→COI guidelines: ce |
Responding to Jytdog. |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:: I very much respect your desire to stand solidly on the science and close the door on pseudoscience. However, I am not experiencing you as being very careful not to be an advocate - I experience you as trying very hard to get positive content about qigong into the article and ignoring our objections to the way you are stating things. As we have discussed endlessly, the MEDRS-compliant secondary sources say that the science ''is not there yet.'' That ''is'' the "full disclosure." From a scientific standpoint, no hypothesis has been validated and replicated that qigong is effective for treating any disease or condition that we have discussed - the experiments have not been rigorous enough. You can't just give lip service to scientific rigor and then poo-poo science by writing things like "But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials." and by continually proposing content that makes it seem as though clinical data has proven that qigong is useful to treat any of these indications. Qigong has not "crossed the finish line" in any of the indications we have discussed. ("the evidence is inconclusive" is accurate - your throwing "strong" in there is weasel-wording - your advocate-self fighting with your scientist-self) You have to stand with the science, or not. Again, with your role advocating for health benefits for qigong outside of Wikipedia you need to be very, very rigorous and listen and respond carefully. Yobol in particular is very experienced at dealing with health content and he/she is going to be the key interested editor to convince that what you are proposing is solid. And you really should disclose your COI on the qigong Talk page and refrain from directly editing the article as per the guidance I linked to above. Thanks for talking. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
:: I very much respect your desire to stand solidly on the science and close the door on pseudoscience. However, I am not experiencing you as being very careful not to be an advocate - I experience you as trying very hard to get positive content about qigong into the article and ignoring our objections to the way you are stating things. As we have discussed endlessly, the MEDRS-compliant secondary sources say that the science ''is not there yet.'' That ''is'' the "full disclosure." From a scientific standpoint, no hypothesis has been validated and replicated that qigong is effective for treating any disease or condition that we have discussed - the experiments have not been rigorous enough. You can't just give lip service to scientific rigor and then poo-poo science by writing things like "But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials." and by continually proposing content that makes it seem as though clinical data has proven that qigong is useful to treat any of these indications. Qigong has not "crossed the finish line" in any of the indications we have discussed. ("the evidence is inconclusive" is accurate - your throwing "strong" in there is weasel-wording - your advocate-self fighting with your scientist-self) You have to stand with the science, or not. Again, with your role advocating for health benefits for qigong outside of Wikipedia you need to be very, very rigorous and listen and respond carefully. Yobol in particular is very experienced at dealing with health content and he/she is going to be the key interested editor to convince that what you are proposing is solid. And you really should disclose your COI on the qigong Talk page and refrain from directly editing the article as per the guidance I linked to above. Thanks for talking. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
I understand your concerns, Jytdog. But as I've noted before, there's a lot of space between "there yet" and "not effective". You seem to be taking the stance that unless we already have overwhelming evidence, nothing at all can be said. A lot can be said and still remain completely valid. It's not as black and white as you seem to advocate. |
|||
Furthermore, my interest in Qigong is purely volunteer, and purely personal. I get no financial benefit whatsoever from anything Qigong. I'm not a Qigong teacher. I don't own a Qigong school. I own a business and teach Information Technology at Kutztown University for a living. I would only consider it a conflict of interest if I were employed by some company. The Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization is a group of volunteers. I don't get paid. So I don't feel that this could be considered a conflict of interest. It would be like saying "you are interested in history, therefore, you are not allowed to edit history articles". [[User:Cjrhoads|CJ]] ([[User talk:Cjrhoads#top|talk]]) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:28, 16 February 2014
Welcome!
Hello, Cjrhoads, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Yours, Smeelgova 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the welcome, Smeelgova. I've been reading Wikipedia for a while, and have contributed to other private Wikis, but this is the first time I've tried my hand at Wikipedia. I'll try to stay within the standards laid out - excellent guidance btw - but let me know if I should be doing anything differently.
regards CJ 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
T'ai Chi article
Greetings. Unfortunately, I've reverted some of the changes you made to Tai Chi Chuan. This isn't unusual for Wikipedia, but I want to explain why. One of the criticisms that the T'ai Chi article has received lately is that it isn't based enough on notable, verifiable sources. While I agree that there is some controversy (as noted on the article talk page) among different schools, the controversy that we report shouldn't be anecdotal, merely asserted by us, but referenced in a way that people can follow up if they want to. I've recently been adding references to some of the key statements in the article, and would eventually like to get them all noted to references. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 15:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Medicine
Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!
I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities: Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources Join in editing our collaboration of the month (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard Have a look at the Trusted Sources recommended by Wikiproject medicine Have a look at the most powerful citing tool Diberri's tool If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page. Again, welcome!. Happy editing, JFW | T@lk 21:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
WikiProject Medicine, tasks you can do:
|
Hello
I saw you added your name to the WikiProject medicine participant list. Thanks for your interest! Some topics I've been working on lately are deep vein thrombosis, malaria, and dengue fever. Do you have any articles or topics you've identified that you'd like to work on? Maybe I could help you develop some goals for editing here. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Integrative medicine
I saw your comments at WT:MED about Integrative medicine, and I thought you might like to know that the typical definition is not about "integrating mind and body" (that's Holistic medicine), but about using both alternative medicine and conventional medicine. The typical definitions run something like this:
- Mainstream medicine—whatever mainstream licensed health practitioners do (whether it works or not)
- Alternative medicine—non-mainstream treatments used instead of mainstream medicine
- Complementary medicine—non-mainstream treatments used in addition to mainstream medicine
- Integrative medicine—using both mainstream and complementary medicine
- Holistic medicine—treating the person as a whole, including the psychological and social context (which of course only makes sense in certain contexts, e.g., it's good for general health but not relevant for acute trauma)
- Evidence-based medicine—only doing what works for the specific condition
I suspect, based on your comments, that you favor a system of medicine that is both integrative and holistic with an emphasis on self-care. If you are particularly interested in self-care, I hope you will consider finding some excellent sources on self-care for various conditions and adding them to our articles. It's easy to find people willing to add "==Treatment== Antibiotics are sometimes used to treat diarrhea", but it's much harder to find people willing to add "==Treatment== Self-care treatments for diarrhea include drinking liquids". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for commenting on my talk page, and apologies for my taking so long to see it. My wishes to work on Wikipedia pages exceed my schedule, I'm afraid, but I do what I can. CJ (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
- Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
- Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
- If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ocaasil. I will check it out. CJ (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
COI guidelines
Hi CJ
I just read your userpage and the links on it. Impressive story! It also helps explain where you have been coming from on qigong talk page. Your bio, linked there as of today, says that: "Rhoads is one of the founding members of the Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization , a worldwide virtual organization of health and martial arts players which advocates spreading the health benefits of integrative health practices such as Qigong and Taijiquan to everyone. She is also the developer of Pacem In Vita, a leadership and self-development curriculum for children and adults based upon the principles of Taijiquan." The bio also notes that you were "Martial Arts Promoter of the Year" in 2010. I want to make sure you are aware, that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy; this is part of the very first pillar of WIkipedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This pillar defines Wikipedia somewhat in terms of what it is, but mostly in terms of what it is not. One thing it is not, as I said, is a place for advocacy - see in particular the section WP:NOTADVOCATE. This is a policy. Beyond that I want to point you to the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide which advises editors with conflicts of interest how to operate. To the extent you are pushing very hard for more "positive" information about Qigong and are not being rigorous with regard to sources, and are not hearing it when we are explaining, many times and at great length, why your suggested content does not fit what the sources say, you are leaving yourself open to getting blocked from the article and even the topic more broadly, for what we call tendentious editing, a form of disruptive editing. Disruptive editing leads to topic bans or blocks. While I am glad that you stopped edit warring and started talking, please be aware of all this context. As far as I know, only talking and not editing the article is totally fine, but at some point I am going to stop responding on Talk. In any case, conflict of interest editing has been very a hot topic on Wikipedia of late - back in November and December we had no less than three separate policy proposals on COI. Everybody is very welcome to edit, but again I advise you to be careful when editing and discussing topics related to your advocacy work. Please be very rigorous with the sourcing policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, Jytdog. I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy. As a matter of fact, I am trying to be extremely careful and NOT be an advocate - but simply trying to "ensure full disclosure". You will also note that I am, at heart, a scientist. As you have seen - I get it from both sides because I insist that we stick to scientific methods, RCTs, and measurable data. Many in the Tai Chi and Qigong world are way out there with the magicial mystery force called "chi" and sending waves of energy out through others. I am not an advocate for anything that can't be replicated reliably. I would like to see more research done on Qigong and other Integrative Health practices, and I would like the research that is done to be designed better. I'm hoping that by "cleaning up" the issues regarding terminology, definitions, and replicability we can actually get somewhere with it. But we need to establish the real science regarding it, and not the psuedo science. I'm hoping you can help me with that. CJ (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I very much respect your desire to stand solidly on the science and close the door on pseudoscience. However, I am not experiencing you as being very careful not to be an advocate - I experience you as trying very hard to get positive content about qigong into the article and ignoring our objections to the way you are stating things. As we have discussed endlessly, the MEDRS-compliant secondary sources say that the science is not there yet. That is the "full disclosure." From a scientific standpoint, no hypothesis has been validated and replicated that qigong is effective for treating any disease or condition that we have discussed - the experiments have not been rigorous enough. You can't just give lip service to scientific rigor and then poo-poo science by writing things like "But strong evidence is inconclusive because there are not enough well-designed clinical trials." and by continually proposing content that makes it seem as though clinical data has proven that qigong is useful to treat any of these indications. Qigong has not "crossed the finish line" in any of the indications we have discussed. ("the evidence is inconclusive" is accurate - your throwing "strong" in there is weasel-wording - your advocate-self fighting with your scientist-self) You have to stand with the science, or not. Again, with your role advocating for health benefits for qigong outside of Wikipedia you need to be very, very rigorous and listen and respond carefully. Yobol in particular is very experienced at dealing with health content and he/she is going to be the key interested editor to convince that what you are proposing is solid. And you really should disclose your COI on the qigong Talk page and refrain from directly editing the article as per the guidance I linked to above. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, Jytdog. But as I've noted before, there's a lot of space between "there yet" and "not effective". You seem to be taking the stance that unless we already have overwhelming evidence, nothing at all can be said. A lot can be said and still remain completely valid. It's not as black and white as you seem to advocate.
Furthermore, my interest in Qigong is purely volunteer, and purely personal. I get no financial benefit whatsoever from anything Qigong. I'm not a Qigong teacher. I don't own a Qigong school. I own a business and teach Information Technology at Kutztown University for a living. I would only consider it a conflict of interest if I were employed by some company. The Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization is a group of volunteers. I don't get paid. So I don't feel that this could be considered a conflict of interest. It would be like saying "you are interested in history, therefore, you are not allowed to edit history articles". CJ (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)