All,

First, thanks to Joe12pack for putting this on our radar.

This effort will need a lead author, with input from the rest of us. Nick has my complete confidence, but first I suggest that we propose this to Dr. Sinclair and Dr. Eskapa.

Idea: Nick, would you be willing to email Dr. Eskapa to see if he is interested, and if he would contact Dr. Sinclair for input as well?

Best,
-wort

I'll check into it I guess, it really should be a concerted effort between us. You're right I guess, who better to do it than us? I don't have much time these days but something needs to be done about it.

I don't understand how this guy can just go and flag things without joining the discussion and providing a reason.

Not sure what would be involved, but if I can do it without losing my job, sure.

I'm willing to contribute. I have some experience in technical writing (i.e. referencing, independence, impartiality etc).

Let me clarify the sort of input we are asking from the board in general. If you've posted a link to a scholarly article, it would help to re-post the link here, with a concise bullet describing the significance of the article. If you've been cured and posted your graph, a pm to minneapolisnick stating that you would be willing in the future to disclose your identity and contact info (assuming you are) if the graph becomes part of the article and granting permission to use the graph.

You newer members may need to be reassured that some of us old-timers communicate routinely with Eskapa, who remains in close touch with Sinclair.

Wikipedia has a rule: no original research. So any success info from board members would get deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... l_research

Actually there are ways around that. I've discussed in the past ways we might get some of this in with some regular Wikipedia contributors.

BTW, anyone here is of course free to contribute directly to the Wikipedia article if you want to go through their process.

Sorry folks, I've been on vacation and haven't been reviewing the board as closely as I normally do. I'm only now reading these posts. I would be happy to do anything to get this issue addressed. I also have no problem going public with my identity as I am self-employed.

I found this bit of Wikipedia policy quite interesting "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia..." (italics added)

Since Google searches often weight the relevance of Wikipedia articles fairly high and people go there for facts, I find it astounding that they specifically exclude truth and proof over majority opinion and what they term as verifiability. Verifiability is a term that Wikipedia uses to indicate sources for the information, whether the information is true or not.

Why are facts and truth so undervalued in our modern society? News outlets, Wikipedia, even science are becoming more op-ed based than fact based. The tyranny of majority opinion wins; Truth and facts lose. AA wins; TSM loses.

All we can do is try hard to get our working treatment method accurately represented in Wikipedia.

Bob

looks like progress. someone went in and changed a bunch of it. nice!