Talk:Bug Chasers: The men who long to be HIV+

Woozle effect

 * Woozle effect

This article was cited in academic literature as evidence that "bug chasing" is a problem in public health for gay men. This citation was inappropriate because the article was never reliable or supported by any health authority, and yet it was treated as a source. The term for the effects of rumors spreading through citation is "Woozle effect", which is what happened here. I do not see any sources recognizing the extent of the misinformation which spread as a result of this article being cited.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  16:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Letter to Rolling Stone
I never got a reply.

Emailed 12 March 2022 to letters@rollingstone.com

- Hello,

In 2003 Rolling Stone published an article about gay men who seek HIV infection. The article called this "bug chasing".


 * Freeman, Gregory A. "In Search of Death: The men who long to be HIV+". Rolling Stone. p. 44. Issue 915. Archived from the original on 1 February 2003.

I am writing to ask if Rolling Stone ever made any public statements on this article after publication, like for example, continued support or withdrawn support for this article.


 * Did Rolling Stone remove this article from publication, including its archives?
 * Has Rolling Stone ever issued any public statement, correction, or update for this article? If so, are you able to point to it?
 * If it is removed, did Rolling Stone ever give a reason for its removal? If so, what was the reason?

I am collaborating with some medical and LGBT editors in Wikipedia who are writing about the bug chasing phenomenon. Your 2003 article seems absent from the Rolling Stone website. Despite its absence, there are some observations that multiple academic public health articles over the years have cited the Rolling Stone article as fact. We are wondering if the sources which cited your article are doing that in the context of Rolling Stone standing by the article, or whether you ever distanced yourself from it.

Here is some of the contemporary context around the article. These articles combined with our inability to find the article on your website makes me wonder if you removed it.


 * Newsweek Staff (22 January 2003). "Is Rolling Stone's Hiv Story Wildly Exaggerated?". Newsweek.
 * Donegan, Lawrence (26 January 2003). "Briton faces storm over HIV 'thrill seeker' claim". The Guardian.
 * Salyer, David (1 June 2003). "Chasing Bugs or the Truth?". thebody.com.
 * Savage, Dan (30 January 2003). "Savage Love". Chicago Reader.
 * "Sources dispute Rolling Stone article on bug chasers". The Advocate. 24 January 2003.
 * Sullivan, Andrew (25 January 2003). "Sex- and death-crazed gays play viral Russian Roulette!". Salon.

I am hoping for quick answers and not a complicated conversation. If you might be willing to answer but would be more comfortable talking briefly by voice or video chat, then I could meet you that way.

My wish is not to write about Rolling Stone; instead I am trying to sort through public health claims in academic literature cited in Wikipedia.

---

 Bluerasberry  (talk)  04:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you reached out to Rolling Stone for a comment about the story? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I emailed the address above, which I just added. I could also contact the editor from that time, Ed Needham, whose public web presence I logged in Wikidata at .  Bluerasberry   (talk)  10:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess I am wondering why you would be doing original research on a topic when Wikipedia is about documenting what is said in reliable sources. I can understand if you have a strong feeling about the article that was written, but you may want to step away from such a topic if it is causing you to do your own research for the sake of Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding your concern. Can you state it in a different way?
 * I wrote for clarification because if Rolling Stone had retracted the article, and Wikipedia failed to note that or do diligent search for sources, then this article would be misleading. Are you saying that it would have been better to not ask at all?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  00:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure how else to explain it. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedians to contact publications for story clarification. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, no one was obligated to contact them. I did it anyway. If there is a particular response you think I should have now, then let me know. Thanks for reacting, I recognize that contact is unusual.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  11:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians are real human people, who can exercise their free will to contact news outlets with whatever they want to contact news outlets about. Isthistwisted (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)