[WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/ http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To u

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/23 Fred Bauder : > http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/ > > http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html "Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/ > > http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html > > Fred The original study: http://www.manhattanresearch.com/products/Strategic_Advisory/ttp/ Fred

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> 2009/5/23 Fred Bauder : >> http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/ >> >> http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html > > "Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes > are

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/23 Fred Bauder : > That is the key, if physicians actively edit and keep the articles > comprehensive and up to date, there is nothing wrong with them consulting > them. Other than the usual difficulties... FlaggedRevs ought to help with some of the usual difficulties if they get implemente

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/23 Fred Bauder : > >> http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/ >> >> http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html >> > > "Nearly 50% of US physicians going onli

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 availab

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

In a message dated 5/23/2009 9:02:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgoodma...@gmail.com writes: > information on standard dosage, > information that we have made the policy decision to omit. > I think this a particularly stupid decision.>> --- Would you be willing to post here a di

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 should not include instructions, advice (legal, medic

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 > informat

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 constitute

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> 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 a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/24 David Goodman : > 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 should not inclu

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/24 David Goodman : >> 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 i

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 target

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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. If a person self-medicates, then they are already taking on the liability for what they are doing. Any case-law for a person suing the PDR over incorrec

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/24 : > 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 person would have t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 fo

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/24 Delirium : > 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 expected thing to > in

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/24 Andrew Gray : > 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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lis

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:46 PM, 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 PDR. >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > > 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 else will? > I agree.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Why is giving it in terms of body mass when that is the official standard not correct?. For some drugs there is a range of usual dose, for some there is a single standard dose. We are on much firmer ground reporting a standard than reporting an empirical range based upon non-official secondary

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

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 rever

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

I see what you are saying now, and I agree. Asking every editor to check every article to that level of detail is not feasible. The amount of checking done should be determined by the reason for the edit. Still, even if you spot a typo and go and correct it, I would still check you aren't helping t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/25 David Goodman : > Why is giving it  in terms of body mass when that is the official > standard not correct?. For some drugs there is a range of usual dose, > for some there is   a single standard dose.  We are on much firmer > ground reporting a standard than reporting an empirical range

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> > Sam Blacketer (2009/5/25): > Quite often vandals will come in and keep making vandal edits until they > are stopped I concur with that. When I come across an account behaving so, I yearn for a "revert last X edits" function. Now that I think of it, I'm sure there is an administrator js bl

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On an article, rollback will do that if there is a sequence of edits by a single editor and there are no intervening edits. If there are intervening edits, it's normally worth looking closer and checking what exactly to revert or change. I think you have to click rollback on the editor's contributi

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

The questions of liability and encyclopedic nature are really tangential to the core reasons for the guideline. The text of the guideline and discussions about it have generally made no reference to whether the material is encyclopedic or whether legal ramifications exist for having the wrong infor

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

>From my experience as a biomedical librarian, when I see someone say, the ordinary reader won't know how to use it, I see the continuation of guild mentality, the desire to keep information obscure to protect revenues and status. We provide information on many potentially dangerous things. We do

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

In a message dated 5/25/2009 8:23:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nawr...@gmail.com writes: > it's roughly analogous > to why we don't include instructions on how to make bombs.>> - Well sheet. I've been following these instructions for a while now already! http://en.wikipedia.or

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Nathan wrote: > A specialist > encyclopedia of explosives and ordnance might include information on how > such weapons are built, but we don't. Similarly, medical references include > information on lethal dosages and dangerous applications for drugs, but we > don't. > We do include detailed in

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Rollback definitely works on the article's diff page. Twinkle also does the same thing (assumes continued vandalism/agf) for all its various options. ~A On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 10:20, Carcharoth wrote: > On an article, rollback will do that if there is a sequence of edits > by a single editor a

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> > The exact specifications of the "Little Boy" bomb remain > classifiedbecause they > could still be used to create a viable nuclear weapon. > First line of the section. That sort of sums up this whole debate - it's essentially a risk-bene

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Mon, 25 May 2009, David Goodman wrote: > Basic information that anyone can understand is what is known to be > safe, and what is known to be dangerous. The more directly we present > it, the more we fulfill our mandate. NOT CENSORED, frankly, and that > should settle it. Some people think it app

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee : > This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia, > and how common sense is ignored. > > Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm. That would require us to exclude information on rather a lot of ethnic conflicts.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> 2009/5/26 geni : >> 2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee : >>> This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on >>> Wikipedia, >>> and how common sense is ignored. >>> >>> Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to >>> harm. >> >> That would require us to exclude infor

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote: > I understood it well enough. Accurate information on a number of subjects > is inflammatory. This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense. Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should avoid *any har

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 geni : > 2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee : >> This is a prime example of how rules are taken to be everything on Wikipedia, >> and how common sense is ignored. >> >> Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm. > > That would require us to exclude information on rather

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm. > If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is > wrong. Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid harm? What if it's only a tiny amount

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm than it would cause. Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and educate themselves. If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage is 20mg, then I'm sure you'd w

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, 26 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: > > Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to harm. > > If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is > > wrong. > > Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid > harm? What if it's o

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 : > > Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm > than it would cause. > Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and > educate themselves. > If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when the standard dosage >  is 20mg,

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/26  : >> >> Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm >> than it would cause. >> Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and >> educate themselves. >> If the doctors mistakenly

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote: >> I understood it well enough. Accurate information on a number of >> subjects >> is inflammatory. > > This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common > sense. > Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote: > You're preaching to the choir. Often when we want to do the right thing, > we are confronted with a demand for a rule, or presented with one, > typically "no censorship". There is no substitute for doing what is > appropriate in the circumstances. Trying to

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Fred Bauder wrote: >> You're preaching to the choir. Often when we want to do the right >> thing, >> we are confronted with a demand for a rule, or presented with one, >> typically "no censorship". There is no substitute for doing what is >> appropriate in the circumstances.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 Fred Bauder : > Trying to do Biographies of living persons without a rule proved futile; > so a written policy was created. Which only works because it's NPOV/NOR/V with (a working aim for) no eventualism whatsoever. > We still don't have a corresponding > policy for organizations.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot something like that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors will have a net benefit...>> --- Then sh

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> On 26/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: >> Wikipedia should not provide information that is likely to lead to >> harm. >> If there's a rule which says that we must provide it, then that rule is >> wrong. > > Uh huh. And if it also is possible to use the information to avoid > harm? What if it's only

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 : > In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: > > I would  hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot > something like  that. I'm not sure people second guessing their doctors > will have a net  benefit...>> > ---

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 26/05/2009, Fred Bauder wrote: > We're all censors, we just vary with respect to what we censor. No, I don't think I am. I don't remove anything except that which is believed to be illegal in the state of Florida... which this isn't. That's not my censorship, that Florida's. You guys that are

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > you could write a book on the biographies on Wikipedia [...] > Not a book you would want to publish or distribute in the UK, however. Turning away from BLPs to featured articles, it is well-known that articles on people make up a large pr

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/26 : > > > > Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more > harm > > than it would cause. > > Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and > > educate themselves. > > If the doctors mi

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

-Original Message- From: Thomas Dalton To: English Wikipedia Sent: Tue, 26 May 2009 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research 2009/5/26 : > In a message dated 5/26/2009 10:39:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > thomas.dal...@gma

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 Ken Arromdee : > This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense. I'm not interested in the prejudices you acquired by the age of ten. > Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should > avoid *any harm whatsoever*. Then don't say tha

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/26 Thomas Dalton : > I would hope the pharmacist that filled the prescription would spot > something like that. Bunch of people in Portsmouth recently discovered otherwise -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsub

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Wed, 27 May 2009, geni wrote: > > This is another example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense. > > I'm not interested in the prejudices you acquired by the age of ten. > > > Obviously, when I say Wikipedia should avoid harm, I don't mean it should > > avoid *any harm whatsoever*.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 27/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > That too is an example of being overly literal and avoiding common sense. Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, information from the wikipedia is common sense again? I think this is madness. And further, I don't have to follow it

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > Total number of articles: 2,893,595 > Total number of articles on people: 673,918 (23.29% of all articles) > Total number of featured biographies: 618 (0.09% of biographies) > Total number of BLPs: 375,584 (55.73% of biographies) > Total num

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/26 : > >> Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more harm >> than it would cause. >> Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and >> educate themselves. >> If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tablets when t

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/5/26 : >> >>> Actually I think providing dosage information would *avoid* much more >>> harm >>> than it would cause. >>> Most people use books on drugs to check up on their prescriptions and >>> educate themselves. >>> If the doctors mistakenly prescribed 200mg tabl

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: > Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, > information from the wikipedia is common sense again? Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend on whether it's publically available, legal, or verifiable.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 28/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: >> Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, >> information from the wikipedia is common sense again? > > Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend > on whether it's

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you > know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? > -- > -Ian Woollard > I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by users, not readers... Fred

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you >> know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? > >> -- >> -Ian Woollard >> on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> >>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you >>> know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? >> >>> -- >>> -Ian Woollard >>> > > on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? >>> -- -Ian Woollard >> >> on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >>> I'm pretty sure we're partially to bla

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On Fri, 29 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: > >> Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, > >> information from the wikipedia is common sense again? > > > > Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend > > on whether it's publically available, legal

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 29/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go > to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn. Likewise, chances are > low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an > aircraft. The chances that somebod

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Actually my life experience using wikipedia for self medication > does not bear that out. There have been situtations where I was > in dire straits, and without a doctor within easy reach, where > simply consulting wikipedia provided me with the necessary > infor

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

> on 5/29/09 9:06 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >> Interactions between less than perfect people and less than perfect >> organizations are complex. We can do our best to be as compassionate as >> possible in all interactions, but there can be a great deal of pain >> regardle

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

2009/5/29 Ian Woollard : > And what about the potential uses of information that could save > people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this > is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm. For the sake of the record, I've ended up using a Wikipedia article to chec

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> Actually my life experience using wikipedia for self medication >> does not bear that out. There have been situtations where I was >> in dire straits, and without a doctor within easy reach, where >> simply consulting wikipedia provid

Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

On 29/05/2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day. >> >> _ > Touche! :-DDD And more remarkably she even survived 8 years of the wikipedia, that well-known deadly website, but only because it was suitably censored of