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.
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
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
The public debate about CAM
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).
How to abuse WP process
It's all about teh wikiality
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)
|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at