Talk:Health information on Wikipedia/Archive 1

More sources
A lot more can be written on this topic. See WikiProject Medicine/Wikipedia and medicine.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)



 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)



 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Content
Why would be using a 2008 source to make claims that are time-dependent? Why should we cite WP:PRIMARY studies? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 17:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are appropriate in some circumstances described in the link. They are never preferable. 2008 seems new enough but things move so quickly. There are newer sources available for people who look.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Broader scope
Is there a good reason to confine this to health information on Wikipedia only? I added content on response from provider community to get more involved in new media to increase the quality, including but not limited to Wikipedia. Benutzer41 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Benutzer41. I do think that there is value in keeping this article focused on Wikipedia, because enough sources already do that. In response to what you did, I created Health information on the Internet. Now this Wikipedia article is a subarticle of that. Other subarticles could be created also.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Article
Have removed "A May 2014 study in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association found that, of the 10 costliest medical conditions in the United States, 9 of Wikipedia's articles on these conditions "contain[ed] many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources." "

This article did not find that at all. It is very poorly done. Discussion is here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Rorschach controversy
Why did you remove the Rorschach controversy? This was covered in multiple newspapers over a period of time and resulted in some published academic discussion. Does this not seem relevant to "health information on Wikipedia"? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that a 'controversy' section may not be helpful now for the article when there is lot of scope to add other informaion which describes what kind of health information Wikipedia has, intend to have, how one can contirbute to it, how one should use it etc. However, I shall have no issues if the section is restored. I am restoring it. Apologies for the inconvenience caused. Thanks. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right that "controversy" sections are rarely useful. I moved this information into a new section heading that I made based on the section headings used on the Wikipedia article. I was hoping that this information would be a presentation of what Wikipedia contains, and it ought not be a controversy. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  11:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , Great! Thanks. I had simillar thoughts but I was not able to articulate them. It a great idea to not to remove information at the same time putting it under proper heading. Great. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

How come there is not more on this one? It looks like this section only describes one point of view, and not all perspectives such as how this did not cause any lasting harm or impact to society other than helpfully providing more information to the general public ? 173.225.249.190 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you imagine that something is missing, then why not add a sentence yourself? It is not obvious to me what more should be said. I am interested to see what you add and it would be very welcome. Whatever you add, remember that Wikipedia is a summary of what is published, so back your addition with a citation to a published source.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This was covered in multiple newspapers over a period of time and resulted in some published academic discussion.  -- what more was said about that? 209.59.74.4 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the references. Health_information_on_Wikipedia If you wish to summarize them, then you may. Anyone could. I am not sure what these sources say, except that the sources seemed reasonable and the issue deserved a mention in this article. I think there is no expansion only because no one has volunteered to do it, not because anyone prohibits this being done.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

list of reliable online websites for medical info
Both this article and the article health information on the Internet should have a list of reliable free online websites for medical info, or at least a link to a Wikipedia page with such a list. --Espoo (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggested content
Hello, I noticed that this page does not presently include mentioned of the Cochrane-Wikipedia initiative.

In this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_information_on_Wikipedia#Projects_to_improve_health_information_on_Wikipedia

I don't feel that I should edit this (working within my COI. I work directly on this initiative). This would not be about promoting Cochrane, just bringing the world up to speed about the partnership and hopefully get more people interested in contributing so we can move forward with our common goal.

Here are three references that could be considered to add a sentence mentioning the partnership/initiative, if the community consensus is that this would be a worthwhile addition. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2017/08/24/jech-2016-208601

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320188268_Open_Medicine_Journal_Wikipedia_as_Informal_Self-Education_for_Clinical_Decision-Making_in_Medical_Practice

http://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/new-wikiproject-medicine-partnership-boosts-content

Any suggestions or feedback would be great! JenOttawa (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion and your careful approach to COI. As someone completely uninvolved in the Cochrane collaboration, the first source looks primary and the third is essentially a PR with a couple of quotes tossed in. But the second source is a reasonable review and looks like a good RS for a sentence about the collaboration. —Mark viking (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * yes, I would pick the second one as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence using the second source. --Mark viking (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both of you for reviewing my suggestions. and .JenOttawa (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More recent publications
Hello, I recently published a review, an article, and a research study protocol about Wikipedia's health information that could be cited on this page. Summarizing and citing my own work would be a COI so I leave here a list of publications that could be summarized and cited in this article: Mcbrarian (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

List the three management practice in pig
List the three management practice in pig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.120.127 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)