Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[Neotarf]

It looks like some sort of controversy section was started,  "Opposition in
the United States", but it contains nothing more than a link to the
"Vaccine controversies" article where, somewhere above the Spanish-American
War, there are two rather dated links related to APV virus [1] [2] Just
looking at what's available in a quick online search, it looks early
opposition centered around the compulsory nature of vaccinations for school
children before there had been extensive testing of the vaccine, while
later opposition to mandatory vaccination was diminished once a certain
level of voluntary vaccination was reached in a particular community. This
reminds me of the microwave/plastic/cancer thing a few years back, where
every published source said there was no link, but medical professionals
were warning people privately.  Wikipedia can only go by what is published,
so maybe this is just an example of the limitations of what Wikipedia can
be expected to do.


[1]
https://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140543977/hpv-vaccine-the-science-behind-the-controversy
(2011)
[2] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/erv.10.36?journalCode=ierv20
(2010)


On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Most health articles on Wikipedia are about men's health. I think you will
> find lots of stuff still covered by good 'ol 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica,
> except for the work done by the Medical Project, which needs more
> volunteers and is of course ongoing. In cases where articles get lots of
> traffic, they tend to be pretty good, but quite a long read. A friend was
> worried about having her daughter vaccinated for HPV, something that is
> done at school in my area for girls aged 13. My friend's doctor, a woman,
> said off the record that she would not allow her daughter to get the
> vaccine. Reading the Wikipedia article, I am not sure what to decide, and
> it certainly doesn't seem at first glance to be at all a controversial
> topic. I am not sure this article gives my friend all the information she
> needs to make a decision.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually
>> exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this.  In any case, the
>> disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas
>> without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App,
>> or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as
>> much information as is already in Wikipedia.
>>
>> Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have
>> been adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to
>> be well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow.  There is a
>> category for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the
>> navbox to tie everything together? What if you want to know something about
>> standard vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence
>> of polio in war zones.  What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of
>> articles around a central theme, or you want information to care for your
>> own children?
>>
>> Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with
>> navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas.  Compare
>> also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves
>> to an article about a Rodale publication of that name.  A note at the top
>> of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see
>> men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat
>> promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has
>> sported an incomplete tag since 2015.  The "men's health" article only has
>> a navigation template for "reproductive health".  There is a Rodale
>> magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the
>> magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to
>> Wikipedia's naming conventions.  It has the secondary topic title format
>> of  "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is
>> not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues
>> (journal), or Journal of Women's Health."
>>
>> And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health
>> roster?  Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is
>> "prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about
>> these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[Jane Darnell]

Most health articles on Wikipedia are about men's health. I think you will
find lots of stuff still covered by good 'ol 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica,
except for the work done by the Medical Project, which needs more
volunteers and is of course ongoing. In cases where articles get lots of
traffic, they tend to be pretty good, but quite a long read. A friend was
worried about having her daughter vaccinated for HPV, something that is
done at school in my area for girls aged 13. My friend's doctor, a woman,
said off the record that she would not allow her daughter to get the
vaccine. Reading the Wikipedia article, I am not sure what to decide, and
it certainly doesn't seem at first glance to be at all a controversial
topic. I am not sure this article gives my friend all the information she
needs to make a decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines



On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Neotarf  wrote:

> I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually
> exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this.  In any case, the
> disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas
> without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App,
> or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as
> much information as is already in Wikipedia.
>
> Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have
> been adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to
> be well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow.  There is a
> category for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the
> navbox to tie everything together? What if you want to know something about
> standard vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence
> of polio in war zones.  What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of
> articles around a central theme, or you want information to care for your
> own children?
>
> Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with
> navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas.  Compare
> also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves
> to an article about a Rodale publication of that name.  A note at the top
> of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see
> men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat
> promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has
> sported an incomplete tag since 2015.  The "men's health" article only has
> a navigation template for "reproductive health".  There is a Rodale
> magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the
> magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to
> Wikipedia's naming conventions.  It has the secondary topic title format
> of  "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is
> not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues
> (journal), or Journal of Women's Health."
>
> And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health
> roster?  Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is
> "prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about
> these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:58 PM, J Hayes  wrote:
>
>> Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just
>> look at health care.
>> It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public
>> health topics are relatively neglected.
>> This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much
>> criticism of the start by the librarians.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>>
>>> Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video
>>> might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what
>>> kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait.  Who
>>> knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made
>>> available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of
>>> storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more
>>> dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it
>>> is assigned to women's health project.  Does Wikipedia recognize no
>>> difference between gynecology and pediatrics?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I
>>> realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project
>>> developing the offline Kiwix application that can 

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[Neotarf]

I'm not sure that disaster response and public health are mutually
exclusive, or how far non-specialists can get with this.  In any case, the
disaster response consists of getting Wikipedia-based knowledge into areas
without internet, either as an offline resource via Wiki Project Med/App,
or a local internet connection, so, in any case, they can only provide as
much information as is already in Wikipedia.

Doing a spot check on children's health, individual articles that have been
adopted by WikiProject Medicine, like chickenpox and rubella, seem to be
well developed, but the navigation is hard to follow.  There is a category
for "pediatrics" also for "children's health", but where is the navbox to
tie everything together? What if you want to know something about standard
vaccines, for example, or psycho-social issues, or the reemergence of polio
in war zones.  What if you want to work on or evaluate a series of articles
around a central theme, or you want information to care for your own
children?

Compare the extensive connection of articles at "Women's health" with
navigation templates at both the right sidebar and footer areas.  Compare
also the pitiful coverage of "Men's heath", which a google search resolves
to an article about a Rodale publication of that name.  A note at the top
of that article says "For health issues that apply specifically to men, see
men's health", which links to a pitiful start-class article with a somewhat
promotional tone, rated "low-importance" by Wikproject Medicine, that has
sported an incomplete tag since 2015.  The "men's health" article only has
a navigation template for "reproductive health".  There is a Rodale
magazine called Women's Health, but Wikipedia does not consider the
magazine to be the "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) according to
Wikipedia's naming conventions.  It has the secondary topic title format
of  "Women's Health (magazine)" and an additional note at the top: "It is
not to be confused with the academic journals, Women's Health Issues
(journal), or Journal of Women's Health."

And where is "domestic violence" or "sexual assault" in the men's health
roster?  Are these women's topics only? For that matter, where is
"prostate-specific antigen blood test". You can find more information about
these topics on reddit than on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pediatrics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Children%27s_health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_(magazine)




On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:58 PM, J Hayes  wrote:

> Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just
> look at health care.
> It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public
> health topics are relatively neglected.
> This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism
> of the start by the librarians.
>
>
> On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>
>> Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video
>> might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what
>> kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait.  Who
>> knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made
>> available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of
>> storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more
>> dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it
>> is assigned to women's health project.  Does Wikipedia recognize no
>> difference between gynecology and pediatrics?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I
>> realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project
>> developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners
>> who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like
>> a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health
>> worldwide.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>>> Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
 please visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including 

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[J Hayes]

Yeah, if you wanted a case study of what implicit bias looks like, just
look at health care.
It is good working on disaster response, but the vital chronic public
health topics are relatively neglected.
This infant sleep article got elevated by our oclc friends. Much criticism
of the start by the librarians.


On Nov 1, 2017 8:41 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:

> Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video
> might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what
> kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait.  Who
> knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made
> available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of
> storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more
> dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it
> is assigned to women's health project.  Does Wikipedia recognize no
> difference between gynecology and pediatrics?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I
> realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project
> developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners
> who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like
> a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health
> worldwide.
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
>> Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>>
>>> It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[Neotarf]

Health professionals thinking about what belongs in an educational video
might want to walk down the hall to the outpatient department and see what
kind of films are being shown to family members while they wait.  Who
knows, there might even be something out of copyright that can be made
available to the public. If obstetrics is being described in terms of
storks (what, no cabbage patch?) then pediatrics on Wikipedia is even more
dismal. I wondered about this article on infant sleep training and why it
is assigned to women's health project.  Does Wikipedia recognize no
difference between gynecology and pediatrics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Infant_sleep_training And then I
realized there is no project for pediatrics. With the medicine project
developing the offline Kiwix application that can be used by practitioners
who treat refugees and populations in the developing world, this seems like
a knowledge gap that has huge implications for maternal and infant health
worldwide.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

[Risker]

Noting that the discussion has now closed with the video being removed.

Risker/Anne

On 29 October 2017 at 14:50, Ryan Kaldari  wrote:

> It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] more women's voices

[Ryan Kaldari]

It would be nice to have some women weighing on this debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion#RfC_regarding_video
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap