> > I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study > > > > http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 > > > > criticises media reports for citing studies and > experts with financial ties > > to manufacturers, without disclosing these ties to the > reader. > > > > If it's improper for the media to withhold this > information, it's equally > > improper for us to withhold it in our articles. It's a > question of correct > > attribution: "According to a 2007 randomised, > double-blind, placebo- > > controlled trial funded by company X, involving 50 > patients, their product > > Y ..." > > > > I don't think our medical sources guideline addresses > this point at > > present, i.e. that we should name funding sources in > our attribution. So > > that is an area we could do some work on. At least it > will be clear to > > the reader who paid for what. > > > I think that would make an important difference to our > coverage. It > would not only inform the reader that the sources we're > relying on > have a financial interest in the outcome. It would also > alert the > editors who push to rely on those sources that additional > disinterested sources may be needed too.
If anyone's interested, this is currently being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Funding_of_cited_research A. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
