User:ChaseKiwi

User ChaseKiwi tends to be only active for a restricted range of topics, as a dilettante. Historically there has been too much diversity of input on some topics in Wikipedia, for it to be fully trusted by professionals in the respective fields. Indeed unless gross error ChaseKiwi will tend to stay away from areas where ChaseKiwi's professional expertise as a subject-matter expert is associated with remuneration or quango like activity to avoid conflict of interest. Allowing others easier access to alternative views that may appear to ChaseKiwi to be inconsistent with evidence, especially if not referenced to Independent sources can help identify possible misconceptions or cultural issues in the rich diversity of perception, hidden information and lack of analytic ability that professionals have to manage. Some contributions seem to have withstood the test of time and plenty of articles could do with improvement so input continues from this user who agrees with the English wikipedia policies. The inability of individuals and human subcultures to learn from others unless a threshold is crossed, might be mitigated by information being available in more digestible form. There has been a tendency of the site to improve, with not unexpected spectacular failures when information is shaded by those with an agenda. There remains the risk that the site is weakened by an assumption that those that do the most, are the most to be trusted as an editor, when expertise on a topic and its reliable sources that help neutrality without straying into original research can be somewhat time consuming to evolve and involve other activities than wiki editing.

Alternative Wiki models
If like ChaseKiwi you have had some interest in technical health topics and policy (i.e. more experience in evaluating secondary and primary sources than many) you may be aware that there are/were attempts at wiki's with editorial control restricted to professionals which often run into the classic problems of long term sustainability but certainly offered for a while higher quality articles than Wikipedia. I note that any technical article tends to need someone with a smattering of current understanding of topic to review it every 5 to 10 years as non peer reviewed non academic work is used too much as sources. In the sciences I have found it is often 4 to 6 years work by an individual to dissect a new insight with the support of experts and the peer review process so rush into the tertiary source of Wikipedia needs to be tempered and subject to such revisiting.

Historic links when Web2 was new in 2007

 * Medpedia - mainly plain US english and not that technical - recommended as a first stop by American public which did not come so it died

Medical

 * GANFYD Open access medical resource but technical with British english bias - it took much longer to die but in the end the server died and too much hassle to recover as a functioning wiki (the link however reaches a frozen in time - before the COVID-19 pandemic - selection of articles that it seems have tickled the selectors fancy as the first rescued often comment on issues political decision makers should have addressed before the pandemic although its never too late.)
 * Ask Dr. Wiki Open access medical resource - died

Pharmacology

 * PubDrug Open access drug resource - removed

Evidence Based Medicine

 * [/ EBM Librarian] Open access EBM rhttp://ebmlibrarian.wetpaint.comesource -dead

Kidney Disease

 * Wikikidney.org Open access Renal disease resource

Neurogengerative Disease

 * MRC Neurodegeneration Research Wiki  Open access neurodegerative disease resource