This user is a WikiGnome

User:Middle 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This editor is a Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge.
Nuvola apps edu science.svg This user is a scientist.
Yin yang.svg This user is an acupuncturist.
HumanismSymbol.PNG This user is a humanist.
Autism spectrum infinity awareness symbol.svg This user supports the rights of autistic people to speak for themselves.
Wikipedia-logo.png This user has been a member of Wikipedia since 2006.
they This user prefers singular they, and is in good company.
Post a note, please This user believes that edits need
useful summaries
Wikipedia-logo.png This user thinks you can learn a lot by editing an Encyclopedia.
Memes Not Yet Userboxified:

Privacy note: Do not post any personal information about me on Wikipedia beyond what I disclose on this and my other user pages. See User:Middle 8/Privacy and WP:OUTING, which is taken as seriously as WP:BLP, as it should be.


Please see my conflict of interest statement for acupuncture and related Chinese medical topics. It's linked in my signature: Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI)


For my approximate (on the lower side) total edit count on Wikipedia, i.e. including previous accounts, add 5,432 edits to my present edit count. 10,000th edit ca. March 2015; 11,000th edit April 2016


Editing tips (personal list)







more meta/me stuff


Approach; areas of subject expertise[edit]

I'm a degreed scientist and licensed acupuncturist (on indefinite leave due to other obligations). I agree with all five of WP:5P and am something of a wikignome.

Since I first studied acupuncture, the evidence base for acupuncture has changed. Research shows that compared to sham acupuncture, real acupuncture is very likely not effective (or least not proven to be effective) for many (perhaps even all) of its traditional indications, and my edits reflect this fact. At the same time, both real acupuncture and sham acupuncture are more effective than no acupuncture at all, and for this reason acupuncture is used in certain settings, including academic medical centers of major medical schools, and my edits reflect these facts also. ("Sham acupuncture" generally controls for needle insertion and/or location of needling, and sometimes overlaps with traditional definitions of acupuncture itself, in which cases it cannot reasonably be defined as "placebo acupuncture".)

As of mid-2016, I have about 3900 mainspace edits, including counting earlier accounts retired for privacy reasons. (See User Analysis Tool at wmflabs.org.) 20-25% of those are to acupuncture and Chinese medicine-related topics. The balance of my edits are in all sorts of other areas: particularly popular culture and music topics, as well as topics related to science, technology, health and politics.

Conflict of interest statement[edit]

See User:Middle 8/COI

The public debate about CAM[edit]

I plan on occasionally posting various public comments about CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) that I find interesting, and that typically are indicative of one or another point of view (whether I agree with it or not).

click to expand

Pro-CAM: critical of double standards re EBM and non-CAM remedies, and response[edit]

From the comments section of an article on Prof. Edzard Ernst and his retirement; apparently by Brian Kaplan:

Note: Another comment in that thread said that the percentages used above already include CAM treatments, and therefore don't properly represent the range of evidence (and lack thereof) for accepted treatments.

How to abuse WP process[edit]

From editor Hans Adler [1]:

Put an article where some editors you don't like are editing on your watchlist so you don't forget about it. Every once in a while, when it appears on your watchlist several times in a row, that's a sign that some work is going on there. Open the article's history (no need to look at the article itself) and look for some bigger edit by one of the "bad" editors. Revert back to before that. Or even better, revert back to a version from several weeks ago. Put the code of a random content-related policy page in the edit summary. Make sure to leave only very short, essentially meaningless comments on the talk page. The goal is to keep the "bad" editors occupied with explaining their edits. They cannot spend too much on this, because every hour that they spend explaining is an hour less of "bad" edits. Do not read what they write because that would be a waste of time. Should the "bad" editors ever get the impression that you have understood one of the things they said, they would have one thing less to repeat. You want them to repeat themselves because it's stressful for them and makes them look silly.

An antidote: use as few words as possible, don't repeat yourself, resist baiting, don't edit war, seek broad input and allow the debate to take its course. Accept eventualism.

It's all about teh wikiality[citation needed][edit]

tl;dr: WP:CHEESE

This is a bit overdone but is true enough to be said:

My comment: A common rebuttal to the above is that WP:V exists, i.e., editors (expert or otherwise) must support their edits with good sources, so that makes everything wonderful. What is missed by that rebuttal is that Randy in Boise, in his cluelessness about the Peloponnesian War (combined with his conviction that he actually does understand it), won't understand how to evaluate whether sources are any good, let alone how to weight them.

"Consensus" does not magically generate accuracy. With persistence, it is possible to introduce considerable bias or flat-out misinformation, especially if multiple so-inclined editors are involved. Bias in, bias out.

How to make editing fun (or at least painless)[edit]


* * * * * * * * * * * *