User talk:SciMedKnowledge/mysandbox

Cool. This works.SciMedKnowledge (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Links
WP:NPOV SciMedKnowledge (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS SciMedKnowledge (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

References.
Apparently, references formats are found at WP:CITET. Ouch, that's a lot of stuff to memorize. And medical articles should meet something called WP:MEDRS. More reading. This may be harder than I imagined.SciMedKnowledge (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But easier than you fear :-) Other main guideline is the MEDical Manual Of Style WP:MEDMOS.
 * As a start, try not to mannually code up cite journal if you can help it, at least not for biomedical papers :-)
 * From a PubMed abstract (search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) get the PMID abstract number, and put that into User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filler
 * example - lets try locating & creating a citation for the latest UK Asthma guidelines: enter asthma british guidelines into PubMed search box. Top hit is "Summary of the 2008 BTS/SIGN British Guideline on the management of asthma. Levy ML, Thomas M, Small I, Pearce L, Pinnock H, Stephenson P. Prim Care Respir J. 2009 Jan;18 Suppl 1:S1-16. PMID: 19209371 etc etc". (hyperlink is to the abstract where, in this case, there is an upper-right journal link, which in turn links to a free full article)
 * Putting that PMID number of 19209371 into the template tool (selecting for WP:FOOTNOTE surrounding tags), we get this outcome :-)
 * Only tweak we might manually make in this example is that we know there is a full PDF version available, so I would manually add in 'url' and 'format' parameters (NB 'url' parameter is only meant for links to full & free online versions), and within wikipedia would show as:
 * The markup tool also takes ISBN and others options too. David Ruben Talk 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this information. I'm a devout worshipper of PubMed searches, and I have access to Medline for more detailed access to articles.  I notice that most of the citations for articles use PubMed abstracts.  The abstracts have a lot of upsides, but their conclusions can be overly simplistic and subject to misinterpretation.  And I notice a heck of a lot of arguing over interpretation of the abstracts.  I just tried out the template tool.  I am now not shaking with fear.  At least not now.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True: abstracts conclsions somewhat dangerous to rely upon without looking at full article, but firstly useful for basic checking of X significant or not significant (i.e. that the source basically supports what an editor has added, or at least when the word "not" has then been inserted into an article as to which version was correct). Also the linkage to the abstract is useful for verifying the citation details as correct - I'm keen on taking articles with references as poorly formated as "John E 2007 Asthma, Asthma review" and upon trying to lookup realise the editor has copied some other poorly checked source (eg author being John Edwards and so abbreviation as Edwards J, the year out by one (or more) years, and possibly multiple publications in any given year with the wrong journal being cited) - a link to PubMed allows reasonable certainty whether the right paper is being cited. The PubMed link is particularly useful because it is freely available worldwide (thank you USA), and Diberri's tool ensures maximum details given to help locate the hardcopy of the paper.
 * As to arguing over abstract meanings, best to use the words used (hence an abstract concluding "may cause" tends to imply that the causation factor has yet to be proven (as inevitably "further research is warrented"), so the wikipedia text should not have meaning shifted to "can cause" (which inplies causative factor confirmed, but only results in given outcome in some cases) - eg a researcher's study could be positive or negative for "air polution may cause asthma" whereas a textbook would now describe "smoking can cause cancer". If editors still try to interpret abstracts to their own viewpoint, they are engaging in WP:SYN. If you find yourself in such a dispute then, following a short discussion on the article's talk page, quickly seek views at WT:MED, rather than risk engaging in protracted one-on-one arguing... and never fall foul of repeatedly reverting the article itself (readup on WP:3RR - NB you can still be blocked for less than 3 reverts) - indeed I try to follow WP:1RR (revert no more than once, discuss and then seek 3rd party views). David Ruben Talk 01:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things I've been discussing IRL is the very low quality of many medical articles in Wikipedia. I've been observing development of several articles over the past six months.  I have noticed a lot of people pushing agendas.  And a lot of inexperienced people in policing roles really can't adjudicate differences very well.  I take a 40,000 foot view of these medical articles, and I swear I'm just going to run away.  And now you're warming me that the police can block me, even if I have support of citations, and good science.  It seems like you're recommending the following of rules than making certain the quality stands up to a strong critique.  Is this the goal we should have here?  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly not :-) It is by providing good references that an editor can support an edit. Merely adding a line, say that X has not proved helpful in treating Y, because one has real-world specialist knowledge is open to being challanged by some other editor in part because there is no way to confirm your true identity on Wikipedia; but if a citation is provided then the "proof" of the acuracy of the edit is to lookup the reference. The don't endlessly revert behaviour rules (even if you know you are correct) are in place because frankly it does not resolve any (at best) disagreement or (at worse) deliberate point-of-view persistant trolling - which is why if involved in an revert/edit war with another editor to seek input of other editors. These other editors can then formulate an opinion on the sources used, on what is good encyclopedia writing, and might have personal interests in the subject matter. The collective view that then emerges (and it need not be anything too grande and formalised) is the WP:Consensus, to which editors need to adhere too. However failure to adhere to the consensus (and we are refering here to the editor who removed your "correct" information) is then disruptive and various remedies are then possible. But what you don't want to do is launch yourself as a single individual into repeatedly reverting (for a 3rd party editor may have difficulty deciding between the two editors), but if there are many editors reverting a single POV pushing/disruptive editor, then it is clear to outsiders who has an editing behaviour problem and needs be sanctioned (so non-expert other editors or non-expert admins can step in and act)
 * In essence it is by behaving well, following policy (which involves citing from reliable sources) that actual content is added and agreed upon, but dispute resolution itself is rarely directly about the content. With this point comes the important qualification that an encylopedia reflects current (imperfect) knowledge or variety of held views (i.e. WP:NPOV) rather than some absolute truth (we don't follow WP:SPOV) - consider many religions hold mutually exclusive beliefs, yet it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on each one as they are notable and verifiable that significant numbers of people adhere to each one. Likewise I might believe homeopathy is hogwash quackery, but the article on homeopathy is going to describe what it is, its history etc and not just "this is quackery" however many references I can find to that view point (of course the article will mention the prevailing scientific viewpoint too).
 * In summary good behaviour is not just about being nice (although that too) but following some rules on collaboration which help ensure good encyclopedia writing - to modify your own text: add info with "support of citations, and good science" and other editors are around to ensure your "following of rules than making will make certain the quality stands up to a strong critique" - don't be dishearted, this is not textbook writing, nor instruction sheets for patients (nor even primary source for doctors to base decision upon) - so contribute away and improve things ! I've probably personally learnt more as a doctor getting involved with some apparent disputes than I've "given away" my expertise (an outlandish claim might be added by another editor, and whilst on reading the refereences it needs toning down, nevertheless I may have learnt something new in an area of medicine I would not normally read about). Anyway have fun :-) David Ruben Talk 12:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes to self

 * Yo self. :)  I need to figure out how to do fancy signatures.  Not sure it's necessary.  Lots of people have them.  Hope it's not complicated. SciMedKnowledge (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just checked off "Friendly" and "Twinkle" on the gadgets tab of my preferences. I have a bunch of tabs above, and now I have to figure them out.  What did I do?????  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, tb tab is something called "talkback". Apparently it doesn't work for my own page, because a humorous box appears about talking to myself.  Well, I'm getting nowhere.  It also feels like I'm talking to myself right now.  SciMedKnowledge (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not entirely ! Welcome :-) I've added the Medical wikiproject's welcome to your talk page. The medical project shortcut is WP:MED and its talkpage WT:MED (similarly for pharmcy project WP:PHARM and WT:PHARM). David Ruben Talk 23:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)