User talk:Alchemist007

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Wikiproject Medicine!


Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of content about health here on Wikipedia, as part of the larger mission of Wikipedia to provide the public with articles that present accepted knowledge, created and maintained by a community of editors.

One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board!

First, some basics about editing Wikipedia, which is a strange place behind the scenes; you may find some of the ways we operate to be surprising. Please take your time and understand how this place works. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * WPMED's "how to" guide to editing content about health
 * Style guide for health content
 * WP:MEDRS - the sourcing guideline for biomedical information -- we generally use literature reviews published in good journals or statements by major medical or scientific bodies and we generally avoid using research papers, editorials, and popular media as sources for such content.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * The "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; these have been generated by the community itself over the last fifteen years, and you will need to learn them (which is not too hard, it just takes some time). Documents about Wikipedia - the "back office" -  reside in "Wikipedia space" where documents are preceded by "Wikipedia:" (often abbreviated "WP:") - this is separate from "article space" (also called "mainspace") - WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.

Every article and page in Wikipedia has an associated talk page, and these pages are essential because we use them collaborate and work out disagreements. (This is your Talk page, associated with your user page.) When you use a Talk page, you should sign your name by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comment; the Wikipedia software will automatically convert that into links to your Userpage and this page and will add a datestamp. This is how we know who said what. We also "thread" comments in a way that you will learn with time. Please see the Talk Page Guidelines to learn how to use talk pages.


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. You can also just add our talk page to your watchlist and join in discussions that interest you.  Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note below if you have any problems. I wish you all the best here in Wikipedia! Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi
Please do read the message above carefully - especially MEDRS. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC) pasting comment here, that was left at my Talk page in this diff, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, I am not sure this is the right topic where to post my message, or if you'll read it, but thanks for the insight into the workings of WP. I have yet to figure out how to post/access messages. I read all your page about the reasoning behind the WP articles. With most I agree, with some I disagree. For example, I disagree with your statement that WP is mostly for non-specialists. I find the link system in WP much faster and informative than, for example Pubmed, where you need to scroll through hundreds of papers and abstracts to find what you need. And, if you don't enter the right key words, you may entirely miss something important. Very often, when searching on a topic that is not my primary interest, I first search WP to get an idea, before I search Pubmed. Anyway, I understand why you deleted my additions to a topic. However, I disagree with your statement on your page that a piece of information MUST be vetted by "reputable experts". What is a "reputable expert" anyway? We both know that whether someone is considered an expert or not (I'm talking about biomedical sciences, I don't know about other fields) derives for the most part from the connection network that this person has, e.g. the lab where he/she did the PhD or postdoc, the institution where that person works, etc, which are essential for establishing the pool of journals where that person will be able to publish. But that does not necessarily mean that someone coming form a "famous" lab is more "expert" than someone from a not-so-famous lab. We also know that the same, identical article will find its way into "Cell" when coming from a "reputable" lab, or into a second or 3rd tier journal when the authors come from a 3rd tier university or from Eastern Europe for example, because the "experts" in the field will try to diminish its impact. OK, so now what happens when someone without the right connections in the field, or from a not=so=famous lab comes up with a finding that challenges ideas that have dominated a field for the past several decades and which are supported by 100% of the "experts" in the field? From your presentation of yourself, I see that you work in a company focused on neurobiologicals. Well, what would you do if someone else comes up with an idea that destroys the very fabric that keeps that company alive? Or if, as an academic, that idea will make it harder for you to get a grant, because it will threaten your "expert" status? What would you do if that idea comes your way to vet it? Of course, you will try to block it any way you can. In the old days of Galileo, they burned them at the stake. Now they have more subtle ways, by blocking its access to mainstream knowledge. Eventually that idea will find its way to be published, but in a 3rd tier journal that everyone ignores, on purpose or not, even if it is listed on Pubmed. Of course, all non-"experts" will embrace what the "reputable experts" are saying, and will ignore other "fringe" findings. That's the way it is. That's the way it happened with Hebb's theory of neuronal plasticity, published in the 1940's, which became mainstream in the 1990's. But I doubt that more than a few people know now about Hebb, or where that idea originated from. I understand what you are saying about secondary sources, and the need to keep fake knowledge out. However, this is not all black and white. Some knowledge may never make its way into a "reputable" secondary source, simply because the "experts" will choose to ignore it because of COI. It is like asking someone working in the coal industry to vet the idea that global warming is due to fossil fuels. Think about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist007 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note.
 * The mission of Wikipedia is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. (see the policy WP:NOT - specifically the part at WP:NOTEVERYTHING)  Where do we find "accepted knowledge"?   We find it in what we call "reliable sources".  Reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information are defined in WP:MEDRS - briefly, we rely on literature reviews published in good journals, or statements by major medical/science authorities.  There are lots of reasons for that.  But it has nothing to do with what we call "primary sources" (papers where research is published) which is what you seem to mostly be discussing above.
 * If, after you read WP:MEDRS, you have any questions about what it says, I will be happy to answer them!  You can put your question below - I will see it. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. You are a fast reader! The reason I posted it there is because one of the links you sent me says that it is better to reply on the other person's talk page and that if I post it on my page you may never read it. I understand how "reliable sources" and "major medical authorities" are defined, and I disagree with that. We know very well that history was always written by the winners. And science by the well-connected experts. If something is kept on purpose in the shadows, it will never be acknowledged, or very late.Alchemist007 (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I hope that you are not working on pain medication, are you? :)
 * Hm, yeah which page to reply on can be confusing. It is generally a good idea to keep conversations in one place.
 * I am sorry you disagree with MEDRS. It is very, very hard to change well-established guidelines.    As I noted, there are many reasons why MEDRS says what it says and a lot of those reasons will probably not make sense to you until you have been around a while and seen the kinds of problems that MEDRS solves.  I wrote WP:Why MEDRS? to explain ~some ~ of it.
 * fwiw, I recommend you follow MEDRS and not argue about it until you have been around a while and can speak from experience of actually editing in a community of anonymous editors. :)
 * If you mean "taking" pain meds, no. and no i am not actively working in that article now, but I do "watch" it to make sure its quality doesn't degrade.  Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I saw on your page that you work for a company in acute neurological issues. I was wondering if pain is among the objectives. And I do not "argue" about MEDRS, I just told you my opinion. I am sure your experiences led to this policy. You are doing a great job, all of you, and as I said, I find WP very useful. But it seems like a full time job, and I don't have too much time to contribute. My contributions were just a momentary impulse.Alchemist007 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! Nope. we are not working on pain.  Thanks for your kind words!  I hope you find time to contribute.  Working on articles with good people is a great pleasure.  :) Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! OK then, be prepared for a complete rewrite of the "Chronic pain" article once my results become acknowledged by "secondary sources" :) But I thought it will help a lot of people suffering from chronic pain, and doctors too, to get this out in the public eye as soon as possible.Alchemist007 (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)