I've never tried to edit a wiki and I might think about getting involved but I'm a newb at that too. There is mention of the Sinclair Method in the wiki on Naltrexone, but also in THE SAME WIKI under the pharmacology section you find this:

"Its use in alcohol (ethanol) dependence has been studied and has been shown to be effective[2]. Its mechanism of action in this indication is not fully understood, but as an opioid-receptor antagonist it's likely to be due to the modulation of the dopaminergic mesolimbic pathway which ethanol is believed to activate."

Umm..that needs to be edited. I think I might look into doing that myself unless someone here has an inclination to. My question though is this: At what point can we edit the wiki's on naltrexone and alcohol to highlight a little bit more the fact that The Sinclair Method is a highly effective, safe, demonstrated cure for alcoholism? Are we still some time away? Will some people argue with us even if we show them the proof? Will our edits be erased? I don't know exactly how wikipedia works but it kind of seems like RR has had a bit of a struggle already making the page.

I found TSM through wikipedia...but I ALMOST DIDN'T. I was days away from a 9 month rehab that I wasn't gonna make it through and I'll spare the suicide talk because a lot of us know all about that.

Yes!! Please do try to edit the wiki.

Just keep in mind that you'll also be mixing it up with Robert Rapplean when you work on this page. Most of that page was written by him.

LoOp, you are fairly new to these boards and probably don't know RR. He came on here shortly after the boards started, stating he was personal friends with Dr. Eskapa. I'm not sure if this is true or not. What is true is that he caused quite alot of controversy and conflict on these boards. It is anyones guess what his angle was and why he was causing so much trouble. Bottom line is he just seems to enjoy conflict.

I'm not trying to discourage you from correcting The Sinclair Method wikipedia page, just giving you a heads up on what you'll be met with when you start working over there.

Q

That guy is a troubled pup. As one who claims psychological accumen, he is in serious need.

I edit the Wiki boards quite often in fields of my expertise i.e. embedded programming, robotics, ladder-logic, etc. I also muck it up in some of the political areas. I do know my way around. The key is to dispute and challenge a claim that lacks strong citations.

I will look at it too.

Thanks

Q -- Just so you know, I wasn't throwing him under the bus -- We had the RR discussion.

Lena, I know you wouldn't throw one of under a bus. I didn't know if it was known here that RR was involved with the wikipedia data. The writeup is fairly recent. I just happened across it last week.

Q