts of MEDRS and consensus. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease and Robin Williams

It's been in the news recently that Robin Williams was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease before his suicide, although he wasn't showing easily recognizeable symptoms. As might be expected, a number of editors have rushed to add that information to the Parkinson's disease article. That violates our longstanding rule that only celebrities who have played a major role in supporting PD research or public understanding belong there. I have, after explaining why on the talk page, removed the new material. I expect that somebody will shortly come along and re-add it, though. Since I have a personal policy against multi-reverting, I probably won't do anything more, so I am bringing the matter up here in case anybody else is interested in keeping an eye on it. Looie496 (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is best kept to a minimum at least although difficulty is that he was such a loved celebrity that human emotion is at play here.Docsim (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky cheese

Please could someone take a look at the uncited, allergy-related claim made in Penicillium camemberti? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the best I could find was this case report. The paper does mention cross-reactivity, but this is only a primary source and a case report at that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation hiring an experienced science editor

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes. (Experience with medical topics is a definite plus!)--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission

Medical experts, is Draft:Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. notable? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article already exists Can-Fite_BioPharma_Ltd. - that one should be rejected. I note that the existing article is up for speedy deletion (it shouldn't be) but the AfC should be rejected. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably put a lower limit on market capitalization of $300 million or so for company articles if publicly traded unless there is something very unusual going on. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no size criterion mentioned at WP:LISTED etc, and we must have hundreds if not thousands of articles on companuies worth less than that. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The area postrema & chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ) - identical structures?

I'm having a tough time determining if these structures are currently defined as different substructures within the medulla oblongata. There appears to be contradictory information on both of these pages (e.g., on chemoreceptor trigger zone, this ref on the area postrema - PMID 11749934 - is used to state that the CTZ is adjacent to the nucleus tractus solitarius; the ref says the area postrema is adjacent). I've read several refs that indicate that these structures are the same thing (e.g., PMID 7895890) while I've seen other refs which indicate they're different (all of these are out of WP:MEDDATE). This current ref makes no mention of the CTZ in vomiting: PMID 23886386.

All that said, can anyone find a current reference or diagram which clearly indicates that these two structures are not the same thing? If not, I'm just going to merge these two articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant to medicine since the D2 receptors on this (these?) structures are the biomolecular targets of antiemetic drugs like domperidone and metoclopramide. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are different from each other. The chemoreceptor trigger zone is a group of neurons located within the area postrema. (Sources: 1, 2) -A1candidate (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If I could get my hands on a neuroscience source that covers this, I can cite it and address this ambiguity in these articles; although, if the CTZ is just a subregion of the AP, it might be best to just merge that article into area postrema. Our articles suggest they're disjoint structures.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a neuroscience source that specifically says this, see Essentials of Neurosurgical Anesthesia & Critical Care. There is an exact description of the CTZ's location in the area postrema here, which I recommend we use for our articles. Strongly oppose merge. -A1candidate (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly current source, so I agree it's worth using. I'll copyedit the article over the next day. As long as there's a consistent definition across both articles on their location/relation, I don't really care if they're merged or not. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed chemoreceptor trigger zone using the sources you provided, though that was a pain in the ass to copyedit. Area postrema is already consistent. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd just throw this out there and hope someone takes pity on me...

Now 8 months and counting: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive4
Need reviewers! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide your opinion in a content dispute a regarding our Medcan Clinic article

There exists a clinic in Toronto, Canada, named the Medcan Clinic. Please provide your opinion in a content dispute regarding our "Medcan Clinic" article. There is a short summary of the dispute at Talk:Medcan_Clinic § Discussion, part 3. Please do not reply here. Instead, please reply only on that talk page. Thank you. —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews, reader traffic, health information on Wikipedia

One might make the argument that if significant numbers of people are seeking health information on Wikipedia then Wikipedia would be a good place to put health information for people to find. It is my opinion that this is an idea that some WikiProject Medicine members have, but that few people outside the Wikimedia community consider.

I am writing to give news about an opportunity to get a little more information from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team about readership numbers for health articles on Wikipedia. In summary, I do not think that members of WikiProject Medicine should do anything differently now even if they use readership statistics, but it would be good to be aware of options for the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background of past WikiProject Medicine discussion of reader statistics

It is not easy to describe the size of the audience seeking health information on Wikipedia. Some background information may be at Health information on the Internet and at Health information on Wikipedia. Members of WikiProject Medicine may use WP:MED500 to see some stats formatted for Wikipedian use. Right now, this page is configured to record monthly reports which is based on tags of the "WikiProject Medicine" template on article talk pages. The tool which provides this information is at WMF Labs. I understand that Mr.Z-man made this tool, and that this user is a volunteer who was very gracious to design and continue to develop the tool. It is my opinion that the data provided by this tool is good enough to establish that Wikipedia is a popular source of health information, as I believe that the number of pageviews is indicative of a large number of unique visitors who want specific health information.

Here are the previous discussions I could find about traffic to health information on Wikipedia in WikiProject Medicine forums.

I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the WMF Analytics team

The Wikimedia Foundation employees some statisticians whose job it is to support the community with statistics and analysis. If we expressed a need for readership statistics and there were a reasonable way for this team to provide them, then they might provide data and interpretation. Here is some information about this group.

I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New opportunity with WMF Analytics team

WikiProject Medicine could request some kind of report about readership to health articles from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team. This might be generated monthly. It is not certain to me if this would be better than our existing report, but it could be made in a different way. In my opinion, the opportunity here is more flexible than the current WikiProject-based reader tracking system being used, but it also would include more articles which should not be included.

The idea is that the WMF analytics team get from us some list of articles, then in response they generate a monthly report of traffic to those articles. Here is an example of how this could work:

  1. WikiProject Medicine provides some list of articles, perhaps by providing a list of categories containing the articles to be counted. Here is a test list based on Category:Medicine, and excluding the major subcategories likely to have a lot of noise.
  2. Here is the returned output. Notice that there is a lot of noise here, because Category:Medicine includes things like movies with health themes and celebrities with diseases.

For July 2014, this report generated by the analytics team has identified 96,623 "medicine articles" which have combined pageviews of 265,651,646. The system used based on WikiProject Medicine tagging found 27,132 articles with combined pageviews of 151,744,982. It is my opinion that most people currently spending time at WikiProject Medicine are interested in articles which are governed by WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and this project is less concerned with social or humanities-based discussion of medicine. Consequently, I would expect people here to be more interested in pageview statistics which are for health articles, and not for concepts in the humanities. Is my expectation that the WikiProject Medicine tagging contains a higher percentage of articles which are about medicine and not humanities, but that the category measurement includes articles which are missed by WikiProject Medicine's tagging system.

I am not sure how to get the best measurement of the readership of health information on Wikipedia, but I think it would not be unreasonable to say that the pageviews for this content are somewhere between the values reported by these two statistics systems.

If anyone has any ideas for requesting a more nuanced report from the WMF Analytics team, then they would run the report for us based on any list of articles we provided to them. What I mean to say is that there are about 96k possible "medicine" articles, and WikiProject Medicine already has a sort of curated list which is 27k of those 96, but probably more of the 96k could be included, and some of the 27k probably ought not be included. In the end and after a few years, probably we will need to develop some plan to tag all kinds of articles in Wikidata and request multiple reports for all kinds of medicine concepts. When we have curated lists we would be able to remix them in different ways, such as by language and medical specialty, which is something difficult to do now.

At Wikimania in London earlier this month I talked a bit with Erik in analytics about what they can provide, and he made the above report for WikiProject Medicine and said that if we have ideas for other reports, then those are possible. Ultimately I want these reports to be able to answer questions about Wikipedia's audience, because I make the argument that Wikipedia matters because of its audience size. If anyone can think of any clever ways to ask questions of the analytics team, then please share.

My initial thought is that the information we have is already very good, and that perhaps it would not be worthwhile to spend too much time trying to work out a new system with the analytics team, however, if our need grows and we want more nuanced information then we might need to move from the WikiProject system and into the category system of measurement because our subcategorization with the WikiProject task force system probably is not used often enough to be sufficiently accurate for any needs and would not at all work for languages other than English without WikiProject software development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=621874407"