David Goodman wrote:
I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information
Delirium wrote:
As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody
can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes
Hello,
I received this message in my inbox a few hours ago. Did anyone else
recieve it, and does anyone know if there's anything of substance behind it?
CJ
-- Forwarded message --
From: EnduranceFan the4jo...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Subject: Wikipedia
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:07 AM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
PDF to image(s) is a nice idea, within limits. But for music the best way
would be to use something like WikiTex (wikisophia.org), which turns
Lilypond code via LaTeX into a rendered PNG of the music, along with a
Er... yes. And by the magic power vested in this rock and their
super-hacking skills, they shall also turn all editors into modern Swiss
historians at the same time, fix the world economy, and invent
faster-than-light travel.
In other words, ignore it.
FT2
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
And besides, it's not like a compromised admin could do permanent
damage. Unlike a few years ago, everything can be reverted.
- -X!
On May 24, 2009, at 7:18 AM [May 24, 2009 ], FT2 wrote:
Er... yes. And by the magic power vested in this rock and
I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information is standardized and
Judge-Turned-Journalist Files Wikipedia Defamation Complaint in Her Old
Court
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge-turned-journalist_files_wikipedia_defamation_complaint_in_her_old_cou/
Here is the edit complained of:
As for the geolocation claims. does anyone technically minded want to
comment on the posted comments? That would also be interesting.
FT2
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Judge-Turned-Journalist Files Wikipedia Defamation Complaint in Her Old
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Judge-Turned-Journalist Files Wikipedia Defamation Complaint in Her Old
Court
http://www.abajournal.com/news/judge-turned-journalist_files_wikipedia_defamation_complaint_in_her_old_cou/
Here is the edit complained
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:53 AM, C. Currie coreyjcur...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I received this message in my inbox a few hours ago. Did anyone else
recieve it, and does anyone know if there's anything of substance behind it?
CJ
I doubt it. All the old admin accounts seem to be getting
2009/5/24 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The guideline is at:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Drugs]
Do not include dose and titration information except when they are
notable or necessary for the discussion in the article. Wikipedia is
not an instruction manual or textbook and
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/24 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
The guideline is at:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:MED#Drugs]
Do not include dose and titration information except when they are
notable or necessary for the
It's a good guideline - there are few enough instances on Wikipedia where
simple vandalism can lead directly to serious physical harm, and this is
one. Statistics and reported numbers are vandalism targets throughout
Wikipedia every day, and dosage information would be a particularly popular
2009/5/24 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
I doubt it. All the old admin accounts seem to be getting _Batman_
related emails from phantom accounts; mine, for example, was just a
lengthy quote of Joker's 'Why so serious?' speech.
It's been positively identified by the checkusers as one of the
1. There are hundreds of thousands of places where similar harm could
be do--safe uses of a chemical, or the like. We could guard against it
by using flagged revisions on these pages.
2. We need not give only the US dose.
3. Saying according to the official USDI, the usual does is is as
safe as
2009/5/24 wjhon...@aol.com:
The PDR is a reliable source. If we are relying on the PDR for dosage
information, then we have no liability for re-reporting what they say.
What if we mis-report it? Errors could be due to misinterpreting the
source, typos, vandalism, etc.
At any rate, the
Charles Matthews wrote:
Delirium wrote:
As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody
can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
responsible if there were
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Even if we aren't worried about the consequences of giving incorrect
advice (which we should be), that guideline is still a good one for
the reasons it gives - such information is not encyclopaedic. Someone
using Wikipedia for its intended purpose should have no need for
2009/5/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
I agree with the first part (serious consequences of incorrect
information), but I don't see how why dosage information is
unencyclopedic. Information on typical quantities used for any chemical
compound with practical applications is a perfectly
2009/5/24 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
comments like is generally given in 10-50mg doses
Something like that I wouldn't have a big problem with. It's comments
like the standard dose is 2mg/kg body mass that I wouldn't like.
___
WikiEN-l
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the PDR.
Could they sue other people that have edited the
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is a big difference between a specialist encyclopaedia like PDR
and a general one like Wikipedia.
-
Yes the difference is, we re-report what all the specialist encyclopedias
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:46 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/24/2009 12:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
At any rate, the person would have to sue the editor, not the project,
and
the editor could stand on the basis of simply quoting the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
With vandalism, I think there is a duty of care to check the recent
history and go back to the last version before the vandalism started.
Sometimes you have to stop and look quite carefully, but if you don't,
who
I got the same message from user 'Rx StrangeLove' the other night. To whom,
if anyone, should it be reported to?
Brian
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/24 Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com:
I doubt it. All the old admin accounts seem to be getting
Brian Gatens wrote:
I got the same message from user 'Rx StrangeLove' the other night. To whom,
if anyone, should it be reported to?
Brian
You should report it to me, so that I can laugh about it being
Wikibomb III.
Of course I agree with you Carcharoth. When you revert vandalism, you
should make sure you're not reverting to previous vandalism.
But what was asked was what if you are reverting to *incorrect*
information. That's not the same as reverting vandalism. We cannot expect
each
vandalism
28 matches
Mail list logo
