Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:39, 11 December 2014

• WT:MED

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Patient choice?

Surely this isn't just a question of NHS hospital bookings?
(Though, to be fair, the initial draft seems to have been trying to title the page Hospital Choice in the NHS, which is currently a redirect, but seems a fair enough page name in the wider scheme of things...)
109.157.83.50 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hum, I was going to suggest renaming that page and redirecting ] to Concordance (medicine). But I see that, in turn is a redirect to Compliance (medicine), which isn't quite the same thing... And that page, which correctly underlines in the lead that "Compliance should not be confused with concordance", doesn't actually doesn't actually seem to use the phrase "patient choice/s" as such. Which kind of leaves me wondering.... 109.157.83.50 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It was at Hospital choice in the NHS for years until an idiot moved it in september. It should go to a similar name. Ok, boldly moved to Patient choice of hospital in the English NHS. Patient choice REDIRECTed to Participatory medicine after a quick scan of possibilities. but no strong views on best destination. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

John, your recommended title choice (pun intended) is fine. It is certainly better than the generic "Patient choice". Axl ¤ 12:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Axl. Actually looking at Participatory medicine again, it is very ropey indeed, and should I think be merged with the much better Patient participation. But I won't do this. Maybe a straight redirect with a note re the lost content on talk even. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. Patient participation seems an excellent choice. (Fwiw, I think "patient choice" may be quite a frequent search term on Misplaced Pages.) 31.49.13.194 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)ex-109.157.83.50

Ta - I'd switched the redirect, but Participatory medicine remains as it was. Are you the new 109? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

yup... 31.49.13.194 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit over at Participatory medicine. Needs more work, but it's still a noticeable improvement. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't it just be merged to Patient participation, maybe with some salvage? There doesn't seem to be any difference between the topics. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• RE Patient participation vs. Shared decision making:
  There's been some talk (here) over whether these two pages might be merged (probably not a straightforward task). According to the Patient participation page, Patient participation, also called shared decision making, is... (with Shared decision making appearing as an external link). Not ideal, but not an easy fix either. 31.49.13.194 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead containing a large glossary of terms

I disagree with adding large glossaries of terms to the leads of our articles such as was done here . Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This should be at the bottom as a navbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Am also not sure. I'm in favour of explaining terminology, especially when a reader might not be aware that these terms have specific technical meanings. In Anatomy we have a template that can be used at the bottom of articles, {{Anatomy-terms}} to let readers know. If editors feel like these terms need explaining, something similar ('This article uses terms relating to addiction, for an explanation see...') could be included to direct readers to a Glossary of terms in addiction medicine or some such. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We have blue links which people can click on to find explanations of terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If a glossary is included, it should be near the top, not the bottom. Misplaced Pages articles are meant to be read and understood by a wide audience and a glossary of key terms can go a long way in making a technical subject more accessible to the average reader. In order to serve this purpose, it is important the glossary be placed at the top where it would immediately be noticed by readers so that they can refer back to it as they read the article. Readers that would most benefit from the glossary would probably not finish reading the article and never notice it if placed at the bottom. At the same time, I think these glossaries should be kept short and only used when the scope of the glossary and article largely overlap. For example, I think including the {{Addiction glossary}} is very appropriate in Addiction but less so in Opioid dependence. Boghog (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What good does a glossary do at the bottom of the page? That only results in 2,500 words of confusion followed by "Hey, if I'd known what this word meant at the start, maybe I would have understood what I just spent the last ten minutes reading". If you (where "you" means average, non-medical people, like teenagers in school, not emergency room physicians) need to know what these words mean to understand the article, then it should be at the top of the page. If you don't need to know this, then it shouldn't be on the page at all.

Realistically, I don't think we can assume that readers will click on the blue links, and specifically we should not assume that they will click on the links if they (wrongly) believe that they already know what the term (probably) means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is disagree with efforts to have articles begin with a long list of definitions of terms. We are not a dictionary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the glossary should be kept as short as possible. If the glossary becomes too long, it starts to defeat the purpose of having a glossary. At the same time, I strongly believe a brief, well written list of key terms can really help a general reader more quickly understand a technical article. While Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, all encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition. The purpose of a glossary is to provide brief definitions of key terms within the subject area of the article. Putting a glossary at the bottom of an article is next to useless. Boghog (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not especially against this at times. Something like this would be very useful for gene/protein articles of the sort cancer articles link to, and God knows most of them need making much more accessible. I generally dislike the Great White Space next to a long TOC, as here, and that med articles are apparently not allowed to put images here. A glossary at the bottom, in an article this long, is pretty useless, as others have said here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, in a shorter article though such links are somewhat more accessible. In addition I think these links are useful to target frequent readers who will see them eventually, rather than one-time readers. Plus they should be used in conjunction with other modalities, as I explain in my essay (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY). In the case here, I think the easiest way may be just to include a sentence in the lead: "Many terms used in addiction medicine, such as "addiction" and "withdrawal", have specific meanings. A glossary of such terms can be found at: ". I am not in favour of large glossaries being provided in articles as, amongst other things, it is distracting, space consuming, annoying once you have seen it once, and I do think at some point a reader has to be responsible for what they are interested in. (let's say an article has linked wikitext, a link in the lead, a link in the infobox, and a reference in the 'see also' area. In this case, I do not think a glossary is necessary). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be self-contained (as much as possible) so that people reading offline copies are able to understand them, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fair enough but obviously with the way Misplaced Pages is organised with many articles having a parent/child structure and wikilinks, there is some widespread acknowledgement that articles can't be completely self-contained. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposed WP:GLOSSARIES guidelines and especially the embedded glossaries section would seem highly relevant to the above discussion. In short, the proposed guidelines suggests that glossaries of less than 5 items should be imbedded in the lead. Glossaries of more than 25 items should be moved to a stand-alone glossary article. These proposed guidelines seem reasonable to me. Boghog (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay and if it is 5 to 25 terms it should occur under a section heading called glossary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time this has been discussed, so I'll explain and illustrate the issue in these articles. I explained my motivation for creating this template here.

My reasoning for placing this in other addiction/dependence articles is to attempt to address the incorrect and/or vague concept references that exist in every article on these topics, provided I haven't rewritten/overhauled it yet. If one reads basically any addiction article (or "dependence" articles that are actually about an addiction) and then compares the use of terminology to this glossary, it should be apparent why the vast majority of them make me facepalm. Articles titled "XYZ dependence" are often described in the lead sentence using the definition of addiction and sometimes even also state that this "dependence" is an aspect/component of addiction (as in opioid dependence). This makes absolutely no sense, since it's using 2 different definitions (substance dependence - the diagnostic definition; drug dependence - the neuropharmacology definition) of dependence to describe 1 form ("substance dependence" involving opioids) in the same sentence. Other articles, like caffeine addiction before I retitled and fixed it, have the opposite problem; they use the term "addiction" to refer to a dependence-withdrawal syndrome (also note that caffeine isn't even an addictive drug...). Except for two that I've rewritten, there are problems like this throughout literally every article on a drug/behavioral addiction/dependence.

In any event, I don't really care where this template is placed, so I removed it from opioid dependence. If people think the inclusion of a wikitable is so bad that we should omit it in spite of the fact that it improves readibility/accessibility in any related article and makes an attempt at clarifying ambiguous terminology, then I'm perfectly okay with leaving our articles on these topics in the laughable state that most of them are in right now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think many are tentatively supportive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal access needed

Global Asthma Network was recreated by an editor who first created it with copyvio, and it was speedied. The recently recreated version still has copyvio, but there is an OTRS tag on the talk page, indicating, I guess, that the same editor is affiliated with the Global Asthma Network and is releasing the wording from copyright ?? In other words, there may be a COI at work.

But of more concern, can someone with journal access check the text? I can't access the full journal reports, but I suspect:

1. Most, or many, of the sources are citing text unrelated to the Global Asthma Network, rather general text that is off-topic to this article. That is, how is notability met?
2. Original research may be present.
3. Because the editor's previous contribs have all been copyvio, I'm concerned that checks vs. the journal text should be done.

Side note, I am off for the morning, no time to address the spa owner who posted overnight on my talk and altered a previous post by Formerly 98 ... an hour or so will be needed to a) undo her alteration of 98's post, and then b) educate her on Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies, which I don't have. (PANDAS is the subject of long-standing, off-Wiki, anti-SandyGeorgia recruiting, so I expect this will be time consuming ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected PANDAS. Which account was altering 98s posts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, Formerly 98 and Jacob for the help at PANDAS (there has long been a series of SPAs and IPs there, and according to the off-Wiki recruiting, SG is the nazi who protects the article, so more eyes and feedback are appreciated to take the heat off of MOI the Evil One :) This alteration of 98's post (now corrected by 98) was likely only because of a lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, but we also have this account name, which seems related to the IP and the spa owner, and then we have the other recent IPs editing the article, as well as User name Pandasisreal. I have just gotten home from a long day, so will focus on dealing with my talk page tomorrow. Thanks to all who helped, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Side note: I hope that whenever WP:Flow discussions appear, that the English Misplaced Pages doesn't choose to let IPs edit/vandalize the comments made by logged-in users. I don't think the setting needs to be admin-only (every wiki gets its own setting, and some other projects are choosing to use the admin-only approach), but this alteration wouldn't be possible if comments by experienced editors were basically semi-protected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump ... is anyone able to look at that article (Global Asthma Network, that is)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from Wiki Ed!

On behalf of Wiki Ed, I wanted to extend a thank-you to this community, particularly bluerasberry for all the help offered toward the new brochure for student editors, which you can find at File:Editing Misplaced Pages articles on medicine.pdf.

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks to everyone who worked on the brochure. I plan to use it immediately!!! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This follows a July call for comment from Lianna and my own call for comment around the same time. I have already received a message about whether there is an easy way to edit text. No, there is not, except with software which can edit PDF files. Still, changing a PDF is easier than changing these documents after they are printed on paper which is the next step. I copypasted the text of the handout to a Misplaced Pages page where anyone can edit text there and continue to comment on this. I am also linking this comment page from the file page of that document, so that it is not lost. Ultimately if the document is updated, it will have to be by someone who can manipulate PDF text and make a different PDF file. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So which part should we edit if we want to make changes? IMO the "Scard? Don't be!" section should go first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James I just did a quick copypaste from the PDF into the section "December 2104 first version", which is what I linked. It is not very neat right now but I think that is all the text. Any part of that heading could be edited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reddit AMA about Misplaced Pages health happening today

Sorry, I think the interview is mostly over right now, but perhaps the scientists are still answering questions.

• Science AMA Series: We are scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory modeling infectious diseases using Internet systems and computational approaches, we just published how to monitor and forecast diseases around the world using Misplaced Pages. Ask Us Anything!

They are discussing this paper:

• Salathé, Marcel; Generous, Nicholas; Fairchild, Geoffrey; Deshpande, Alina; Del Valle, Sara Y.; Priedhorsky, Reid (2014). "Global Disease Monitoring and Forecasting with Misplaced Pages". PLoS Computational Biology. 10 (11): e1003892. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. ISSN 1553-7358.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

As a side note, I talked with the /r/science moderator some time ago about why they disallowed submissions of the dengue fever article. The rule there is that they only allow primary research, and this was a review article. Still, the moderators there are friendly enough about Misplaced Pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To follow up, this post made the "front page" of Reddit. It got about 500 comments, about 3000 upvotes, and more than 100,000 unique individuals saw the title and clicked through to read the discussion about the article. This is all supporting evidence that there are a base of people in the general population who are now more aware that large numbers of people seek health information through Misplaced Pages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Research paper on editors of health-related material on Misplaced Pages

Hi all. As some of you know, because you took part, User:Hydra Rain and I conducted a study of editors of health-related content on Misplaced Pages and their motivations. The paper came out today in the Journal of Medical Internet Research: see here. Thanks again to those of you who did take part; Hydra Rain will also be sending a summary of results to participants. There'll be a Wikimedia blog post and Signpost article about the paper as well. I hope you enjoy the paper! Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out, Bondegezou. (The interview was years ago—I had forgotten about it.) Axl ¤ 13:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It can take a while for research to come out in print... although we probably could have been quicker about it: my fault, not Hydra Rain's! Bondegezou (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to all who make Wiki Project Medicine what it is

“Misplaced Pages has been the most widely used single source of information about Ebola in the most affected countries, among people who searched for information through Bing. The use of Misplaced Pages was greater than that of either CNN, the World Health Organization, or the Center for Disease Control during the time periods examined. The countries in question include: Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea."

I have been collaborating with a researcher from microsoft by the name of Elad Yom-Tom who has provided this interesting data. I think this is a real accomplishment for all the amazing individuals and organizations that have made Misplaced Pages what it is today including the many dedicated Wikipedians here. While we may disagree from time to time what we do really matters and I hope we can keep that first and foremost. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James that is terrific. It does create an obligation to make the content as fabulous as we can. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Student editing again (term-end)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is term-end, when poor student edits show up in time for grading. Can we get a list of articles hit, so we can later clean up? I am aware of so far: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Autism (FA, reverted as of now)

    Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Hearing loss (a complete mess, but some of the mess pre-dates students)

    Not done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Posttraumatic stress disorder (have not had time to look)

    Not done, primary sources, WP:UNDUE text, WP:MEDMOS should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

4. Quercetin (reverted earlier today and WP:3RR warning issued, with a user Talk page explanation) -- I am new watching the Wikiproject Medicine board and am unfamiliar with the practice you are referring to Sandy of (high school?) students being encouraged by teachers or thinking alone that entering content with weak English syntax and no observance of WP:MOS or WP:MEDMOS is a way to pass a school test. This is requiring significant effort and time to get a message through; is a screening/reverting tool available? Brief explanation of what you know please? Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

    Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Some background. User:Jbmurray brought his class to Misplaced Pages years ago. And with the help of lots of long term Wikipedians produced some great results. The WMF put together a formal effort to encourage school to engage with Misplaced Pages. While Prof Murray is an expert Wikipedian and highly involved many of the subsequent teachers were not. A number of issues have occurred.

We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are officially working with UCSF College of Medicine. This is an intensive effort which involve myself and Jack among others giving a couple of days of lectures on how to edit Misplaced Pages in person. The students are also 4th year medical students. Results are promising but not scalable.

We have a fair number of other classes running projects without as much involvement from the core medical editor community. The prof with this class has however been open to feedback. Class ends Dec 23rd 2014. Was also discussed above.

The student you bring up is not with that class. They are from Boston College per the urls they use to the inside net of their school. We need staff to help use with these students. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, except: " While Prof Murray is an expert Wikipedian and highly involved many MOST of the subsequent teachers were not." JBMurray's project took an enormous amount of community resources, and was successful because of his experience as a Wikipedian and the number of other long-time experienced editors who helped him produce several FAs. But it was an experiment that did not scale, yet was brought forward and publicized to such an extent that we now have hundreds of ill-prepared students adding content to medical articles alone. The students do not know how to communicate on Wiki, and never return to edit after their term ends (so attempts to bring them up to speed on Misplaced Pages policy and guideline are a waste of time). The profs LOVE IT, because they get free teacher's assistants (us). We get to check the edits for plagiarism, copyvio, sourcing, poor writing, the works. Profs rarely even weigh in.

Medical articles are particularly hard hit because of our stricter sourcing requirements, and because there were initiatives to get psych articles edited by students.

The WMF seems to have put out publicity that furthers this program (and other related Gender Gap bologna), but to my knowledge has been tongue-tied when it comes to press releases and internal recognition about the problems caused, particularly in the medical and psych realms. In fact, misinformation has several times come from the WMF. See WP:ENB. The Education Program has ruined editing for many long-time editors, myself included. I can no longer keep up with the bad edits, so I tune in at term-end to see what damage has been done, and hope I can correct a small bit of it.

There is a new trend in Misplaced Pages editing, where volunteer editor effort is deprecated, while WMF staff or WMF-sponsored programs rule. That is, paid editing dominates, and the rest of the on-the-ground nimwits get to clean up the messes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely appreciate your help following up on these students edits. Yes it is not scalable and this needs to be address. We basically need staff to take this one.

Basically we need copyeditors like those found at all reputable publishers. The question is who will pay? Will the school provide some funding? IMO they should. People pay for open access publishing, why not Misplaced Pages publishing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello. Some of this is part of that women and health class, and some seems to be unrelated. I emailed the professor and one of the campus ambassadors. This class is in my city and I would like to support it. I am meeting the campus ambassador in person in a few days. If the professor would have me, I would meet them and the class too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks Blue. I have already recommended you to her. We have a start of a conversation on my talk page User_talk:Doc_James#BrooklynProf_-_Thanks_for_feedback Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this illuminating discussion. It seems instructors of university-level biology classes (or perhaps just one) are encouraging students to write/edit for Misplaced Pages. Although this is desirable for educational reasons, it's not helpful when those of us who take editing seriously have to repeatedly deal with the zeal and persistence of novice editors to have their content stick in the encyclopedia, so repeat insertion of content even with reverting and WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK warning continues. One novice user stated on his/her Talk page that the revisions were part of a biology assignment, creating the image that appearance of content on Misplaced Pages was evidence of acceptance and achievement for the course. This mess just perpetuates the problem, with no end in sight.

Fyi, Sandy, on the Quercetin page, even after considerable Talk page discussion and WP:3RR warnings within 24 hr, the student editor is back, so I am now moving to an Administrator's block request, a sad position to have to take. Now by reviewing the history of contributions, it appears that a team of students is inserting unqualified information into the article. --Zefr (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Have fully protected the article in question and restored to its previous state. A couple of them were plagiarizing content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Zefr, I'm sure that you didn't mean to imply that novice editors were only an inconvenience to "serious" ones. We were all novice editors once upon a time. I wouldn't be here if Arcadian hadn't quietly cleaned up my mistakes. Doc James probably wouldn't be here if JFW hadn't spent weeks talking about how to properly source material correctly. If we want new editors, then we have to be willing to help them along, just like people helped most of us along.

I would like to see more support from the schools (e.g., someone at the school checking for copyvios and plagiarism), but I also want novice editors, including student editors, to feel like Misplaced Pages is a place where their efforts to contribute productively are encouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The students from the most recent UCSF class said that they were interested in continuing editing. I will check in 3 months. I have not seen many students continue editing after the course ends. This is what makes it difficult.

Student appear to come for a mark rather than simply come to improve Misplaced Pages. They are externally rather than internally motivated and thus appear to be a different group of editors.

Yes we need the schools checking for copyvios or plagiarism. I would be even happy to set up a program where they could pay to have this done ( ie would hire and train people ) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A way forward?

I have been thinking about this today (after Guettarda bright it up) to see if there is a way of being proactive and making for a better environment for students. Perhaps if we draw up a list of articles that are significantly incomplete yet pretty broad - that students could easily find secondary sources with good material that is otherwise missing or otherwise unreferenced? That way (a) we get more articles improved, and (b) students don't get disheartened getting their edits reverted.....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know. I have just dealt with a lot of plagiarism. We also have a chemistry / pharmacy class. This is not scalable. We need staff. Building an encyclopedia is slow. It is not something a student can wipe off in two days. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am trying to think how we can get the best out of this situation - we could direct them to prioritise taking a start or stub class article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cannot even figure out who this class is Indeloxazine. At least three copy and pasting Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about stubish articles though since that can give them too much free reign to try to write up a report (which we don't want) without having an article format there already. Students (or just new users in general) need a good series of examples of how Misplaced Pages works before they are turned loose on editing. I sat back and watched talk page discussions for many months before I ever made a single edit. That doesn't work so well for students though since their goal isn't really to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but get a grade. It's the answer that really isn't an answer, but I would say students need more structure here rather than just being given a list of articles that could use improvement. Whatever the case, definitely not an easy answer here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

They need a couple of days of lectures on Misplaced Pages by someone who is experienced.

By the way the class is 19 PhD students Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Tricky then - maybe pointing them to a subject template? Part of me thinks that this isn't rocket science surely.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out if they received an instruction. Have sent one an overview of our guidelines. These educational efforts are not scalable. Here we are battling over the use of systematic reviews versus guidelines as sources and we have students adding dozens of animals studies that are primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually per Indeloxazine User:Formerly 98 tried but as the assignment is soon due they just continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 reverted a bunch of stuff with an edit summary that contains a relevant link. There are zero talk page discussions and zero personal messages to the new user. We have no reason to believe that the new editor has even looked at the history page, much less understood the edit summary.

I'm left thinking, "December: the time of year when all new editors working on an article about a drug are assumed to be students trying to get credit for a class, rather than shills for the pharmaceutical companies". It makes for some variety, but it's not a good attitude in either case.

People who are citing good-quality primary journal articles are usually doing so because they are real-world professionals who have some experience with writing peer-reivewed papers themselves. Our rule about using secondary sources is great for Misplaced Pages, but it is definitely not what medical and science professionals expect. Almost all of us have made that kind of mistake. Here's an example of someone citing a good-quality primary study on his second-ever day of editing, and if you look at the name at the top of that diff, I'm sure you will all agree with me that even people citing 1991 primary sources can turn out to be a good editor.

Perhaps our problem is that we're getting too many good new editors. If we saw a lot more people citing garbage blogs, then maybe we'd be properly grateful for the few who are citing the scientific literature.

If you want to help these editors, you need to go to their own user talk pages and leave personal messages. Thank them for what they're doing well and for caring enough to help. Explain that we have weird standards for sourcing. Offer to help. Don't just assume that reverting (however necessary that might be) is an effective way to engage and educate the newbie. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course we want to welcome and guide them. I have done this for a dozen or so today. What I am asking is for is help.

Is this a PhD student in pharmacology? Yes definitely. The similarity with the rest in the class is unmistakable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

To see why we get such problems, see Misplaced Pages:Training, with the more-or-less official introductory online training modules. These give the estimated time to complete the training:

• "Training for students: a four-part training intended for students doing assignments on Misplaced Pages, with more detailed introductions to core Misplaced Pages policies, editing basics, and more specific editing advice for students" - from p. 1 "In total, the four modules should take about one hour to complete."
• "Training for educators: a four-part training for professors and other educators who want to run Misplaced Pages assignments for class, with introductions to core Misplaced Pages policies, editing basics, and an overview of best practices for designing and implementing Misplaced Pages assignments" - "In total, the four modules should take about one to one-and-a-half hours to complete."
• "Training for Misplaced Pages Ambassadors: a four-part training for Misplaced Pages Campus and Online Ambassadors, with introductions to core policies and editing basics for those new to editing and an overview of best practices for Misplaced Pages assignments" - "In total, the four modules should take about one to one-and-a-half hours to complete."

- some of the "ambassadors" and the odd prof/instructor will have more experience than that, but it seems many won't. No wonder we get such poor results. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber surely the ratings system provides a rough approximation as to what articles need attention / improvement the most? We have 20,000 start and stub-class articles... surely students could be directed there? I think an obvious prerequisite for class editing would be to leave FA and GA-class articles alone?--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 the more I think about it the more I think we try and direct people to look at this group of articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean direct students to FA and GA? I think what SandyGeorgia is saying is that student editors do not always understand our editorial standards and so require a lot of scrutiny. At least if they were expanding some of our 20,000 start + stub class articles they will be quantitively expanded, bringing some new content to readers, rather than replacing or alering our existing GAs or FAs. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If they expand those underdeveloped articles, then we will just complain that they're working on "little-watched articles" and thus it is inconvenient for us to scrutinize their work (which will often be on pages that nobody really reads, either). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar WAID. But the problem is that their editing always requires review and work. I guess it is a question of whether any of us wants to work to integrate poor content into an already-developed article, or work with a less developed (and less complicated) context. It would seem to me that the latter is easier and students will have a higher chance of generating something that can stick - too often the new content plopped into existing articles duplicates other parts and is worse written and sourced, so just gets deleted - huge waste of time for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Really what we want is:

1) The students to paraphrase in easy to understand English

2) To use high quality secondary sources and format them properly

3) Follow the section ordering and language advice at WP:MEDMOS

4) Actually read the article they are editing to determine what it already covers

5) And finally not capitalized and bold every second word

Often they appear to be batting 0 for 5 and at that point it does matter what article they are working on. They however do get greater leeway on none FAs and GAs to play. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

agreed with that 100%. especially 5 :) the problem is that they don't.... and pointing them to stubs seems to me a way to reduce the work for us and maximize the chance of satisfaction for them of seeing something stick. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup and I have no idea how to get them to follow these 5 basic instructions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

examples

• Renal colic - 254 words..possible DYK there....
• Dyspepsia - big segments missing
• Encephalopathy
• Enuresis

Boston College and Barnard College student editor problems

Copied from User talk:Doc James, in response to the professor of the Quercetin article: We don't know if what you represent is true because a) you have apparently decided to no longer run a course page, making it harder for us to check your students' edits, and b) your students tend to edit on obscure topics, so the problems may be going undetected. Even more so now that your course has essentially "gone underground" (no course page).

Certainly, as to past problems, your students did not understand primary sources when I encountered them in 2011, and my experience with your course led me to resign as FAC delegate to attempt to get some change (unsuccessful) in the Education Program. Your students' involvement forced me to clean up an obscure topic about which there is basically NO secondary review information, period, so I was forced to carefully use their primary sources to fix their work.

So, now, you are openly operating outside of the Education Program, making more work for regular editors (these problems should be dealt with by the paid staff of the Education Program, not us), and making it impossible to know who your students are and which articles they may have damaged with copyvio.

And your statement that "all stand in much better shape" is not because of your students. I had to edit the silly klazomania stub into compliance with policy and guideline, spending inordinate amounts of time trying to correct your student edits on an obscure topic that gets less than 20 page views per day. That article is improved because of MY time, not your students, and my time could have been used more productively elsewhere. And, of course, for all the time I in good faith invested in mentoring and bringing them up to speed on Misplaced Pages processes, policies and guidelines (holy cow, see my article edits and the talk page and my talk interaction with them), not a one of them returned or stayed on as Misplaced Pages editors, which is pretty much 100% true for all student/courses. YOUR course caused me to stop enjoying and stop editing. While you are running a course and had a total of something like four edits in 2013, and now a few in response to this for 2014. You are clearly not an involved professor.

It would be a great assistance to those of us who have to clean up the damage your students leave if you would a) register a course page, to b) work with the paid staff when your student edits need cleaning up, c) identify which other articles your students have edited, and d) engage the project yourself (that is, follow the edits your students make, make sure they are adding a course template on talk, etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ian (Wiki Ed) The professor described above is a Wikipedian who has been engaged and interested for years and the students are studying upper level health topics, and are the kind of audience which we want to have a good experience. There are significant problems with what the students did and I regret that students of this sort regularly are unable to navigate Misplaced Pages infrastructure to lead to students and Misplaced Pages functionaries having a mutually positive experience. If there is anything that you can do to help relieve tension here then it would be appreciated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Blue, pls do not change section headings. I started this discussion so we could track in one place all of the cleanup needed as a result of this school term. One particular prof's course does not account for all of the articles listed. Also, the professor is not engaged; look at his contribs. He hasn't edited, pretty much, for two years, he isn't checking his students' edits for copyvio, he doesn't have a course page registered, we don't know who his students are or what articles they are editing, they aren't adding course templates to talk, and so on. NeuroJoe is completely disengaged. For that matter, we don't know if he ran the course in 2013. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your concerns are serious. I do not know how to respond at this time. I made this section heading so that this discussion would be easier to find in archives, because "Student editing again (term-end)" does not convey the information that I need to sort for myself the nature of the problem. You have asked me in the past to quit changing section headings. I acknowledge that I continue to do it, but I commit to stay away from those you start. I apologize and will not do it again. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Blue, no problem ... I just didn't want to lose sight of the numerous articles that may need repair, or the place to keep track of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I am seeing now that the title I chose does not reflect the multiple unrelated problems identified, and also includes the less or non-problematic case of Barnard College. I am not sure this can be sorted at all at this time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds discouraging, Blue :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we are also discussing a third class of 19 students from Kentucky. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition to NeuroJoe's unregistered course, we still have to clean up, at least, after:

• Education Program:Brock University/NUSC 1P10 Professional and Therapeutic Communications (Fall 2014) (Hearing loss)
• Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Fall 2014) (Posttraumatic stress disorder)
• Some other unidentified course editing FA autism.

(WHEN will the Education Program understand this venture is killing volunteer editing?) Doc James, could you add the Kentucky course to the list above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Kentucky course also appears to be working under the radar. I have managed to send them instructions through one of their students. They stand out when you look at this list Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Doc James, I'm watching the time you are investing in those students and articles, and wondering when it is time to put together a list of the students, bypass the Education Program (who won't do anything anyway), and go to ANI and request they all be blocked per WP:MEAT. Your time is too valuable for this. They don't even know how to conduct talk discussions, and haven't identified their prof or course, and you've been at this for much too long already. When is enough enough? In times before the EP, this would have been blocked as meat puppetry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If things do reach the point for any future student issues going to ANI too, I could see folks there opposing action just because they are students (i.e., be patient with them). I would hope citing WP:NOTTA that students don't get extra privilege compared to new editors and making clear attempts had been made to work with them to a reasonable degree would get the point across. I could see a gray area between some editors who would think a person didn't do enough to help students, where those of us who have dealt with "motivated" students at the expense of our time tend to have a little less patience when things get this problematic. Just something to be wary of. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the solution is Sandy. Yes I would rather be editing content (been meaning to improve the lead of Alzheimer's and STIs. I do sort of feel that many schools take advantage of us. I assume that most of the time it is unconscious (except in the case of the U of T where I have a feeling that it was conscious). At UCSF I volunteer to be involved but I been sucked in on the rest :-)

I am beginning to believe that schools should be paying a fixed amount per student that funds teaching assistants that are shared between these classes. These teaching assistants would review edits and continuously reinforce the MOS and RS guidelines, as well as recommendations to write in basic English rather than technicalize. They would provide feedback to the prof and would have an effect on the students marks. (students would then take them seriously)

The question is what leverage do we have to enforce this? Maybe once up and running classes that are editing under cover can be simply blocked per meat. But I am not sure the wider community would go for this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

King, it is time to put together a list of the years long issues that WPMED has faced with students. There are plenty of people who understand that we aren't dealing with "regular" editors, in the sense that these editors never stay on or come back, in spite of the significant investment of time we make in them. No amount of mentoring seems to make any difference. Doc's time is much too valuable for what he is doing here.

Doc, we have a log of multiple issues at the Education Noticeboard incident archive. If the ENB doesn't get a handle on this (and they haven't yet, so I don't believe they will), it is time to compose an RFC or a comprehensive post to ANI, for some new admin action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am looking into hiring a "teaching assistant". If we could get support that classes are required to use this service and provide some funding to support it that would be excellent. If classes do not would the community support that they will lose their ability to edit Misplaced Pages if problems occur? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Massive blocks of text rolling in

It appears that the time to hand in assignments is approaching. It appear that no one has taught these students about WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDHOW or WP:MEDMOS. Most of them have also not read the articles they are editing.

The reason being that most appear to be writing their articles in word perfect just like any standard paper and than dropping it into Misplaced Pages.

Here are a few (some okay, but all a lot of work) — Doc James 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

• Equine therapy: has been hit a couple of years in a row.

•  Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Diabetes mellitus type 1 29,000 characters and better than most

•  Done I started, found seriously outdated or primary sources (all in Society and Culture additions), began removing, then decided not enough to save, removed to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• ADHD They did not even bother reading what was there before hand User talk:Lizabetic

•  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anxiety disorder

•  Done out of time to be unpaid TA, all of this needs to be looked at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC) (done now. thanks for the difs. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

• Premenstrual dysphoric disorder

•  Done. There was some proper use of MEDRS sources (one use of PMID 16417420), but almost all sources were primary and very outdated. Reverted, tagged the miserable article, retained a MEDRS source added by students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Did some digging, found the course, Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014), absent prof, no course talk page tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Anorexia nervosa 30,000 bytes of content into the middle of the article.

•  Not done This article is a complete mess (and was before student edits), and if we behaved responsibly in here, it would be reduced to a stub. Further, the new content added by the student uses primary sources (and badly at that) like PMID 19517577. I can't even find a decent version to revert to, but something needs to be done at that article, and it will take time and journal access. This is another Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014) project, with another absent prof (BrooklynProf) and NO indication on the course page of which other articles we need to check for same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Systemic lupus erythematosus

•  Not done. Education Program:University of Ontario Institute of Technology/New Media Theory and Practice (Fall 2014), Prof Jaobar, and lots of cleanup needs. Some very old sources, MEDRS check needed, missing PMIDs make it very hard to check. Not enough time to fix this-- needs sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:SandyGeorgia and @User:Doc_James, I will take a look. --Jaobar (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Posttraumatic stress disorder

   Done, lots of problems still (see above) Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not get it, why do students SO LOVE capital letters? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

oh crap... Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Clitoridectomy, another mess from the same course (Education Program:Barnard College/Women and Health (Fall 2014)) with the missing prof (User:BrooklynProf) ... and I'm only halfway down that course list. So far, I've found one article they edited that isn't a total mess (just relatively less bad, that is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Did what I could, copyvio check needed, tagged the article UNDUE because of extreme reliance on a couple of very old sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

These also coming in soon

• Dextrallorphan
• Norcocaine
• Osemozotan
• Hydroxybupropion
• Bromperidol
• Gabaculine
• Phenoperidine
• Xylazine
• Eliprodil
• Halazepam
• Tetrindole
• Fenclonine
• Omiloxetine
• Cyclorphan
• Talipexole (done Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC))
• Indeloxazine (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• Gavestinel (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• Benactyzine (quick check done Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC))
• TAS-102 (quick check done Jytdog (talk))
• 4-Hydroxyamphetamine (reverted the changes, buncha primary sources and badly formatted refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC))

For anyone who is interested. They also LOVE their caps and their primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've been interested (and have known that) for three years :) By the way, please talk to Ocaasi about the ADHD edits ... it appears that he was part of this and she was part of that.

As I've long said, it's not only student editing; it's paid editing in here (whether students for a grade, profs for free TAs or staff for salary). Volunteer knowledgeable editors are just supposed to clean up for free. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This question has probably been addressed numerous times before, but why exactly is the WMF promoting student editing in medical content if this happens with the vast majority of classes? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dollars, and jobs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a great idea in theory but not a good one in practice.
  • The opposite of Misplaced Pages (a great idea in theory but an okay one in practice)
  • These foundations are not on the ground dealing with the effects
  • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Barnard class is actively working on addressing the issues (we've been in communication with the people there), and Ian (Wiki Ed) has been helping with student articles, even ones not affiliated with our program. We'll definitely be doing a post mortem once the busy part of the term is over to change a few things to hopefully avoid some of these headaches for next term (for example, we had students from non-medical classes editing medicine articles, and so they were not sent to our medicine resources as we didn't have them flagged as med classes, which is clearly something we need to fix). But we're not actively encouraging more medicine classes to edit; rather, we're trying to provide support for classes who approach us, so that students can contribute in productive ways, as they do across many other disciplines. While there are a lot of problematic edits coming from classes unaffiliated with Wiki Ed, those classes are operating independently, and I don't think it's fair to say Wiki Ed is not "on the ground", because we are in there working with student editors, as are many other community members. We're trying to figure out a way of making it more obvious to all community members which issues our staff will be prioritizing, so volunteers who want to help can concentrate on the non-Wiki Ed classes. Again, I'll post an update here in a few weeks once we've determined the changes for next term. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed). By not on the ground I mean that I have not see people from the Foundations fixing references and providing feedback to the students involved on Misplaced Pages.

I agree many of the issues are with classes run outside the Foundations. My apologies as I do not mean to misdirect my frustrations toward these programs. Especially since these programs do not have any greater authority over these classes than we do and are providing support behind the scenes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Another course

• Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014)
• Cshanesimpson, prof, another example of a prof who is not engaged, and the course page is incomplete, so we don't know how many or what articles are affected.

Scores of articles, including:

• Eating disorder not otherwise specified, unsourced text being added, poorly formatted.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the prof did training as a trainer for WPO editing yesterday , after, as far as I can see, 2 edits to article space. We run (very good) similar courses in the UK, but restricted to about 10 participants, all of whom are normally highly experienced. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

cool ... prof did training yesterday, course page isn't filled out, students have been adding text all semester, and we have a webcast up with even more recruiting going on, kool-aid drinking with no mention of the problems we're facing in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

oh AN3 report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And now effectively meat puppetry, with another student from the same class reverting my MEDMOS order of section correction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reached out to the professor to make her aware of the situation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Helaine for contacting me regarding this issue. Many professors are monitoring student pages, but would like to hear from the community when these issues occur. The Misplaced Pages-editing assignment has been completed for this course and students are no longer editing as part of the course. Consequently, we likely have some "rogue" editors that I will follow up with personally. Cshanesimpson (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And another

• 148.166.169.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 207.210.135.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• User:Neuroassignment

Doesn't appear to be User:NeuroJoe students are at Sacred Heart University

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing question re: use of MEDRS source for non-medical information

I started a discussion on WP:RSN here regarding the use of a MEDRS compliant source for non medical material. This might be of interest to editors here. Yobol (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunset Yellow FCF

Could use some eyes on this. We have an edit-warring, fairly new editor who thinks that health effects of food coloring is not a health related issue, but rather is "sociopolitical" so is not subject to MEDRS sourcing. thx. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In future, let the other editor (me) know when you go canvassing support on project noticeboards please. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And calling me "edit warring" when I reversed one edit compared to the numerous edits you reversed is a bit rich! You have a very combative style, JYtdog. MLPainless (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As you've been warned before MLPainless, these talk boards are not the place to quip about editor behavior (again focus on content not contributor). Also it isn't inappropriate to post at related Wikiprojects asking for more eyes from uninvolved editors. If there was actually discussion going on here that would be one thing, but if anyone did as asked and came to the article, you'd know about it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless I did mention I would go to a board and you said OK. I am sorry for not posting a link that I actually did it and for doing it here instead of WT:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Dealwithautism.com

User:Ashishb01 recently added a link to heritability of autism. The link was to this website. Does this look like a reliable source? Everymorning talk to me 14:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No and removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The vagina as an erogenous zone

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Erogenous zone#The vagina isn't an erogenous zone. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Feingold diet and using Quackwatch as a source

has turned into a bloated monster... oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've lanced the bloat, wondering if there's a source which places this diet is a historical context but don't have library access today. 12:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the use of Quackwatch as a source for medically oriented articles. See my comment here MLPainless (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative? Alexbrn 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Just follow MEDRS. Quackwatch does not make the grade. MLPainless (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We use Quackwatch and Science Based Medicine all the time to deal with non-mainstream topics, where the regular scientific literature generally doesn't go into depth. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we"? You mean you? It is extremely unwise to use Barrett's blog as a source of scientific comment. This should be prohibited, and the prohibition added explicitly to MEDRS. Doc James? MLPainless (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been repeatedly found so be okay for fringey health topics at WP:RS/N. So far as I can tell the "mainstream" lost interest in this diet in the 1980s, and it has enjoyed a kind of populist zombie existence since then (mixing in things like flouridation conspiracies) as subsequently covered in Quackwatch. We're not sourcing anything at all weighty to QW. Would be happy if other mainstream sources existed (which is why I was asking about something for historical context above). But do they? Alexbrn 13:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the example Igave above (CFS) shows why we cannot use QW as a source. Really, need I say more? MLPainless (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The community consensus tends to be otherwise:

Use of Quackwatch as a source An Amendment to a previous ArbCom finding has been made. In the process, important observations were made about the use of Quackwatch as a source. Other significant discussions can be found at: -- RS/N: Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery -- RS/N: How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"? -- DR/N: Medical uses of silver

Alexbrn 13:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus changes. I'm relating data that shows it's an unreliable source. CFS was already acknowledged in the literature while Barrett continued with the "debunking" of CFS on his blog. We had a long argument about it. So now I'm giving you this new information. And as Keynes said "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" MLPainless (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the worth of QW's take on CFS, but even assuming you're right, the logic that any publication that was ever imperfect becomes unreliable in toto would see us throwing out an awful lot of prestigious journals! The use of QW for the Feingold diet is fine, but if there are better sources then bring them forth! Alexbrn 14:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been used extensively as a reliable source here, and should continue to be used as such. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a non-peer reviewed, self-published blog that has no impact factor and is not indexed in any scientific databases. It is, by all measures, a pseudoscientific source. -A1candidate (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is an indication it's not reliable for MEDRS level content, but isn't as much of an issue when describing fringe topics for reasons described above because it has a relatively good reputation in that specific area. Not all content will be based on journal articles (although the bulk of it will be in this field). Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A pseudoscientific source is unreliable for all encyclopedic content. -A1candidate (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

you are going to have to fight that out with Arbcom, A1. This isn't the place, unfortunately. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to fight but to reach for consensus. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a fine self published source for alt med topics, when appropriately in-text attributed. It's reputation for fact checking (the requirement for passing WP:V) is borne out by the fact that multiple high quality sources themselves use it as a source or praise it. The position that Quackwatch itself is pseudoscientific is nonsensical. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is non-peer reviewed, has no impact factor and is not indexed by any scientific databases. -A1candidate (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Many other sources we consider reliable for Misplaced Pages (even in med articles depending on the specific content) fall within that category too in general. The qualities you are referring to are metrics for journal articles. We're not talking about a journal article here and we don't limit ourselves strictly to journal articles for all content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So can we agree that Quackwatch is not a scientific journal? It is a blog; a self-published website. -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is fine for the specific use here as has been mentioned on this page and in the multiple RSN, etc. links. It seems your concerns have been addressed there already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

QW as a pseudoscientific source was not addressed. -A1candidate (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

One link above even had using it for such topics (quackery, pseudoscience, etc.) in its title . . . The general consensus in all those has been that QW can be reliable for describing fringe content. I'm really not seeing where the legitimate opposition is at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A1, you have to know when to walk away. Nobody here is going to be interested in overturning arbcom (and for that, I am not even sure we can - please see WP:CONEXCEPT) nor interested in rejecting QW or SBM for the things where it is so useful. You are getting no traction; please drop the stick. I won't be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the link Kingofaces43 provided, many editors said it should be only be used on a "case by case basis". -A1candidate (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see us using QuackWatch a lot less. It may be useful in a few cases, but it tends to be used "because I like it" rather than "because there are no other good sources".

I have seen a few editors over the years who cite QuackWatch as their first choice, even when much better (e.g., peer-reviewed review articles) are available. If you're here to make sure the world knows that you're opposed to ineffective quackery, then citing QuackWatch is a way of showing your credentials. If you're here to write an encyclopedia, then you'll look for other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I have with QW isn't its reliability or lack thereof, it's the name, particularly in the article text, particularly in the lead. No matter how on-point the content might be, the name immediately casts a pejorative light on the subject which makes NPOV harder to maintain. Basie (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is unevenly applied on Misplaced Pages and often comes back to, I like it here and everyone uses it rather than what are the best sources we can find in health related articles. I agree also that the source title Quackwatch colours an article's tone immediately.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC))

I agree. (I think that implicit pejorative tone is actually why some editors like using that source.) In the instant case, I'm not sure why anyone cited it. It supports statements like "the diet omits these chemicals", which just about any source on the subject will support. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing said here changes the arbcom ruling, or the usefulness of Quackwatch and SBM for calling pseudoscience, pseudoscience. They are both useful sources. Yes they need to be used with care. But they have their place in the MEDRS world. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See WP:IGNORE. This is a good situation to invoke that. -A1candidate (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I looked over the Arbcom ruling, and if you interpret it as an endorsement of Quackwatch, then it is a remarkably tepid one. The end result is mostly "Oops, we didn't mean to issue a ruling on content", not "Quackwatch is a reliable source!". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a source to be used with care (i.e. in-text attributed for the most part, used sparingly, etc). When better sources are available (i.e. journal articles) I agree that we should replace when appropriate. However, QW is a notable (in the general sense) alt med source, which has been widely cited and praised as a useful resource. For some alt med articles, it can be so fringe that QW may be one of the only available source to place it in context to the medical use outside in-universe alt med sources (which is specifically how WP:PARITY is to be used). In the end, since it is widely praised and used by other reliable sources, we should not have a blanket claim that it can't be used. Yobol (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you Yobol, I have been trying to remember that WP:PARITY link. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We have MEDRS-sources so there's no need to use QW. -A1candidate (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a pseudohistorical revisionist nonsense, that often use fake citations. It has inspired a number of irrelevant crackpot theorists(at least 2 other websites) who would copy the same fake citation for backing their opinion without ever looking into the source. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) -- advice of major medical bodies vs EBM

Remember that discussion we had at WT:MEDRS about advice of major medical bodies vs EBM? The conflict is breaking out at Oseltamivir. Doc James is elevating the Cochrane perspective that there is no real evidence to use this drug, over the advice of pretty much every major infectious disease medical body on the planet. He is not providing any sources that there is even a controversy. This, to me, is exactly the WP:ADVOCACY for EBM that I was describing at WT:MEDRS and in my view this violates our obligations under WP:NPOV to actually present the mainstream view with the most weight; it is just off track. Thoughts, other eyes on the article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is is unheard of a Cochrane review is not reliable enough for the lede. To satisfy NPOV we can summarise different points of view in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer. The question is weight in this article and the basis for elevating cochrane reviews over pretty much every major infectious-disease body on the planet. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm as big a fan of Cochrane as the next guy, but one source cannot overrule every other medical source out there. If Cochrane comes to a conclusion and the wider medical community rejects it, we have to put the weight of the article with the community, not with Cochrane just because it carries that name. Yobol (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review was not being used to overrule other sources. When sources disagree we can include both. The Oseltamivir#Efficacy section can be summarised in the lede. This includes a summary of the Cochrane review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem using it in the text of the article, but since it basically goes against most of the rest of the medical community, I don't think it deserves to be in the lead. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This version seems fair to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oseltamivir&oldid=637069978 And this entire discussion belongs on the article talk page in my opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and this is not true QG. until today the Evidence (e.g Cochrane} section was first, and far longer, and buried and sandwiched, the statements by the major medical bodies. Clearly given way more weight. Compare the version before my edits today and the current version. Formerly, I opened this discussion b/c Doc James and I were getting into an edit war and I wanted more voices and eyes. But yes, I will stop responding here. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly the situation. But better on the talk page agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

? yes exactly the situation. but we are working it out there, i think.... Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Spam

I don't know if all of you have noticed, but there's a WMF survey underway. The link is in your watchlist notices or here: http://www.allourideas.org/wikimediagadgets There's more information on Meta.

It's pairwise comparison of possible tools (like HotCat) that people might like to see available everywhere/improved/made into a permanent part of MediaWiki software/things like that. The way the survey works is very simple: it offers you a pair of options and you pick your favorite, as many or as few times as you want. Our medical translators and editors working at multiple wikis might particularly want to have their say, since one likely outcome is taking a tool in use here at the English Misplaced Pages and making it available everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oseltamivir

Please see Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC:_WP:WEIGHT_in_the_Oseltamivir_article_given_direct_contradiction_between_Cochrane_review_and_the_consensus_of_medical_authorities Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Keloid

Could someone take a look at Keloid Disorder and Keloid and figure out how best to get a single article on this topic? As indicated by Talk:Keloid Disorder, the doubling arose over this disputed revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Great pictures. But requires work. Have tried to pull it into line Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Autism edits

Subtle (see link to child abuse): Gobs of edits, removing ASD and linking to autistic which is a redirect to autism spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

reported to AIV; too redirects many for me to fix, and with two instances of subtle vandalism, there may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, but I can't fix all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All fixed by the blocking admin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on Neurobiological effects of physical exercise - need some quick feedback on coverage

Like the header says, I'm working on this article in order to bring it up to GA-quality. I need to source or re-source a lot of content, and probably cut a fair bit of the preclinical content which now has clinical evidence. I'd like feedback on the scope/topics included in this section on the talkpage: Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#Work in progress. Is anyone aware of any additional topics that are worth covering in the article that I haven't indicated in the bullet next to a citation? (note: these citations are all current medical reviews on humans)

I'd appreciate any feedback/thoughts. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: @Jytdog: In deference to our conversation at MDMA, I'm limiting quotes to ~250 words; larger quotes create a reference tooltip that is too big for some screens, so I'm not going anywhere near the 500 word limit that concerned you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

) lovely person, you. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IMS is back

So the former WikiCorrect-Health account has been renamed to Protein1EFN and it looks like IMS wants to get moving. (this was discussed a while back, archive is here). But briefly, IMS main business is providing intelligence/reports about the pharmaceutical industry - they are a big established company with a good name - and they want to start offering clients a service editing WP articles. Their first (awkward, badly handled) edits were to the Transcranial magnetic stimulation article, which one or more of their clients apparently wanted improved. The editor(s) at IMS made several mistakes, but I have emailed and spoken with the guy running that division, and he says that they very much want to do things right, especially so that they do nothing to harm IMS' good name. (their self interest is to our benefit, here)

Beginnings are fragile times, and I think that for everybody's benefit it would be useful to think about how to structure their work here so that it is as transparent and compliant with Terms of Use, policies, and guidelines as possible. I am copying and editing a comment I made on that account's Talk page, to open a wider discussion.

Every employee who edits WP for IMS needs an individual account, that only he or she uses. WP accounts are personal. They can be anonymous with regard to the person, but they need to be used only by one person. With regard to work each of those individuals does in WP via his or her account, per the Terms of Use, the fact that he or she works for IMS, the client or clients on behalf of which the work is being done, and any other affiliation needs to be disclosed (ideally on the relevant article Talk page, and on the editor's User page). And they should agree to follow the WP:COI guideline rigorously - no direct editing of articles, but rather, changes suggested on the article Talk page with an edit request template. And ideally, somebody from IMS will disclose all the accounts someplace central, and it would also be useful if the boss would provide a way to contact him or her here in WP, so that problematic edits by employees can be reported (as well as being handled primarily by our own processes - blocking, etc). I think there are probably two main ways to structure this.

• set up something like a course page - here is an example: Education_Program:Brock_University/NUSC_1P10_Professional_and_Therapeutic_Communications_(Fall_2014) - these are project pages, where all the participants are listed and all their edits are logged and tracked, and there is clear contact information there for everybody involved and for the responsible individuals. I have no idea how that would be created or what Project (if any) would "host" it. We could also set up some kind of banners/templates for easy use/labelling....
• list all accounts and activities on the boss' user page, and have each employee link to that page, on their user pages.

There may well be other or better ways to ensure transparency and allow the community to track/audit their work.

I am posting a notice of this discussion at WP:COIN, too. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• You can set up a Misplaced Pages-space "project page", as I've done for my Wikipedian-in-Residence roles at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject CRUK and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Royal Society. As you say, where COI is a concern it is key that this lists the editors involved. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I have no judgment on this proposal, but if anyone would like to explore the Misplaced Pages Education Program's software interface, training starts at Misplaced Pages:Education program and goes on with a request for a userright at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard. I help people use this interface. Anyone with an affiliation with WikiProject Medicine is welcome to contact me for a tour of the functionality of it.

This software was designed to be used by professors with classes in universities. In my opinion, it could be used by a Wikipedian overseer to manage any group of new editors, but this software has never been used outside the context of school groups so the first people to try this will likely encounter some bumps. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The safeguards look good as far as they go, we may want to go further. I'm concerned about the sentence "they want to start offering clients a service editing WP articles," which suggest that they will be advertising the service, and will in some ways parallel WikiAds (whatever the name was) or similar services. I guess the minimum safeguards would be to properly explain WP policies, ToU, and guidelines to their customers and to insist that if the service itself did not post the proposed changes in favor of letting the client do so, that the client must disclose as a paid editor, i.e. IMS must police its customers on this. That is pretty hard to do, but I think we have to insist, otherwise the service just becomes a ToU avoidance scheme. I may have more concerns later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones thanks for your input, and for watching this. Yes I have been trying to communicate to them the realities of editing WP - that no one can make a good faith promise with regard to any given edit "sticking" or staying stable. So far they ~seem~ very earnest about wanting to be transparent and abide by all policies and guidelines. We'll see how this goes! Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think they should need to disclose who is paying them. They declined to do so last time I asked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

agreed - transparency and full compliance with the Terms of Use is going to be essential if this is not going to turn into a disaster all around. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't keep up with what the Education Program is doing to med articles, and now more paid editing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I completely hear you. IMS appears to be committed to doing this and to following the rules, which means that they will post edit requests on Talk pages. If their edits suck (in any of the myriad ways that edits can suck), it will take one of us forever to get around to implementing it, and their business will fail. It will be in their interest to learn, as quickly as possible, what kind of edits will fly, which will be DOA, and which will be marginally OK but maybe promotional (which type will also languish since nobody respectable among us will want to be tarred with implementing PROMO content). The only way they can make their business really workand be transparent, is to make really high quality, truly NPOV suggested edits. That is my perspective at least. It has real potential to lead to a win-win. (it also has real potential for them to fill Talk pages with crap suggestions which will languish... but that will not last long). I think the potential for IMS to start doing stealth paid editing is very low. They are a real company, not a baloney outfit like the paid editors we have been plagued with. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You assume there are enough of us to monitor them. I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

i hear you on that. i intend to keep a close eye on them, and to set things up so that it easy to do so. not everybody will want to. but i really think the worst potential outcome here is going to be Talk page clutter, if their proposed edits are bad. How do you see this potentially harming articles? They propose crappy content and unsophisticated editors implement? I am sorry that you are distressed. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

and it may be that the community says "no thank you". I don't know, actually, how we could do that, though. Is there a way to stop them, if they want to do this? Would we want to? (I haven't asked those questions b/c I didn't think it was possible to prevent them if they are going to do this; and it seemed best to be set things up with the best possible chance of success. maybe i have my head up my ass somehow. if so please tell me!) Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

CME for WikiProject Medicine Contributions?

I'm still very new here, and this may well have been suggested in the past. I was wondering if others in the community thought it would attract more contribution from the medical community if WikiProject Medicine were to offer Continuing Medical Education (CME) for some unit of contribution. This would be analogous to UCSF's program of offering course credit to medical students for WikiProject Medicine work. Most health care professionals have to do some version of CME to maintain their licensure and board certification (MD, DO, NP, PA, RN/BSN, PharmD, etc.) so I think a broad range of contributors could potentially be attracted to helping out. Might need to work with the AMA or some other CME-certifying body to design the initiative. What do others think? Thanks. Carlos Rivas (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For Canada we can currently claim M2 CME credits for Misplaced Pages (but one can use nearly anything for M2)

I looked into applying for the more valuable M1 CME credits. The amount of bureaucracy is such one would really need staff for the application.

If you are interested in taking this on you have my support. We also have the option of taking Misplaced Pages articles to a professional standard followed by publication such as for dengue fever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But for publication, now that Open Medicine is closed we don't have a currently functioning journal to publish in with the exact licensing as used by Misplaced Pages. Doc James (and all of these following questions aren't directed only to you), I wonder if we could somehow get by with just using an open license (BMJ Open uses CC BY-NC) instead of the exact type of open license that Misplaced Pages uses. Why can't Misplaced Pages editors decide to publish something CC BY-NC that has already been published CC BY-SA? Why can't we also decide to release it under a different open license? Does that open editors up to liability from WP:WMF legal? Or do they just not look kindly on this idea? I'm curious. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

JMIR is interested in publishing Misplaced Pages articles and uses a compatible license. Open Medicine may be still sort of functional. The "SA" means that we cannot change the license to CC BY or CC BY NC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I believe that it is possible to re-license your own work under as many terms/conditions/etc as you wanted. However, I don't think that you can re-license someone else's work (ever, because you don't own it), and unless the article was written entirely by you (from a copyright perspective; typo fixing and formatting is irrelevant for this determination), then you can't release someone else's work under a different license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material to Eating disorder not otherwise specified

User:Nutrition.and.Health has recently been adding unsourced material to the article Eating disorder not otherwise specified. I have informed them on their talk page that sourcing is required, and have directed them to WP:MEDRS, however they appear to be ignoring this advice, and have reverted me a third time. It may be helpful if members of this WikiProject could inspect the recent history of the article; I am curious to know if people would agree that the recent additions are not of sufficient calibre for a medical article. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction is that we shouldn't have articles on NOS (not otherwise specified) entities. What decent-quality articles do we have with this sort of title? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are a recognised & common classification, why not? Compare Cancer of unknown primary origin. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the section on eating disorder NOS is to large for the eating disorder article than splitting of as a subpage is reasonable. Care must be taken to not simple repeat eating disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they're notable, they're notable. I say we shouldn't assume notability because they are used in a classification structure. Not otherwise specified is a common "suffix" added to entities in classification schemes, and one shouldn't be considered notable simply because it's been printed in one. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My point is that not every subdivision of a condition should necessarily have its own page. Many can be covered and redirected to the parent article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Submit to 3RR-- probably a grading deadline. Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and Medicine Webcast Wednesday December 10th 2-3:15pm EST

A Metropolitan New York Library Council Misplaced Pages webcast will be streaming live on Youtube today, and archived on the METRO Youtube channel afterwards. To access the live program, simply visit METRO's YouTube channel between 2:00 PM and 3:15 PM on Wednesday December 10th. Registration is not required. A direct link to the webcast page will also be posted on METRO's event page before the live program. An archived recording will be available following the session. Visit the webpage for more information. Let me know if you have any questions! per User:OR drohowa

I do. Who are you, and what is that in UTC? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it will also be available for latter viewing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Howard is the Wikipedian in Residence for the Metropolitan New York Library Council. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)