http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Consumers who rely on the user-edited Web
resource Wikipedia for information on medications are putting
themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and
adverse effects, new research shows.
"Dr.
News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in
an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listin
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in
> an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
That said, I frequently look up medications in Wikipedia, applying of
course my "this is not reliable but it may be useful" filter. I d
2008/11/25 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in
>> an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
>
>
> That said, I frequently look up medications in Wikipedia, applying of
> course my
2008/11/25 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>or that St. John's wort can
> interfere with the action of the HIV drug Prezista (darunavir)."
I would expect that article to be something of a battleground.
This is a case where I would suggest the problem is less wikipedia and
more the quality of me
On one hand, it would be pretty stupid for a person to rely on WP for
drug interaction information, but it also might be wise for us to
institute some kind of disclaimer at the top of pages related to drugs
(over-the-counter as well as prescription).
Matt
> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:16:46 +
>
2008/11/25 Matt Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On one hand, it would be pretty stupid for a person to rely on WP for
> drug interaction information, but it also might be wise for us to
> institute some kind of disclaimer at the top of pages related to drugs
> (over-the-counter as well as prescripti
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe this one has been debated before and was considered to be
> covered in the nest of disclaimers linked from the general disclaimer.
>
>
> - d.
There's really two arguments here, a legal argument and a moral one.
Le
2008/11/25 Oskar Sigvardsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's really two arguments here, a legal argument and a moral one.
> Legally, the talmudic list of general disclaimers (which no sane
> person reads) probably covers us, but is that enough? Should we stop
> there?
Yes because of the second half
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:46 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I believe this one has been debated before and was considered to be
>> covered in the nest of disclaimers linked from the general disclaimer.
>
2008/11/25 Carcharoth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Such "in-article" disclaimers, if they were ever used, would have to
> be carefully monitored. It is much simpler to write and maintain a
> general "boilerplate" disclaimer that applies to all articles, even if
> no-one reads it.
The essential problem
David Gerard schreef:
> http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124
>
> "NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Consumers who rely on the user-edited Web
> resource Wikipedia for information on medications are putting
> themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and
> adverse
> "current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p = 0.024)."
> First scientific proof that quality still is improving?
There's actually been a real study comparing different versions of
articles? Fantastic! We should encourage more of that.
___
On 11/25/08, Oskar Sigvardsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it would be a bad thing at all if at the dosage section of
> an article on drugs we say "Consult your physician before taking
> medication"
Funny thing, my meds say that right on the label (but damned if I pay
it any mind).
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The moral argument says that we should make sure that people don't
> rely on only our information when it comes to serious decisions with
> serious consequences. I don't think it would be a bad thing at all if
>
2008/11/25 Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (2) For things like prescription drugs where there exists external
> notable and basically reliable materials on safety we should adopt a
> standard highly visable infobox field that link people to these
> resources.
I like that one. Links to sta
On 11/25/08, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what will it take for us to get this switched on for en:wp?
An order from Jimbo, sadly enough. I just hope that another round of
negative publicity is not a prerequisite for this.
It would probably be less dramatic to have Brion just turn
2008/11/25 Charlotte Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 11/25/08, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So what will it take for us to get this switched on for en:wp?
>
> An order from Jimbo, sadly enough. I just hope that another round of
> negative publicity is not a prerequisite for this.
>
> I
We have a megaphone at our disposal, the question is how to use it
effectively. Warnings are pointless - we put all sorts of warnings on the
medications we dispense, but I attend probably two to three lectures a year
on how ineffective these warnings are. People don't read them - we're lucky
if the
2008/11/25 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So what will it take for us to get this switched on for en:wp?
Proof that having the sighted revision as the standard view (which you
have to for it to be meaningfully useful) doesn't result in a drop in
editing rate.
Proof that en would be able to k
2008/11/25 Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We have a megaphone at our disposal, the question is how to use it
> effectively. Warnings are pointless - we put all sorts of warnings on the
> medications we dispense, but I attend probably two to three lectures a year
> on how ineffective these warnings
> Proof that having the sighted revision as the standard view (which you
> have to for it to be meaningfully useful) doesn't result in a drop in
> editing rate.
>
> Proof that en would be able to keep up with the required rate of
> sighting (We have a hard time marking new pages as patrolled at the
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There is only one way to prove any of that, though, and that's giving
> it a go.
Not so. I assume we keep the not English wikipedias around for a reason.
--
geni
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Proof that having the sighted revision as the standard view (which you
>> have to for it to be meaningfully useful) doesn't result in a drop in
>> editing rate.
>> Proof that en would be able to keep up with the required rate of
>> sighting (We have
2008/11/25 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> There is only one way to prove any of that, though, and that's giving
>> it a go.
>
> Not so. I assume we keep the not English wikipedias around for a reason.
Um, yeah, so that non-English speakers can read Wik
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:01 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I think the very best thing we can do in terms of serving the public
> is to have as clear, accurate and referenced information as we can, in
> a well-written article, i.e. what we do anyway.
Except we only do that *
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is only one way to prove any of that, though, and that's giving
>> it a go. If we only make the flagged rev the default version for
>> articles that are currently (semi-)protected keeping up with the
>> sighting wo
2008/11/25 Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> DE has it, and it's still ticking away.
De's default is that you don't see the sighted version. So their
current results are fairly useless.
> Well there is only one way to get *proof*, so we have a Catch-22.
> Sure, persuasive evidence... we can
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than
> protected pages...
Given the historic grow rate of semi protect from replacement for full
protection in some cases to turning up all over the place the
fundamental assumption of
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You would think— But thats only true if the resistance is driven by a
>> risk analysis, it's not true for resistance driven by either a hard
>> philosophical objection (The "unwiki" position taken by many in the
>> discuss
2008/11/25 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than
>> protected pages...
>
> Given the historic grow rate of semi protect from replacement for full
> protection in some cases to turning up all
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/25 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> But flagged revisions for currently protected pages is more wiki than
>>> protected pages...
>>
>> Given the historic grow rate of se
Warnings...
This kind of subject whets the appetite. In front of me is the package for
a frozen pizza.
"COOKING INSTRUCTIONS: Cook before eating."
Doesn't this invoke images of the one-in-a-million nincompoop who would
otherwise chomp down on a hard frozen pizza? Doesn't it make you want to
ru
You are preaching to the choir here. I have audibly espoused the concept
that perhaps OSHA is not doing the country a service (the USA, for those
of you in OTHER countries) due to the fact without OSHA protecting them,
more idiots would die and clean the gene pool of idiots. Mind you, I was
hal
Oh and on the Wikipedia related portion of your email: We are not a
how-to site and no disclaimers other than the blanket disclaimer are
required or indicated.
One puppy's opinion.
Durova wrote:
>
>
> Extra warnings that self-medicating based upon information in an open edit
> website just mig
Amen. It'd be nice to see what we could do with built-in image editing
software. Also, if this goes through, prepare for images of unrelated things
popping up in random places (vandals; -shakes head-)
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Kevin Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Well, I still hope the
36 matches
Mail list logo
