Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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,

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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

Re: [Gendergap] more women's voices

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 > > >