Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 39
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
Cochrane reviews
The WMF has agreements with a number of cell phone companies to give free access (without data charges) to all of Wikipedia to 470 million people. If people however click on our references via their cellphone they will incur data charges.
Have been in discussions with Wiley regarding the release of the abstracts of Cochrane reviews under a CC-BY-SA license and hopefully the entire paper under this license one day. My hope is that it might be possible to place theses abstracts somewhere within Wikipedia and link them from the references thus allowing our readers via the cellphone partnerships to get free access. I have discussed this with Kul and he does not see it as a concern. What are peoples thoughts?
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)- Material released under CC-BY-SA can be changed by anyone for any reason (e.g., adding the word "not" in the middle to completely change the meaning). If I were an author, I'd insist on CC-BY-ND (no derivatives/no tinkering with the wording). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- The standard copyright in open access publishing is in fact CC-BY. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- the standard copyright desired by most advocates of open access is CC-BY. Some OA publishers use variations on this.As for ND, one of the presuppositions of OA publishing is secure archiving, so an authentic copy remains available. Just as with WP. People can mess up our articles, but we get the proper versions back again from the article history. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- We could of course begin by placing copies of Open Access (CC-BY) publications we use on Wikipedia right now. And than this could be a justification we could give to push more publishers to use open access copyright. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't Wikisource intended for such hosting? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, Wikipedia is not the correct place for such work -- some other WMF site would be better. Colin°Talk 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- The point is to get access to people via cell phones (via the agreement that some companies will provide free access to WP). It will allow another potentially 470 million people to verify what they read on Wikipedia without incurring data charges when what is referred to is a CC BY document. Doing this may also convince Cochrane to release their reviews under an open license.
- Maybe people who are accessing WP from the developing world via their cellphones do not care about the references and may not be interested in becoming editors. But I am not willing to write them off without even giving them a chance. This move would allow them to 1) find free reference material 2) edit Wikipedia, all for free. We are not putting this material within the articles. This material is just as much for editors as it is for readers. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, Wikipedia is not the correct place for such work -- some other WMF site would be better. Colin°Talk 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't Wikisource intended for such hosting? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- We could of course begin by placing copies of Open Access (CC-BY) publications we use on Wikipedia right now. And than this could be a justification we could give to push more publishers to use open access copyright. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- the standard copyright desired by most advocates of open access is CC-BY. Some OA publishers use variations on this.As for ND, one of the presuppositions of OA publishing is secure archiving, so an authentic copy remains available. Just as with WP. People can mess up our articles, but we get the proper versions back again from the article history. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing writes "Material released under CC-BY-SA can be changed by anyone for any reason (e.g., adding the word "not" in the middle to completely change the meaning)". This is not true. The licence does not make it a wiki. The original abstract by the original authors (+ whatever editing the journal does) is copyright and the authors have rights over it and any copies made. If the text is is published in a form that does not allow open editing (which I would certainly advise), then it will come to no harm. If you made a copy and published such a copy with textual differences (beyond the most trivial) -- an adaptation -- then you would (a) no longer be able to claim it was the abstract for that paper (but rather, a work based on the abstract and are required to clearly state that it has been modified) and (b) no longer be able to claim the original authors were the sole authors. Furthermore, you mustn't imply the original authors endorse your change. The CC licence asserts the user's moral rights, so if the original authors feel your change represents a "derogatory treatment" of the work (which changing the meaning of a scientific paper absolutely would) then they can demand you remove any mention of their names from it. Colin°Talk 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which, unfortunately, won't stop people from doing it anyway. Under the current rules, at least they can get sued for copyvios or file a take-down notice when they do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- The standard copyright in open access publishing is in fact CC-BY. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do people think adding CC BY articles we use as refs to someplace on Wikipedia so that those who get free WP access via their cell phone can get free journal article access as well is a good idea?
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)- That sentence has no. Looie496 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which sentence has "no"? Not sure what you mean. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dependent predicate, maybe? I think you're missing the words "is a good idea", or words to that effect at the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah see it now. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dependent predicate, maybe? I think you're missing the words "is a good idea", or words to that effect at the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which sentence has "no"? Not sure what you mean. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Neuroscience class
People might want to keep an eye on the topics that are being proposed for new articles at
- It may be a good idea to inform the participants there of the existence of this WikiProject and that they can get help here about the specific requirements and standards for medical articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice and very good of you to help them out, Biosthmors. Having run through the list of titles I would recommend that students do a search for existing content on many of the articles before creating their own articles, as I think that would be (a) needless duplication of existing content, (b) liable to create an article that will have exceedingly low readability; or (c) creating an article that already exists under an alternate name.
- For example, these articles (eg. Perisynaptic (Terminal) Schwann Cells; Cholinergic Neuron; Twice Exceptional Neurobiology; Lower Limb Neuromechanics; Neural Control of Limb Stiffness) may have existing articles full of content that could do with a sectional expansion or rewrite; (Temporoparietal Junction) looks to be a spelling mistake; and some are probably best covered as two separate articles or a section in a parent article (eg Estrogen and Neurodegenerative Diseases).
- That said, there also appear to be some really good articles proposed including (Neuroeffector Junction, Nerve Staining, Frontostriatal circuits) that could do with some expansion, and I think it's great that this class is working in WP. Next month I will start wiki-linking from existing articles to any articles that have been created. talk) 21:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A centralised point of discussion for this topic can be found
- And the course page now links to that section at WikiProject Neuroscience as well, so presumably the students will be reading everyone's feedback. One title with the word "syndrome" is in it so far. Best. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Development of existing partnership with UCSF
University of California San Francisco's medical program is continuing to develop their Wikipedia collaboration. See their report. This is supported by some participants in meta:Wiki Project Med. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- We have a developing course page: U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country article
Recent changes are being made to this article by very new editor
- Hello, please go easy on the newbies. These changes seem to be well-written and sourced. There doesn't seem to be any conflict editing or reversion or deletion of the work of other editors. Unless there's something specific that you're referring to I see no problem with this new editor's contributions. talk) 23:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that I don't know about talk) 06:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's not that I don't know about
New article about a Florida urologist Thomas G Cangiano up for deletion
I
Please read the article and clarify notability and de-prod the article if he is notable or if he is not, consider adding {{
) 02:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Perineal dilator salesmanship
The article
- I've trimmed the promotional stuff and poorly-sourced medical claims. [2] Good find, Wnt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Article in the NYTs about WPMED
- "Wikipedia editing will force students to think clearly and avoid jargon, he said." Well, we can always hope. Looie496 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- While we will try to help them avoid jargon. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I just submitted a request for a small very small grant to rework the project page
Hello all. I've wanted to help rework the project page for a while now. I've made quite a few edits, but I'd like to take it to the next level (with consensus of course, and an old idea I had along these lines was shared
- What sort of changes do you think will improve our project page? ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Making it more concise/professional looking by playing around with U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Making it more concise/professional looking by playing around with
- Hi talk) 02:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- What sort of changes do you think will improve our project page? ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the page must remain easy to edit. I do not mind it being improved but I want even newbies to be able to make changes to it. I would struggle to edit the military page.
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)- If you enable section editing, craziness like that page is much more simple to tackle, but I get the point that newbies will not have this enabled. I support improvements on that page. "Visual analogue" goal progress bars look great. Generally I think a more colorful, professional looking page will foster more interest in the wikiproject. Lesion (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the responses so far, I'm going to reduce the grant amount down to a token payment of $10. I'll have to submit mid-term and final-reports, etc. on this project. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given the responses so far, I'm going to reduce the grant amount down to a token payment of $10. I'll have to submit mid-term and final-reports, etc. on this project.
- Thanks Lesion. And thanks also to Doc James, because I think it's great you mentioned the problem of material being tucked away into templates. My other "micro-grant" (for $40 dollars) is to address that problem in relation to training materials. See U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am happy with the amount you have applied for. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
International medical information conference
Should we invite the "information dissemination decision-makers" from the WHO, the world's major medical education charities, and relevant government and specialist bodies to a conference, to discuss strategies and create opportunities to collaborate in the building of easily identified comprehensive and reliable free medical medical information online? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- See Category:Medical conferences and http://www.allconferences.com.
- —Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which conference? ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting we host something. Or, more precisely, you. It should be held in North America or Europe and my health won't permit me to attend. I have something small in mind. A summit, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hum, there must be a similar conference that we can all just go to and meet at. If we can get interest we could have a whole section of medical talks at Wikimania. I am not much of a conference organizer. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The next Wikimania will be in London. I wonder if BMG or a med school or somebody would be interested in a BOF ("birds of a feather") session (because it would be good to "flock together" with people who are interested in the same things that we are). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've left a note at the Wikimania website. I presume the WMF will pay airfares and accommodation for invitees. If the Wikimania organisers aren't able to provide the space or help organising tickets and accommodation, perhaps WM:UK would be willing to arrange something for us concurrent with Wikimania and close to the venue. I'll keep on the Wikimania organisers for a commitment, and keep this board informed.
- The next Wikimania will be in London. I wonder if BMG or a med school or somebody would be interested in a BOF ("birds of a feather") session (because it would be good to "flock together" with people who are interested in the same things that we are). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hum, there must be a similar conference that we can all just go to and meet at. If we can get interest we could have a whole section of medical talks at Wikimania. I am not much of a conference organizer. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting we host something. Or, more precisely, you. It should be held in North America or Europe and my health won't permit me to attend. I have something small in mind. A summit, if you like. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- If anyone has reservations about this I'd appreciate them speaking up early.
- Ideas about whom to invite are welcome - either the type of organisation or specific individuals. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Most of our partners are much more wealthy than we and should hopefully be able to pay their own way. I would invite the CDC, NIH, WHO, NHS, Cochrane, PLoS medicine, Open BMJ, Translators Without Borders etc. I think a number of these organizations are planning on coming anyway :-) ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ideas about whom to invite are welcome - either the type of organisation or specific individuals. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been some edit-warring on this page over the inclusion of negative names for peyote. As I've been involved, I'm reluctant to do more, so I would be grateful if someone from this project would look at
- I've tried to reword this in accordance with WP:MEDRS, which states that some primary sources can be used, but with caution. Doing a quick google scholar scan reveals no secondary sources, so I think it's reasonable to report the findings. talk) 13:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Alternative Medicine Pages
I think there should also a focus on the alternative medicine pages. I feel that these pages seem in many cases to give too much credence to practices that often seem to be lacking in evidence or only supported by poorly conducted trials. It seems, particularly in the case of Chiropractic that too much weight is given to trials that show little benefit, and their seems to be NPOV issues where people's livelihood is based on what scientifically is often regarded as pseudoscience. After all, it's just as important to show what 'medical' treatment has no effect (or is possibly dangerous) as to show what is effective Macgroover (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alt med is controversial. Please join in the discussion. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Neuromodulation (Medicine)
Hello again, medical experts. The above submission at Afc may be of interest. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Collaboration of the Month (November)
New thread so that we don't have an extremely long one thru next month. Consensus seems to be
Recent changes/Medicine
There once was a bot maintained by Rich Farmborough that fed recent changes to medical articles (articles with this project's template on their talk page) into page like a watchlist. Since Rich was blocked from bot work, it has fallen into disrepair. Is there an alternative page that displays recent changes to medical articles? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- If you are looking for articles to edit, the closest equivalent I can find is talk) 02:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- "Adequate oversight"? I'm not sure I understand you.
- For about 18 months - until about a year ago - I would begin my day by opening that Recent changes/Medicine log and slowly work through the changes since my last session - checking for vandalism, checking sources, welcoming new editors, etc. I found this to be very rewarding work and, I think, quite useful; but got busy and dropped it. I'd like to start again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I've had a look for some more options and the only other two I have found since are for someone to directly provide you with their watchlist (as you can copy/past watchlists), or to use the Article Alerts system. Sorry for any misinterpretation; the work of the talk) 06:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I've had a look for some more options and the only other two I have found since are for someone to directly provide you with their watchlist (as you can copy/past watchlists), or to use the Article Alerts system. Sorry for any misinterpretation; the work of the
Got it.
) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)- Go for it. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Related to this seems to be what should be an important function, in my mind, so thanks for actively working on this global issue at
Diarrhea in Developing Regions
Hello Wikipedia, My name is Jordan, I am an undergraduate at Rice University, and I am here to propose the writing of a new Wikipedia article on Diarrhea in Developing Regions. Diarrheal diseases are among the most prolific in the world, accounting for a significant fraction of all infections, as well as a massive number of child mortalities. Given that children with diarrhea are significantly more likely to die, most within the first two years of life, Diarrheal diseases are a serious threat to the livelihood of children globally. Clearly, diarrheal disease is a significant issue in developing regions, and I hope to use this Wikipedia entry to outline the impacts of diarrheal disease, elucidate the primary causes of the issue (usually linking back to poverty and limited access to vital resources and human capabilities) and finally discuss both potential solutions and those that have already been implemented in these at-risk regions. I will draw my information from a variety of academic sources, mainly from journal articles, but also from information and data made available by some of the major organizations interested in this topic such as the CDC, and WHO. Though a page already exists on the topic of Diarrhea, it approaches the topic from a highly scientific/medical perspective which is incompatible with my approach and proposed writing on this topic, which will take a point of view more oriented around the concepts of poverty, justice and human capabilities. Another related page, Diseases of poverty, already exists, however this article approaches a number of different diseases with depth; if I were to add to this page, my content would dramatically outweigh the content on any other disease. Instead of extending on these pages, I propose the development of a new page on the topic of Diarrhea in Developing Regions, which will focus on the topics I outlined above. In order to supplement the existing articles, I plan to add small sections to these pages with a brief summary of the information that will be present on the proposed page, and add links between these three pages. Any comments, questions, or suggestions that I can use to improve my work are greatly appreciated! -- Best, Jpoles1 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- That looks like a very worthy idea to me. Some random thoughts:
- Presumably you'd have some emphasis on watsan and on other technical aspects of development?
- It's quite hard to get an article started nowadays - if you're less experienced creating articles, it could be a good idea to start a draft in your userspace and then take it "live" when it's improved a bit.
- Sources are vitally important - they should underlie everything you write (but don't just copy & paste).
- If you need any help with the obscure wiki-technical stuff, just ask.
- Good luck! bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds great. The main article at Diarrhea in developing regions. That will improve the main article and also dramatically increase the likelihood of people finding and reading your new one.
- Look over PMID 21975154 as examples of possible sources. If you need help finding or evaluating sources, then just post a new note here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds great. The main article at
Hi All, I really appreciate all of the help being provided to support this small project. Though I recognize that articles on the subjects of both Diarrhea and Gastroenteritis exist, I hope to approach this topic from a non-medical perspective (I know, I'm probably not in the most ideal wikigroup for such an endeavor, but I think it's a productive discussion all the same), but rather from a human capabilities point of view, which focuses more on the impacts on human development and quality of life. A more detailed proposal for my work, including many of my sources, can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e8yzk7dj1MxIRIfa6aqykydIlhybukAgITgp4QDW9DY/ Thanks Again, Jpoles1 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, that article sounds like a great idea. Keeping in mind what has been said above about sources and citations and duplicating content, as a registered user you can simply talk) 06:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- All articles combine both medical and non-medical content. The article on gastroenteritis has a section on "society and culture". What you are proposing is a co tract. A duplication of content we already have. The sections you mention in the doc are all medical in nature.
- We have a section on epidemiology in the gastroenteritis article. We could start a subpage on ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, he's not. A WP:SIZE.
- Jpoles1 is proposing a perfectly fine {{AIDS in Africa. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks WAID yes "WP:CFORK" was the term I was looking for. If one puts an in-depth discussion of the management of AIDS in the article on "AIDS in Africa" than we will have a partial WP:CFORK.) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, he's not. A
Should we commission an independent study to determine the reliability, safety, clarity and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia's medical and pharmacology information?
Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I remember the WMF doing something like this for Wikipedia as a whole lately, not sure if and when results are out. IMO quality of some articles are as good as any professional published literature; however, the quality of many articles is poor. Readability is also hit and miss. We are definitely less readable than most government sites / charities but IMO most people want more detail than the government sites and charities allow.
- In summary we have a massive amount of work to bring Wikipedia up to a consistent high standard. We need to figure out how to get more independent and intelligent people involved. I hope that the outreach to medical schools will accomplish this. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, do you think we need a thorough, rigorous independent analysis of the coverage, quality, safety and clarity of en.Wikipedia's medical content? If so, do you think that need would justify whatever WMF resources and volunteer effort it takes? (Personally I think we have an operational imperative and a moral duty to do whatever it takes to get this data.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to do a trial of medical students giving one group Wikipedia, another group UpToDate, and a third nothing. Than have them write a medical exam and see which group did best. It would answer the question "which source is better for answering the questions one the licensing exams". We proposed it at the U of T Samir and I and were unable to get ethics approval.
- I would say that most of it is not very good. But not horrible either. Some of it is excellent. Do we need a study to prove this? I think we would do better by spending our energies fixing the errors Wikipedia is full of. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- To chime in on this answer, I agree that it would be better to continue editing as it is. Such a study would have to be hit-and-miss given how much articles differ in quality, and because Wikipedia is not static it may only be relevant for a short period of time. On the other hand I empathise with your desire to improve and validate the quality of medical articles. As an aside, as well as the small risk of inaccuracies which I believe to be small, I feel the biggest problem with the medical data on Wikipedia is what is the omissions from articles; that is, relevant medical content about changes in aetiology, epidemiology and pathology and/or diagnostic tests used that have not yet been added to articles. talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- LT90001:
- Re: "I think we would do better by spending our energies fixing the errors Wikipedia is full of." "it would be better to continue editing as it is." I'm not proposing anyone stops editing, or that we change our editing norms. The most I would hope for from this project would be prior criticism of the study design, and to at least read the abstract of the results.
- Re: "Such a study would have to be hit-and-miss given how much articles differ in quality". I'm presuming a design that would adequately take that variation into account.
- Re: "Wikipedia is not static it may only be relevant for a short period of time." This is true of all dynamic topics (such as epidemiology).
- Re: "the small risk of inaccuracies which I believe to be small." Your belief is valuable but until we actually know with some confidence how often people consult our medical content (a stat Blue Rasberry is seeking support for elsewhere on this page) and how much unsafe information it contains - from a well-designed scientific study - all we, the WMF, our partners, our critics and the people we serve (our readers) have to go on is our opinions. I'm personally a supporter of evidence over expert opinion, even my own. It is comforting to believe our content is safe but the possible consequences if that is a false belief are concerning, and all the necessary data and WMF funds are readily available.
- All I'm looking for here is an acknowledgment that this kind of information is important. Forget about contributing any of your own time or energy to the exercise. I can't move on this with any vigor or expectation of success without significant genuine moral support from this project. The ball's in your court. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- With your convincing points and some reflection I do agree this is an important topic. Some suggestions for research are here: talk) 12:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- With your convincing points and some reflection I do agree this is an important topic. Some suggestions for research are here:
- Just to be clear
I would still like to do the study I described. IMO that is one of the best and simplest ways to compare Wikipedia to UpToDate or another source. Do we have people interested in doing this study? How would it be done? We have had groups do comparisons of specific topic areas like nephrology and psyc but not of medical content generally. If someone was keen to do this I would be happy to provide feedback.
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)- I suspect that most people need more substantial support than "feedback": most people need ready access to students who will take the test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Amen Clinic and Daniel Amen
More eyes needed. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like the kind of borderline-notable stuff that would benefit from a merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Start codon
Anyone know if that was an improvement off the top of their head. I seem to remember AUG though without context. I'd have to look it up. Best.
- Yes, it looks right. AUG is the default start codon—as indicated in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of start codons, one for mRNA and one for DNA. AUG is correct for mRNA, but the article should probably have something about DNA as well. ATG is listed as a possible start codon/initiation site in DNA codon table. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
medical marijuana, NPOV/CITE policy, at MedMen
So this article looks entirely promotional to me, written entirely by one person. It has been tagged as WP:MED by someone else. One of my issues is that all of the links to media establishing WP:N are actually hosted on the website of the article topic. This, to me, would seem to run afoul of
I removed these links individually, as well as some sources I believe to be non-RS, and made sure to tag them as such so that they could be reverted individually. I have started a discussion on the talk page.
I would appreciate other eyes here. If i'm in error, please let me know. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't taken a look yet, but thanks indeed for the flag. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think your removal of sources was probably wrong. The source was listed like this:
- <ref name="NPR">{{cite web|url=http://themedmen.com/uploaded/press/npr_itsyourheatlh_altmed_061013.mp3|title=NPR Interview|accessdate=September 24, 2013|publisher=NPR}}</ref>
- The link is at the org's website, but the source is a story by WP:LINKVIO), but the source should have been kept (and perhaps repointed to the URL at npr.com). This is a scanned copy of a page out of a newspaper. Unless they've gone to a lot of work in Photoshop to insert a passing mention to their company, there's no possible neutrality issue here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed a whole gallery of pre and post op images as seen here [4] twice now as I consider one to be enough. Thoughts?
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)- To me, multiple images reinforce the idea that intervention is normal and should be done, IMO, serving as a subtle advertisement for the intervention itself, so I am fine with this. For anyone who has seen U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree there is no need for an entire gallery of images as there was. talk) 12:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really necessary that we have a redirect called hare lip. Yes there it is a redirect, but in the article at least it is implied that it is a historic term, and probably more offensive now than anything else. However on gynecomastia, "bitch tits" is not even listed as a synonym. Need a source to support this questionable redirect imo ... Lesion (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it questionable? What else could it logically refer to? U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was used 70 times in the last month, for whatever it's worth. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I failed to find a reliable source treating these terms as synonyms after a quick google search. "Bitch" and "tits" could be called sexist, and I personally think it would be pretty offensive for people with the condition. The page stats might indicate that we should keep it, but as it currently stands, we just have a redirect, with no discussion about the term. If it is a colloquialism, let's state this. If it is derogatory colloquialism as with hare lip, then let's say that too. Lesion (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think I've looked for a source myself in the past to do the same and couldn't find one so I've just left it as there's no other logical place to point the redirect. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think I've looked for a source myself in the past to do the same and couldn't find one so I've just left it as there's no other logical place to point the redirect.
- I failed to find a reliable source treating these terms as synonyms after a quick google search. "Bitch" and "tits" could be called sexist, and I personally think it would be pretty offensive for people with the condition. The page stats might indicate that we should keep it, but as it currently stands, we just have a redirect, with no discussion about the term. If it is a colloquialism, let's state this. If it is derogatory colloquialism as with hare lip, then let's say that too. Lesion (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it questionable? What else could it logically refer to?
- Is it really necessary that we have a redirect called
- This source might be suitable [5]. I'm paywalled out, but I can see from the snippet preview on google scholar that it talks about this: " In common street parlance, men do not typically say that they have breasts, but refer instead to “moobs” (male boobs) or “bitch tits.” Both terms are compounded from English words that have multiple meanings. ..." Lesion (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- We could make a sentence of it in a society and culture section perhaps. Or we could put it in the lead. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have no preference. Consider:
This condition may be commonly referred to as "bitch tits" or "moobs" ("male boobs").<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wassersug|first=Richard J.|coauthors=Oliffe, John L.|title=The Social Context for Psychological Distress from Iatrogenic Gynecomastia with Suggestions for Its Management|journal=Journal of Sexual Medicine|date=1 April 2009|volume=6|issue=4|pages=989–1000|doi=10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01053.x}}</ref>
. Lesion (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)- Done. Thanks for digging that out! U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason why we need to grace the article with this, as they are not commonly used and somewhat offensive. I do not think that the use of these slang approaches the use of other common synonyms (such as hare lip), so I am happy if a redirect exists but these are not mentioned in the article. talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't like them either, but isn't it more encyclopedic to mention them? I don't think it is good to have redirects with no explanation on the target page as to why that term points there. Per the stats posted above, some people do apparently use these terms to search for the topic. Lesion (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- And doesn't stating that they are not commonly used create dissonance with the source, which says "may be commonly referred to as"? U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added the qualifier of "derogatory" as that's what the source says. The word I had previously inserted, slang, was too blasé. I apologize. This change helps put the words in the appropriate context, in my opinion. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added the qualifier of "derogatory" as that's what the source says. The word I had previously inserted, slang, was too blasé. I apologize. This change helps put the words in the appropriate context, in my opinion.
- I don't see a reason why we need to grace the article with this, as they are not commonly used and somewhat offensive. I do not think that the use of these slang approaches the use of other common synonyms (such as hare lip), so I am happy if a redirect exists but these are not mentioned in the article.
- Done. Thanks for digging that out!
- I agree with Doc James—one pair of photos is enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- We could make a sentence of it in a society and culture section perhaps. Or we could put it in the lead.
Scarless wound healing
I came across the Scarless wound healing article not too long ago today. Thoughts on it?
- PubMed has some hits ... merge to wound healing imo ... Lesion (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Marked for merge. talk) 00:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agree merge. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Done
- Agreed.
- Agree merge. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Marked for merge.
MEDRS and pay-to-play journals, Science sting
Here is something that participants in this project should be aware of. Executive summary: Science created a spoof medical paper with glaringly obvious flaws and submitted it to about 300 open-access journals that claimed to be peer-reviewed. 255 of them responded, and many of them rejected the paper, but 157 accepted it -- which basically means that no genuine peer review could have occurred. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.summary for more info, if you have online access to Science. The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity. Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- But where is the comparator in this study? Did they also submit it to closed access journals? Bad peer review is not the only issue in publishing. What about ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity.
- This is not exactly news, and the Science study is also flawed in singling out open access journals. Even papers that pass peer review with flying colours may well be wrong: after all, theoretically perfect studies with a statistical significance threshold of 0.99 will find false results 1% of the time. What does it mean for us is complicated: mostly it means what we always do, that is we should prefer, as sources, reviews summing up the state of the art instead of individual studies, especially for controversial claims. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that. My thought was really that this gives us additional ammunition for the occasional disputes with people who don't understand why MEDRS needs to be used rather than plain vanilla RS. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Both WP:RS and WP:MEDRS emphasis the use of secondary sources. Agree that this science article also justifies our current position. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that. My thought was really that this gives us additional ammunition for the occasional disputes with people who don't understand why MEDRS needs to be used rather than plain vanilla RS. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are mnemonics encyclopedic?
Are mnemnoics encylopedic? There seem to be quite a lot under Wikimed. I believe some are (eg. SOAP), due to their development alongside organisational efforts at reducing medical error. However, a lot seem to be shorthand memory aids for students or doctors. Is this encyclopedic? Here are some examples I have somewhat arbitrarily grouped them into ones I think are just memory aids, and ones that I would say are encyclopedic by virtue of being the target of publicity campaigns, or representing an underlying effort at organisational reform, ie have some notability or relationship to the practice of medicine, or society etc.
- OPQRST
- SAMPLE history
- DCAP-BTLS
- ASHICE
- FAST (stroke)
- Hs and Ts
- Socrates (pain assessment)?
Encyclopedic mnemonics:
Any others that anyone else has found? Opinions?
- I am okay with them on their own pages. We are not a standard encyclopedia as we are not limited by paper limits. IMO they are a little undue for mention within the main articles on these diseases. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes I use SOCRATES in the signs and symptoms section of articles for conditions which involve pain (e.g. Atypical_facial_pain#Signs_and_Symptoms). I will stop doing this if the consensus is it is not encyclopedic. Re articles which are about mnemonics, I would say that some are worthy of their own page and others are not. FAST would be notable imo, others which are used mainly by doctors, maybe they are not encyclopedic. Case by case basis I think... Lesion (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, we should have a U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would imagine much potentially useful information that should be in that list has already been deleted off of Wikipedia due to short-sighted overzealousness, though. It happens on this website. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- My med student friend from Duke on facebook said she liked this idea of a list. She thinks it would be useful for medical students. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is indeed a list in categories (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mnemonics belong, according to the existence of U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mnemonics belong, according to the existence of
- There is indeed a list in categories (
- My med student friend from Duke on facebook said she liked this idea of a list. She thinks it would be useful for medical students.
- I think that very few are notable/qualify for a separate, stand-alone article. Specifically, the goal for notability is 'attention from the world at large', not being mentioned in study guides as a method of remembering something that is notable (like how to assess pain). However, I have no objection to a list that collects them all. That would be a great use for a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a good position to consider. talk) 00:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a good position to consider.
- I would imagine much potentially useful information that should be in that list has already been deleted off of Wikipedia due to short-sighted overzealousness, though. It happens on this website.
- In my opinion, we should have a
- Sometimes I use SOCRATES in the signs and symptoms section of articles for conditions which involve pain (e.g. Atypical_facial_pain#Signs_and_Symptoms). I will stop doing this if the consensus is it is not encyclopedic. Re articles which are about mnemonics, I would say that some are worthy of their own page and others are not. FAST would be notable imo, others which are used mainly by doctors, maybe they are not encyclopedic. Case by case basis I think... Lesion (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am okay with them on their own pages. We are not a standard encyclopedia as we are not limited by paper limits. IMO they are a little undue for mention within the main articles on these diseases. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- [You can find many at http://www.medicalmnemonics.com.
- —Wavelength (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)]
Note: Hs and Ts is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hs and Ts. --Mark viking (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The way rather lengthy quotations are presented
- Thanks. Those long quotes are bad. And I don't see why we even need a subsection. It seems like we could summarize things with a sentence. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Biosthmors. :) One sentence or three, I feel we can communicate more clearly, whether on a medicine- or food-related page. 86.162.136.32 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am finally starting on the DSM-5 changes to the entire suite of TS articles. I do not have a source for a good basic definition of motor disorder; could anyone fix the first line in that article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- How's that? Best. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Merge eponymous/non-eponymous medical signs + symptoms templates?
See eg: Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs and Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
Arguments supporting merge between system signs + symptoms + eponymous signs + symptoms templates:
- Distinction between eponymous signs and symptoms and other signs and symptoms is quite historically arbitrary.
- Separation between eponymous/non-eponymous impacts on readability and navigability and leads to template clutter (for example see the navigation tree provided on Template:Cardiovascular system symptoms and signs)
- I don't think many people would look through both signs and symptoms and eponymous signs and symptoms to find something.
- No objections from creator (see here, in 2008)
I think it would be best to merge these templates and retain eponymimity in a categorisation system rather than through these templates. Opinions?
- Are we sure that "template" is complete, except for the eponymous ones? They look more like general categories ("nausea"), whereas the eponymous seem very specific/rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's no guarantee of that, but either way it'd be better to have it on one nav. page. My main issue is that by far the majority of users will be using these pages to find signs + symptoms, so isolating them by whether or not they are recognised by an eponymous name is not helpful. Only a small amount of users will specifically come on to Wikipedia in order to find out about the eponymous ones alone. talk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's no guarantee of that, but either way it'd be better to have it on one nav. page. My main issue is that by far the majority of users will be using these pages to find signs + symptoms, so isolating them by whether or not they are recognised by an eponymous name is not helpful. Only a small amount of users will specifically come on to Wikipedia in order to find out about the eponymous ones alone.
DOIs of Cochrane reviews
Why does the auto-fill by DOI function in the Journal citation window hardly ever manage to fill out the fields? Does anyone else find this? Lesion (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some search results in the Cochrane library are protocols, and are not yet listed in PubMed ... is this the issue? Lesion (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- The template filler (on the in-window edit box) pretty much never works for me with DOIs or PMIDs. I hear that it works better for other people, so perhaps it's a browser issue. I use Firefox on a Mac, with Vector for my skin, but the "old" (uglier) toolbar in this account. What do you use? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Students
Students are starting to post at
- Great! That project has been in hibernation for a long time, and many anatomy articles are in sore need of some attention. talk) 22:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
How to describe bipolar disorder
We are having a discussion on how to describe bipolar in the lead of the article here [7]. Wondering if others would like to comment?
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Uncited alterations to WP:Med articles
Hi everyone, I've recently encountered an editor,
Based upon his history with edit warring and lack of response to other editors - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikpapag&oldid=553041732 - (note that he constantly blanks his talk page), I think it would be prudent to watch the edits this user makes on articles requiring
- Edit: I've notified him twice about this thread, although I don't expect a response.Seppi333 (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- The nature of the editing aside, I think the statement about ignoring talk pages has to be qualified by saying there are often detailed edit summaries. Watchlisted this article and left another note about MEDRS on the user's talkpage. Lesion (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. In any event, the lead in ) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone with a source spare would have been better, since the content that is being changed was previously uncited as far as I can see... but Done and started a new section on the talk page anyway... Lesion (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you I linked an fda.gov medication info pdf with the pharmacodynamics and relevant info above, but I'll just re-link it and state what it says here for convenience. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2001/20358s19lbl.pdf
- On the first page: "Pharmacodynamics: Bupropion is a relatively weak inhibitor of the neuronal uptake of norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine, and does not inhibit monoamine oxidase."Seppi333 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could that source be used in the article? Lesion (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- It could, but it's from 2001, so to better satisfy wp:meddate, here's the newest revision of prescribing information from 2013 (more technical format, but it has more info for re-sourcing): http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/018644s045,020358s052lbl.pdf
- It's worth noting that it doesn't say it's a serotonin reuptake inhibitor in that revision.
Seppi333 (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Pharmacodynamics: The neurochemical mechanism of the antidepressant effect of bupropion is not known. Bupropion is a relatively weak inhibitor of the neuronal uptake of norepinephrine and dopamine, and does not inhibit monoamine oxidase or the re-uptake of serotonin.
— US FDA
- It could, but it's from 2001, so to better satisfy
- Could that source be used in the article? Lesion (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone with a source spare would have been better, since the content that is being changed was previously uncited as far as I can see... but Done and started a new section on the talk page anyway... Lesion (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. In any event, the lead in ) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- The nature of the editing aside, I think the statement about ignoring talk pages has to be qualified by saying there are often detailed edit summaries. Watchlisted this article and left another note about MEDRS on the user's talkpage. Lesion (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Just reverted another edit on Methylphenidate which was referenced with 2 unreliable sources and a textbook which did not support the content. Talk:Methylphenidate#Nikpapag_edit. Lesion (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive editing in progress
Special:Contributions/Michaelmodaf. I'm out of 3RR reverts. Seppi333 (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a quick rating review for B-class on adderall
Can another editor take a look at adderall and decide if it's worthy of a B rating? I'd do it myself, but that would be a bit biased, as I've just made a lot of edits to it. If there's any issues preventing it from obtaining that rating, just note them here so I can address them in the future.
Thanks, Seppi333 (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to have major issues. Upgraded. talk) 04:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Collaboration of the month for October?
Gastrointestinal Cancer. The previous collaboration was Pneumothorax . We welcome your help! |
- Looking at the articles that have been previous collaborative of the month, I think it would be a very positive thing to start this again ... Lesion (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to keep up with it for a while. The problem with a collaboration is that it only works if you have more than one person actually show up and do something. The response is frequently, "you be bold, but I'm busy with my own stuff". If I were making suggestions, I'd add that it's helpful to have several high-quality but still free/online sources identified in advance, and at least two people who are committed to doing most of the work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good point. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, good point. Is anyone aware of groups that have effective collaborations? (WP:Hurricanes with its substantial amount of good articles may). One way of arranging it could be to have one or two editors who are willing to do a substantive edit, and then having another group of editors expand sections. I have a feeling that some editors (like me) would be up to editing a section or two but may not have the time, specific knowledge or bravery of other editors to make larger changes. talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good point.
- Committed help
Biosthmors- Lesion
- Minor edits / section editing
- talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good sources
- American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008
- Helicobacter pylori: gastric cancer and beyond (2010)
- Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer (2009)
- Oral cancer: Clinical features (2010)
- note: as the article currently defines gastrointestinal cancer, oral cancer is not included in this topic ... agree that the mouth is part of the GI tract. Let's see what the sources say Lesion (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think oral cancer would be more likely classed as head and neck cancer than GI ... Lesion (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- <ref name="Yamada 2009" >{{cite book|last=Yamada T, Alpers DH, et al.|title=Textbook of gastroenterology|year=2009|publisher=Blackwell Pub.|location=Chichester, West Sussex|isbn=978-1-4051-6911-0|edition=5th|pages=}}</ref> -- I've got this as a .pdf and happy to share by dropbox if anyone wants a copy. Lesion (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Various Cochrane reviews from the topics "Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases" and "Colorectal Cancer" [8]
Please feel free to deprecate or propose alternate sources in the list above.
- Model article
- If there's an article or two on Wiki that has a style this could emulate, it might be worthwhile to put it here talk) 10:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)'
- ?
I am sorry to sound discouraging, but I don't think that the article should be expanded in this way. "Gastrointestinal cancer" is a collection of disparate diseases—different pathological processes, different treatments, different prognoses. The article should be no more than a simple list or a disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe ... Efforts might indeed be better directed at the individual pages for the subtypes of GI cancers? This page may be high importance, but I wonder how many people will visit it compared to say, how many visit ) 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, I think think that's a great idea. If we're going to do collaborations of the month, I don't think we should expand too quickly or we'll run out of steam; this small article (whilst with not too many views) seems like a good place to start. It seems like the next month's has also been nominated too (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, I think think that's a great idea. If we're going to do collaborations of the month, I don't think we should expand too quickly or we'll run out of steam; this small article (whilst with not too many views) seems like a good place to start. It seems like the next month's has also been nominated too (
- I was thinking summary style article might be good. Basically a subheading of each type with a short paragraph giving key epidemiology stats, prognosis, causes and treatment. As long as the sections were kept short this basically would look like a list. Lesion (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, summary style with not too much detail is good. talk) 11:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, summary style with not too much detail is good.
- For example, head and neck cancer is a much more substantial article than a simple list. Lesion (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I like what Lesion has been doing there.
- I like the idea of descriptions that are longer than a disambiguation page would be, but still pretty brief. If you want something more list-like overall, it could probably get tagged as a {{set index}} ("all the things that are called GI cancer"). But if you just want to mention the rarer ones, and leave fuller explanations for the main ones, then then list at the end of Leukemia#Classification might be a reasonable model for the rarer ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Done before the month started?
From the great work of Lesion/Axl, I would say we're way past presenting something embarrassing, which was my main concern, so maybe we should pick something else? I think getting things from embarrassing to acceptable is a better result overall than focusing on the good to make it fantastic. Does anyone else want to find an embarrassing article that might not be too hard to cleanup? Awesome.
- ) 11:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- GI cancer still needs a bit of attention IMO. Personally I wouldn't expand any section longer than the esophageal cancer section is currently... Lesion (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not done yet! I'll update the liver cancer & colorectal cancer sections with sources soon. I see what you all mean about expanding this a little. We can use the sourced updates from the stubs to update their parent articles as we go along... many of them are quite deficient. talk) 12:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to keep working on GI cancer (thankfully it's no longer a pile of crap) but digestive disease looks like a good crap target, thanks U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have no trouble with making GI cancer be September and October, and then DD be November, but whatever's chosen, someone needs to update the page at WP:MCOTW and ideally spam a few requests for help to people's user talk pages. If people don't know about it, then nobody can help. We want something more like a barn raising than like one person doing all the work and a couple of us cheering him along from the sidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I'll consider that consensus. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. I'll consider that consensus.
- I'd have no trouble with making GI cancer be September and October, and then DD be November, but whatever's chosen, someone needs to update the page at
- Feel free to keep working on GI cancer (thankfully it's no longer a pile of crap) but digestive disease looks like a good crap target, thanks
Not done yet!
Alright. If
- Thanks the the committment. =) But I have to say I've dropped out on this one, because it's no longer an embarassing article, so I don't feel the need to stop the bleeding, so to speak. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- No worries! I've refactored the COTM page and added the little template above to denote this month's collaboration. talk) 08:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- No worries! I've refactored the COTM page and added the little template above to denote this month's collaboration.
Scope, completeness, and accuracy of medicine and drug information in Wikipedia.
What's the latest reliable findings on this, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Havn't seen anything new recently. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- I also feel that what I want to see does not yet exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Wikipedia and medicine for what has been identified. Blue Rasberry (talk)19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also feel that what I want to see does not yet exist. See
- Havn't seen anything new recently. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- A scoping review was just published and summarized all the information about the quality of information within Wikipedia http://www.jmir.org/2013/10/e210/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Archambault (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 October 2013
- Thanks for that, Patrick. There's a goldmine of links there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Media mention
Have you seen this? Should we respond? Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia? NCurse work 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would say so, but I haven't read the article. I've just been plotting to start a centralized place to do so from. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dr Azzam's project has been described before in the lay press—I think that Doc James highlighted it. The article already gives the message that we want to send. There is no need to respond. Although I want to copy-edit the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes both myself and ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- To be more specific, I'll point to U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have added this article to a new talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have added this article to a new
- To be more specific, I'll point to
- Yes both myself and ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dr Azzam's project has been described before in the lay press—I think that Doc James highlighted it. The article already gives the message that we want to send. There is no need to respond. Although I want to copy-edit the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Health information on Wikipedia
NCurse, of course we should respond in some way. Biosthmors, yes, Wikipedians should have a central place to coordinate other Wikipedians who want guidance in doing PR on behalf of the movement. Lots of people already do this anyway so it seems worth regulating if people can be asked to voluntarily agree. Axl, these media mentions are becoming more numerous and I think that a proper response is a Wikipedia article documenting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people ask me if health information on Wikipedia matters and I do not know what to tell them. I need help. In my mind, if Wikipedia articles are getting significant amounts of traffic then these articles are important. If they are not getting much traffic then they are less important, and if they get a lot of traffic, then they are more important. How do other people here feel about that rationale? Some content is more important than other content, but generally, traffic is a reasonable measure of importance, right?
I have trouble explaining to people that Wikipedia articles get significant amounts of traffic because the data behind this belief is not robust. I made a page on meta - meta:Wiki Project Med/traffic - which I am about to send to the Wikimedia analytics mailing list and maybe some other places and to Wikimedia Foundation people. In this page I say that I want data and WMF backing to support my making the following statement - "Health information on Wikipedia gets significant amounts of traffic." If I am empowered with evidence to make that assertion, then I would feel a lot more able to say, "Because significant numbers of people are using this health information, anyone who has a stake in providing health information ought to consider the Wikipedia articles which themselves are significant sources for this information." Thoughts from anyone? I might like comments on the meta page. To what extent does this sound like a reasonable request?
Also... I have been asked by a certain journal to write something about Wikipedia and medical information. I would like to be able to say something about traffic to health content on Wikipedia, if anything could be said that the Wikimedia Foundation could back me on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Traffic numbers seem like a reasonable request to me, but traffic doesn't tell the whole story. For instance, how many of those visits are bots mining WP info? Perhaps Google PageRank could be useful. It is one purported measure of a page's importance and it is undeniable that one reason WP articles get so much traffic is the articles' high rank in a typical Google search. --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Often the sidebar of a google search includes the first para of a wikipedia article, where appropriate. are those counted as hits, or is google caching that information? anyone know? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I support this 100%. Without rigorous data, we're flying blind. I've asked Sarah, who is part of the community liaison team, for input. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No they are not counted as hits. It also appears that google has gone with the NIH for health info rather than Wikipedia. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We can make comments such as WP medical content gets about 200 million hits. I say that it is one of the most used medical resources in the world and likely the most used resource. Doubt the WMF would be in an any stronger position to comment on this than we are.
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)There is also this story on Daily Dot website that urges doctors to edit Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have also added this article to a new talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello medical experts....the above article will soon be deleted. Is there anything worth improving here, or should we let it go? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- I say let it go. entirely promotional. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. — talk) 13:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. —
Our goals, helping others
I think one of our goals should be to be helpful to each other. This might sound silly, but I notice that at
- Perhaps a general recommendation or request rather than a "goal". Regarding peer reviews, editors are welcome to post a request for such a review on this talk page. I don't think that this was explicitly done here. (There was a mention of the article on 3rd September.) I am happy to undertake peer reviews and FAC reviews if people ask me. I no longer undertake GA reviews due to technical issues with the GAN pages. By the way, I would regard Casliber as a "regular". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes I think a paragraph deserves to be written on how to be a good WikiProject Medicine "citizen". U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes I think a paragraph deserves to be written on how to be a good WikiProject Medicine "citizen".
Representing Social, Economic, and Public Health Aspects of Diseases
I'm a professor who teaches using Wikipedia regularly on courses relating to poverty, economic development and justice. Many of my students are interested in contributing to Wikipedia on the social and policy aspects of public health issues. (User JPoles is one my students.) It appears that most of the health and disease topics represented on Wikipedia focus on diseases and treatments at an individual or even at a pathological level. Although epidemiological aspects are often included, such information generally does not reflect the broader literatures that look at economic and social interactions and policies relating to health and well-being. Public health and social aspects are generally badly represented in Wikipedia so far as I can tell ~ even the page on Public Health is only a C class article. I do not see a clear organization for raising the social and public health aspects of specific diseases beyond an epidemiological tag on. An extensive public health and economic development literature shows that poverty and lack of access to clean water, general health care, etc. contribute to the likelihood of getting sick in the case of many such illness, often through the related adverse impact on immune systems. There are important feedbacks from such public health issues into various other non medical social issues. Public health is an important area in its own right so adding this material to articles that emphasize prevention and treatment at the individual level doesn't seem to me to be the best plan. I would suggest that the whole area of public health and related social and policy topics should become a priority for further development; perhaps another project group is a better place for this discussion, but wanted to raise it here first and would welcome everyone's thoughts on this topic. DStrassmann (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome and this is the place to bring this up. Many of our articles have sections on society and cultural aspects of disease. For example for low back pain we discuss the economics and the effects on employement ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good point. In fact a lot of public health is covered under "Epidemiology of..." and "History of..." articles. For example, talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's a good point. In fact a lot of public health is covered under "Epidemiology of..." and "History of..." articles. For example,
- Join us; it's likely to get more attention if you're talking to a big group.
- I think it's important to get this information summarized in the main articles. That way, people interested in it will see a prominent link to the article that details the social and cultural aspects, and also so that people who aren't interested enough to click through to the other article will have the basics right in front of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome and this is the place to bring this up. Many of our articles have sections on society and cultural aspects of disease. For example for low back pain we discuss the economics and the effects on employement ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Category:Health contains Category:Health economics and Category:Determinants of health and Category:Health disparities and Category:Health policy.
- —Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for your helpful responses. I will pass on your thoughts to my classes. If any of you would be willing to advise specific students directly, please let me know. Here is a brief list of some of the general areas they will be working on (in addition to those referenced above relating to Diarrhea and Cholera): Right to Heath, Breastfeeding Promotion, Healthcare in Malawi,Healthcare Reform in China, Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa, Media Portrayal of HIV/Aids, Maternal Health,Sex-selective abortion, Human Subject research (focusing on Africa). DStrassmann (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Could I be so bold as to ask them all to publish the full text of all their proposed projects on this talk page? Thanks. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can I say, I think that is a little unreasonable. talk) 10:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it's not really necessary. I believe the students in this class are asked to post a note on the talk page of the article they plan to work on explaining briefly the goals for their contributions to that article; so long as they respond to questions about their plans that should suffice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I read the proposal and there were startling and fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia that I would hope the professor would definitely learn from so that the students are given the type of guidance before they write the proposal so that they don't write such things. So I want them all published openly so that those things are corrected so that future students know what's going on on this website as well. Does that perspective make you reconsider your position a bit, U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I read the proposal and there were startling and fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia that I would hope the professor would definitely learn from so that the students are given the type of guidance before they write the proposal so that they don't write such things. So I want them all published openly so that those things are corrected so that future students know what's going on on this website as well. Does that perspective make you reconsider your position a bit,
- I agree that it's not really necessary. I believe the students in this class are asked to post a note on the talk page of the article they plan to work on explaining briefly the goals for their contributions to that article; so long as they respond to questions about their plans that should suffice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Can I say, I think that is a little unreasonable.
- Could I be so bold as to ask them all to publish the full text of all their proposed projects on this talk page? Thanks.
- Thanks to all for your helpful responses. I will pass on your thoughts to my classes. If any of you would be willing to advise specific students directly, please let me know. Here is a brief list of some of the general areas they will be working on (in addition to those referenced above relating to Diarrhea and Cholera): Right to Heath, Breastfeeding Promotion, Healthcare in Malawi,Healthcare Reform in China, Family Planning in Sub Saharan Africa, Media Portrayal of HIV/Aids, Maternal Health,Sex-selective abortion, Human Subject research (focusing on Africa). DStrassmann (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I might be useful to get the students to read an article that is already at "good article" or "featured article" status to get an idea of how we typically format stuff before they start.
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)File:Manhattan plot Gene C9Orf72.png
File:Manhattan plot Gene C9Orf72.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to be part of Stefan2/Stefan4's attempt to purge the wikis of free medical images. I am not sure how to prevent this deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Graft versus tumor
Dear medical experts: Once again there is an article at the Afc that could use some expert attention. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- We have ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that, Jmh649. The current "Graft versus tumor" is a redirect to Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation which has a small section on this topic. If this article is accepted, it would replace that redirect. Do the references (and perhaps some from the current section) show enough notability to allow this topic to have its own article? Or should the submitter be encouraged instead to move relevant content to the Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation article? (I am asking because I really have no idea.) —Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- The topic has enough notability IMO. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, it's now at Graft versus tumor effect. It's just as well, since the article it was part of is very long and difficult to edit. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, it's now at
- The topic has enough notability IMO. ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that,
- We have ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Pageviews
We seem to have lost our google juices as our readership is down by half these last three months
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)- If google is displaying alternate sources of health information over concerns of factual inaccuracies on wikipedia health articles, then I find this rather amusing: https://www.google.com/search?q=nicotine (see "Drug class: Nicotinic receptor antagonist" in the drug box) in comparison with the lead in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicotine&oldid=575975639 - "It is a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist."
- I'll let the wrong (opposite) drug class speak for itself.Seppi333 (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I experimented by typing in several different medical conditions into google. Not sure if this is unique to google.co.uk ... but Wikipedia's place at the first google hit has dropped to four or fifth for medical conditions. NHS choices and patient.co.uk results are now usually appearing first. I understand that google does not actually rank the search results in order of most visited, but rather they adjust the order of search results for reasons of their own. Apparently wikipedia has been demoted. I think the main reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are thought of as being too hard to understand compared with sites that are offering a simple and brief summary that is directed specifically at patients. Since patients are not supposed to be our specific target audience, I suppose we do not really have the right to complain about this. Other websites are just more user-friendly for patients perhaps? Or maybe the order of search results has not really changed and it is my imagination. Didn't wikipedia usually come up first for pretty much any medical topic?
Would be interesting to get some kind of statement from them about this, but I tried for about 10 minutes to find a way to contact google and failed. Lesion (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Patients are not our specific audience, but we should still have a simple summary at the top of our articles—one that is accessible to average teenaged students, not just the honors class or pre-med university students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't particularly been following this, but apparently the story is that the drop is actually spurious. What has happened is that due to technical changes a lot of page views now come via the secure server (https protocol), and those are not tracked by the page view stats. There was a good bit of discussion of this on Jimbo's talk page a couple of months ago. I'm not guaranteeing that I have this straight; as I said, I wasn't paying close attention. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- The data does not look as bad as it did initially. Just down maybe 25% [9]. We truly need to push to simplify the leads of our articles. I do not mind the body of the text staying more complicated but as SMS goes live we should strive to have our content useful in that format (it will be the first few sentences). ) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting.
- @Lesion:, I have also noticed a marked change in Google Search lately. Wikipedia articles, not only medical ones, used to show up at the top of the first page of results, but not anymore. Some Wikipedia articles no longer find their way to the first page of search results at all. Maybe this is an explanation? XOttawahitech (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
These two pages should be marked as historical:
- Pages needing attention
- Medicine articles needing expert attention
Their function is duplicated in the 'cleanup listing', which is also more comprehensive and up-to-date. Also this would help clean up the nav bar.
- Also, we already have an 'Editor outreach' so both functions of the expert attention page (field queries; list marked pages) are already duplicated.
Opinions? If so, I'm not quite sure how to go about marking a page in a Wikiproject as historical, so would value some help.
- I haven't had time to look in depth, but I hate those "historical" templates. I'd prefer one just remove any incoming links that one can and then redirect traffic to a better place. =) U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I like the idea of redirecting the pages. I'm also becoming more sympathetic to killing the "expert attention" template altogether. The requests are almost never clear enough to be useful, and nobody seems to respond to them anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've reordered the 'cleanup' page to provide a link to the expert attention category (which is a category so can't be redirected), redirected the pages needing attention to the cleanup page (page hasn't been edited recently and is duplicated), removed the link to 'top importance' cleanup (as this was last edited in 2010 and presumably the bot is dead) and for good measure alphabetised the list to make it easier to read. I hope this is satisfactory and improves the overall usefullness and ease-of-use of the interface. talk) 10:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've reordered the 'cleanup' page to provide a link to the expert attention category (which is a category so can't be redirected), redirected the pages needing attention to the cleanup page (page hasn't been edited recently and is duplicated), removed the link to 'top importance' cleanup (as this was last edited in 2010 and presumably the bot is dead) and for good measure alphabetised the list to make it easier to read. I hope this is satisfactory and improves the overall usefullness and ease-of-use of the interface.
- I like the idea of redirecting the pages. I'm also becoming more sympathetic to killing the "expert attention" template altogether. The requests are almost never clear enough to be useful, and nobody seems to respond to them anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcoming new members
As our project page has been getting more hits lately, I figure now is as good of a time as any to say this. There was a recent person who signed up on our list as a member. I noticed they hadn't ever received a talk page message. They should receive a personalized one, in my opinion. We should make that a priority. And we should codify that on our front page.
- {{subst:MedWelcome}} points people to useful pages like MEDRS and MEDMOS. Since I usually welcome people because of their article edits, I usually add a sentence about that as well. What we need, though, isn't another "rule", but someone to actually do it. We had two or three people doing that for a while, but perhaps they're busy with other things now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes I feel like we come on too strong and this is as bad as biting ... I'll use this template now, it's easier than writing out one or two sentences like I would normally. Btw I tweaked the wording of this template earlier today, no major changes just made it a bit more measured. Still not happy with it, but see what others think. I know this template is based heavily on the TW one, but these welcome messages come across a bit intense I think.
- Consider also taking out the second "welcome" and the exclamation marks.
- Consider removing "an essay from PLoS"
- Consider removing "general advice" and "general style guide" (MEDRS and MEDMOS both conspicuously link to said pages at the top.
- Again consider removing wikilinks in text "Welcome" and "your contributions". Too many hyperlinks, won't know what to click. Keep as few as possible imo.
- What about integrating the sentence about WPMED into the first line? Like "Welcome user:WhatamIdoing, from WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here)." Below I post the welcome template as it is currently, and below that a slightly tighter version to have a look at. Lesion (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes I feel like we come on too strong and this is as bad as biting ... I'll use this template now, it's easier than writing out one or two sentences like I would normally. Btw I tweaked the wording of this template earlier today, no major changes just made it a bit more measured. Still not happy with it, but see what others think. I know this template is based heavily on the TW one, but these welcome messages come across a bit intense I think.
==Welcome to Wikipedia from theMedicine WikiProject!==
Welcome to Wikipedia from
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
- Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
- Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by Primary sources(case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
- The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!
==Welcome==
Hello, example user, and welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine. Thank you for your contributions. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to sign up to the WikiProject here or say hello here. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Quick introduction to Wikipedia
- How to write a great article
- Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
- Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles
- Manual of Style for medicine-related articles