This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
RfC Formulation (Clean Start)
- See previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 11
- See previous discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 12
Introduction
Barkeep's Background
|
---|
A few days ago, Colin quite reasonably asked me for some examples of good RfCs to use as a model. I spent some time today looking into past MOS (and related) type RfCs and also asked a few people with experience closing Wikipedia related RfCs for examples. I am reluctant to share any because I don't know that they will actually help move the conversation forward. What seems to happen is that someone puts forth an idea and it gets criticized for either structure or wording. Much/all of the criticism is fair (and I've done it) but ultimately it means we aren't getting any closer to an RfC. Above Colin expressed frustration with the status quo of the information being included in hundreds of articles at the moment. A few others seem to be feeling this as well. Others are no doubt being frustrated at the inability to add the information in new places. The way past this is to get this RfC completed. Editors of all stripes need to have some faith in our process. The RfC question itself is not the right place to put forward compelling arguments about why pricing is/isn't appropriate. Instead that can happen during the RfC or in some sort of supporting material. If the goal is for the RfC is to solve every pricing related question the whole RfC is going to fail and nothing will be decided. Instead the decision should be made, by the people here who care most, about what's most important. To everyone I remind it is possible that not everything that's important will get decided by this RfC. So what's most important to decide? Some willingness to to accept that important issues won't be decided right away needs to be tolerated in order for there to be any chance of moving this forward and it seems clear that this needs to move forward. If a person's answer to "what weaknesses/compromises can I live with?" is nothing then that person is not going to be able to successfully participate in formulating this RfC.The good news is that no one seems to yet be at that point. The further good news is that multiple people are seeing progress being made. In rereading this talk page it seems like there is some level of agreement behind a single question (that can be answered with a support or an oppose). People seem OK with coming back to the details later. This is helpful because a single question also seems most likely to achieve consensus from the community. If we can't get consensus around a single question I think it could also give us insight into what the multiple questions have to be at this point and we can, if necessary (though I think it might not be) examine different formats for multiple questions. As such I am going to propose the following. |
I am suggesting we focus, for now, on trying to perfect a single question about pricing (or whatever your preferred term is). I am also going to ask that people to follow my lead and collapse extended content, leaving only the most important information visible. Say as much as you want, but let's make it easy for people to navigate. Thoughts? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Possible Questions
So far the following single questions have been proposed:
- A
Do you think that a pharmaceutical drug has one price that can be expressed in dollars and cents, for each region such as US, UK, developing world, and this is information that Wikipedia drug articles should include and can routinely be sourced by editors without original research.
— User:Colin - B
Should Wikipedia articles contain information about the cost of medications?
— User:Doc James
Please take one (or both) of these and wordsmith them to your heart's content. And if you want to explain, at length, why your version is good, or issues you see with someone else's proposal, feel free but again please consider collapsing those comments. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question B does not resolve the issue with the existing content on hundreds of drug articles. We must avoid asking questions that are true occasionally or even quite often, but which then permit something universally. Prices have been added routinely and in a manner that claims a drug has one price and using sources that require original research to present the article text added. This is the practice that either wiki accepts or rejects. -- Colin°Talk 21:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, do you have a tweak to that formulation? If not, it's hardly surprising that you would prefer Option A considering you were the one who originally crafted it :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. It is a bit like "Should we offer good healthcare to citizens" which, depending on ones politics, could be interpreted to allow anything from private health insurance to socialist state health. And perhaps there should be a bit more input from James. -- Colin°Talk 22:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, do you have a tweak to that formulation? If not, it's hardly surprising that you would prefer Option A considering you were the one who originally crafted it :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like either A or B (for reasons that I already stated earlier). I'm not going to attempt any further to suggest what a good question would be, but I think that there are basically two "ideas" that need to be incorporated into the single question, and in a manner that community responses will lead to an unambiguous consensus:
- Whether drug prices should be widely presented on drug pages, and
- What kind of sourcing is needed to support such content.
- I also think that responding editors must be able to see specific examples of what the various options for doing this would look like. (If editors here cannot come up with a specific example of their preferred approach, then that approach does not merit inclusion.) I also think that (obviously) the wording must be absolutely neutral. I look forward to seeing specific proposals from other editors that will meet those criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think Tryptofish is closer to the mark than the two formally stated questions. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Both of the formally stated questions do not have simple answers.
My answer to A would be No, but sometimes it could happen, and this is not the only situation in which a price might be of interest, and to B it would be Yes, but not always, and only when it is of encyclopedic value.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
SG's Background
|
---|
|
- C
Do you think that any individual pharmaceutical drug has one price that can be expressed in a given currency, for any region such as the US, UK, or the developing world?
— User:SandyGeorgia - D
Followup: What kinds of sources for pharmaceutical drug prices can be cited by editors, without original research, for Wikipedia drug articles?
— User:SandyGeorgia
Thanks for all your hard work, Barkeep49; this amount of effort is beyond the call of duty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- E
— kashmīrī TALK 02:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)For articles discussing medications, do you think that Wikipedia can, reliably and without original research, source medication prices as used in various regions of the world; and if found, should convert them to a common currency and include in articles?
- I am convinced that the average editor is not capable of answering this question in any useful fashion. Can it be done? Yes, because it has been done in many articles (e.g., multiple articles with accusations about price gouging). Also no, because it can't be done for all of them. And then the poor closer has to tot up the answers, and gets stuck with telling people that !voted yes that they actually meant no, and vice versa. The real question isn't whether it can ever be done; we have done that, and nobody's trying to blank the prices in Martin Shkreli. The real question is under which circumstances we ought to do that. So one answer's clear: No making stuff up or misrepresenting a price just to get something crammed into an article. Another answer's clear: If the price is in headlines all over the English-speaking world for months, then it gets mentioned. But where's the line between those two extremes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is no line, it is a grey area that would be undecided in many cases until local consensus was developed for that case. This is a tedious business and generally goes to the most persistent group who will not accept no for an answer. My opinion at present, as a non-expert with no dogs in the fight, is that prices are too volatile and variable to be useful to the reader in most cases, and that the onus is on the person wishing to add a price, to show that the price is encyclopedically relevant in that case. Where a price is considered relevant, I do not think it should go in the lead unless obviously noteworthy in context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Peter Southwood, thanks for your comments. I do fear it is hard to create a rule that lays down the law that works in all cases, and perhaps should not attempt to ask for one. The problem with a "local consensus" cop-out is as you say the most persistent group will not accept no for an answer. I wonder if you will look at the drug articles I mention in my collapsed box (Colin's Background) below. Those are examples of the sticking point this RFC is trying to address. They are typical of hundreds of prices in leads of drug articles. I would like a question that answers whether or the article text we have is acceptable. Of course we agree on the question about "Whether drug prices should be widely presented on drug pages" or some variant of that. The second of Tryptofish's question assumes that we have some text about prices and just need to find an appropriate source. But I maintain that the problem with all the drug prices on articles currently is that they attempt to boil a drug down to one formulation, one tablet size, one unspecified indication, one dose and present one price. So before we ask what sources support it, we need to consider if that is even a sensible approach to presenting prices (never mind for now where: lead, body or infobox). Then for sourcing my concern about asking an open question is we don't get decisive answers, and perhaps it is easier to give examples from existing articles and ask folk if that use of the sources is acceptable. I'm sure that would also provoke some people to give alternatives. If we close the RFC with "there is no consensus approach to drug prices, editors should seek consensus per article" then we are back to the RFC of 2016 and the effect of that is that prices were added to all drug articles anyway, and discussions are ongoing to add prices and links to GoodRX on the drug infobox of all articles. Can you think of a question that will resolve whether the text+sources in current drug articles is acceptable to the community? -- Colin°Talk 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin so the idea of a baseline (prices are/aren't encyclopedic) doesn't seem helpful to you in this current discussion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- "The second of Tryptofish's question (sic)"? I was not asking two questions. I was stating two kinds of issues that need to be addressed. And I wasn't assuming anything. There could certainly be a consensus that drug prices should not be routinely included in articles, and that drug pricing should be discussed only when there are independent reliable secondary sources. To the best of my knowledge, those kinds of sources do exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I am still thinking about when and why the price/cost/pricing/whatever of a drug would be encyclopedic information, and when it would not.
When it is not encyclopedic, leave it out.
When it is encyclopedic, a reliable source is necessary, that supports the information included. It is not "medical" information, it is commercial information, so MEDRS does not apply, just regular RS.
It is necessary to specify the context of the information in the article in such a way that the reader understands its scope and is not misled by how it is expressed - the information must be presented in a neutral way, and must be accurate, both in space and time.
The information should be widely valid unless there is an encyclopedic reason to provide information that is limited in space and time. When it is limited in space and time this limitation must be specified/explained.
In many cases the sources may not be suitable for inclusion without some numerical processing. There we run into the risk of original research, and the scope of the numerical processing should be specified to allow the reader to check the math. I think the sources should usually be explicitly stated in the text, as well as being reliably referenced.
We are trying to establish a principle here, rather than to judge specific cases, so I am not convinced that looking at specific cases at this point is either necessary or useful, as it may prejudice fair consideration of the principle. First we establish the principle, then we compare specific cases to the rule.
The local consensus to include is a vexatious issue, as we have editors who do not appear to understand the meaning or process of consensus building, and persist in claiming that they are right in the face of evidence to the contrary, often with a barrage of marginally relevant shortcut policy links rather than logical reasoning and supporting evidence, and frequently accompanied by a group of like-minded involved editors. Closure by an uninvolved neutral third party is a reasonable remedy.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC) - Kashmiri, I am concerned that unless the original currency and date are quoted, the validity of the claim will be variable over time and partly obscured. There is already a problem with a single quoted price that it generally applies to a specific place at a specific time. In some cases this is relevant, but it is generically not very useful. If converted to a common currency, which one would be used, and why, and how would this be kept current?· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Pbsouthwood: Yep, but we don't want prices in South African rands, RTGS dollars or Chinese yuans, do we? Also, how do we approach currencies which quickly lose value due to inflation, like the Venezuelan bolívar? Anyhow, I proposed to have the currency component as a part of the question this so that responders have a pause over what voting "Yes" would involve. Maybe it can be reworded, though, although I do think that the RfC questions should touch upon the currency issue. Also, I am toying with the idea that we should somehow indicate that this would prices of pharmaceutical products (i.e., goods) and not prices of the chemical compounds being article subjects, with all the challenges related to different brands, formulations, dosages, package sizes, combination drugs, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, you say
we don't want prices in South African rands, RTGS dollars or Chinese yuans, do we?
- Why not? Wikipedia is an internationally targeted encyclopedia, what currencies do we want prices in?
Also why specifically prices of pharmaceutical products, not the compounds, and could you elaborate a bit on the challenges related to different brands, formulations, dosages, package sizes, combination drugs, etc? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)- @Pbsouthwood: Why not compounds? Because chemical compounds are usually traded by weight or volume, unlike drugs. For instance, Salbutamol is a crystalline powder[1] and is indeed traded wholesale by kilograms[2]. But it is not an approved drug in the powdered form - approved drugs are various products (formulations) that contain salbutamol as their active ingredient: a sugary syrup, NO2-propelled inhalers (in varying volumes and concentrations), a variety of capsules and tablets (2mg, 5mg, 10mg, normal release, controlled release, etc.); some of them may or may not be approved depending on jurisdiction. I think it would help if the RfC question informs editors about this aspect. — kashmīrī TALK 20:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kashmiri, you say
- @Pbsouthwood: Yep, but we don't want prices in South African rands, RTGS dollars or Chinese yuans, do we? Also, how do we approach currencies which quickly lose value due to inflation, like the Venezuelan bolívar? Anyhow, I proposed to have the currency component as a part of the question this so that responders have a pause over what voting "Yes" would involve. Maybe it can be reworded, though, although I do think that the RfC questions should touch upon the currency issue. Also, I am toying with the idea that we should somehow indicate that this would prices of pharmaceutical products (i.e., goods) and not prices of the chemical compounds being article subjects, with all the challenges related to different brands, formulations, dosages, package sizes, combination drugs, etc. — kashmīrī TALK 18:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- In general, prices change. Whatever prices are quoted should be explicitly linked to the dates and places involved. I do not know how the proponents of including generic/average/median/whatever prices plan to keep them updated. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Peter Southwood, thanks for your comments. I do fear it is hard to create a rule that lays down the law that works in all cases, and perhaps should not attempt to ask for one. The problem with a "local consensus" cop-out is as you say the most persistent group will not accept no for an answer. I wonder if you will look at the drug articles I mention in my collapsed box (Colin's Background) below. Those are examples of the sticking point this RFC is trying to address. They are typical of hundreds of prices in leads of drug articles. I would like a question that answers whether or the article text we have is acceptable. Of course we agree on the question about "Whether drug prices should be widely presented on drug pages" or some variant of that. The second of Tryptofish's question assumes that we have some text about prices and just need to find an appropriate source. But I maintain that the problem with all the drug prices on articles currently is that they attempt to boil a drug down to one formulation, one tablet size, one unspecified indication, one dose and present one price. So before we ask what sources support it, we need to consider if that is even a sensible approach to presenting prices (never mind for now where: lead, body or infobox). Then for sourcing my concern about asking an open question is we don't get decisive answers, and perhaps it is easier to give examples from existing articles and ask folk if that use of the sources is acceptable. I'm sure that would also provoke some people to give alternatives. If we close the RFC with "there is no consensus approach to drug prices, editors should seek consensus per article" then we are back to the RFC of 2016 and the effect of that is that prices were added to all drug articles anyway, and discussions are ongoing to add prices and links to GoodRX on the drug infobox of all articles. Can you think of a question that will resolve whether the text+sources in current drug articles is acceptable to the community? -- Colin°Talk 19:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is no line, it is a grey area that would be undecided in many cases until local consensus was developed for that case. This is a tedious business and generally goes to the most persistent group who will not accept no for an answer. My opinion at present, as a non-expert with no dogs in the fight, is that prices are too volatile and variable to be useful to the reader in most cases, and that the onus is on the person wishing to add a price, to show that the price is encyclopedically relevant in that case. Where a price is considered relevant, I do not think it should go in the lead unless obviously noteworthy in context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am convinced that the average editor is not capable of answering this question in any useful fashion. Can it be done? Yes, because it has been done in many articles (e.g., multiple articles with accusations about price gouging). Also no, because it can't be done for all of them. And then the poor closer has to tot up the answers, and gets stuck with telling people that !voted yes that they actually meant no, and vice versa. The real question isn't whether it can ever be done; we have done that, and nobody's trying to blank the prices in Martin Shkreli. The real question is under which circumstances we ought to do that. So one answer's clear: No making stuff up or misrepresenting a price just to get something crammed into an article. Another answer's clear: If the price is in headlines all over the English-speaking world for months, then it gets mentioned. But where's the line between those two extremes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Inconsequential formatting change
|
---|
|
Table of Despair
I think that the main question to be settled is how much WEIGHT do we (by default) put on sources about prices (as understood in the dollars-and-cents model, not the general how-many-people-can-afford-that sense). Does it fall into (or near) the category of basic information that User:Bluerasberry calls Wikipedia:Defining data, in which case we need to include something about it whenever reliable sources permit us to say anything at all? Or, alternatively, is this content something that we should normally not include, and only mention when we have especially good sources (e.g., multiple high-quality sources that discuss the price at length). Here are some examples that we might consider:
Subject | Source type | If we put a lot of weight on prices | If we put less weight on prices | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Insulin | Many long articles in news media and academic journals, including claims of price gouging and people dying because they couldn't afford the drug | In the US, between 1987 and 2017, the wholesale price of long-acting insulin increased from US$170 to $1,400 per vial.[1] | In the US, between 1987 and 2017, the wholesale price of long-acting insulin increased from US$170 to $1,400 per vial.[1] | |
Valproate | A 2017 peer-reviewed journal article, and some data points in various databases (i.e., independent primary sources) | According to estimates published in The BMJ in 2017 for drugs on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, the cost of manufacturing the active ingredient in this drug in India, is approximately a couple of US cents per pill.[2] | (Nothing – this is a single primary source) | The cost of manufacturing the active ingredient is reasonably consistent worldwide. India is the biggest producer of these generic small-molecule drugs. But no retailer or consumer buys just the active ingredient. |
Denosumab | An article in a pharmacy industry magazine (independent and possibly secondary) | Shortly after its original approval in 2010, Medicaid's US average wholesale price for a 60-mg prefilled syringe of denosumab was reported at US$990 per dose, with two doses expected each year to treat osteoporosis.[3] | (Nothing here, but maybe something in the manufacturer's article) | Just one dose (of two for this drug), in just one country, at just one point in time, using just one metric (of many). |
Golodirsen | An article in a biotech business magazine reporting on an Earnings call (independent and primary) | In the days after Sarepta Therapeutics received permission from the US FDA to market the drug, the net annual cost was estimated to run around US$300,000 per treated patient, assuming the patient was a child weighing 25 kg (55 pounds).[4] | (Nothing here, but maybe something in the manufacturer's article) | No actual sales and little non-business coverage at that point, but high-cost drugs tend to attract attention, so maybe more sources would appear later, at which point it might be treated more like the Insulin example. |
Abacavir | A routine entry in a government database | According to the Drug Pricing and Payment database maintained by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for 300 mg pills of abacavir was US$0.77 each in December 2019 in the US. | (Nothing, because it's a primary source) |
All of these examples have been mentioned in the discussions leading up to this point. If anyone feels like any of the examples are misrepresented, please let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Despair sets in; we won't get people to digest this much information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with any of WhatamIdoing's examples above appearing in an article on the drug (assuming that they are correct at face value). I would not expect to see any of them, except possibly the insulin information in the article lead, in which case I would expect a section in the article discussing the price rise and its impact in more detail. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Colin's Background
|
---|
I think we have rather forgotten why we are having this RFC.
I hope a pattern is emerging. We aren't having an RFC about some new or alternative idea for prices in Wikipedia articles. We are having an RFC about the actual current prices in actual hundreds of articles. We're having an RFC because of an impasse between two editors. And we're having an RFC because WP:MED has completely avoided making direct explicit criticisms of that text or of fixing any problems in the past three years. WP:MED is clearly not going to fix this and we need input from the wider community and neutral editors to contribute. We need to offer a question that directly resolves this matter, rather than creating new ones. -- Colin°Talk 10:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
|
I think question A (by Colin) is a necessary and sufficient condition for the current text in hundreds of drug articles to be kept. Splitting in two like Sandy proposes weakens this, especially the open question B which may not likely lead to anything other than a random mix of opinions. The problem with a "What kinds of sources" question is that it always depends what you use if for and "for pharmaceutical drug prices in drug articles" is not specific enough. Many people like to view sources as adjectives. So "MSH" or "data.medicaid.gov" or "WHO" or "BNF" will be viewed as "reliable sources" and as "secondary sources" (they aren't the primary source of their data). So I suspect we'd just get comments like "Must use high quality secondary sources like the BNF" without stopping to think that the BNF may list 30 prices from 10 manufacturers for a drug, or even working out what the two prices the BNF list for each record actually mean. I'll try to find some representative article texts later. Essentially we want an "Are you happy with this?" question around existing practice. -- Colin°Talk 10:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm behind on reading everyone's comments, and busy as well. More than a reminder to myself than anything, with no attempt to create simple questions for an RfC: When are specific prices due mention in an article at all, and when in the lede? How much pricing information needs to be included with any specific prices to make those prices meaningful to the reader? --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
So once again, Colin states his support for question A by Colin. Someone please alert the news media.So far, I'm not seeing any single question that adequately covers the two issues that I identified, without being confusing to editors who are coming new to the RfC, or being non-neutral. What comes closest are Sandy's combined C and D, with some further wordsmithing. But alas, that is not a single question. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Putting this here at the bottom, to encompass much and good feedback above. Please, people, come on ... take Barkeep's suggestion and put up concrete suggestions so we can start wordsmithing and discussing specifics. Once the proposals are up, we can see the issues and refine. I am at the limit of my wordsmithing ability, and despair has set in; length has again taken over this discussion, and we have nothing concrete. Trypto and Peter and Ronz, give it a go even if you aren't yet fully satisfied with what you might intially propose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sandy, but given the responses I've gotten so far when I've previously given it a go, I'm going to sit back and see what others can do. I appreciate the fact that you, alone, covered the things I think need to be covered, in your two C and D proposals, which together seem to me to be the best so far. But, given Barkeep's request for a single question, and given what seems to me to be the predominant opinion of editors here, I think we need to make it into a single question. Without creating new problems in doing so. I'm not seeing any way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Who are "others" that we are waiting for to see what they can do? All of the "Me, too, per editor-so-and-so" !voters, who don't engage to develop consensus? Are you expecting someone new to show up here? It looks to me like we're looking at us, and if *we* don't come up with something, we end up at Arbcom. It should be well evidenced by now that I suck at formulating RFCs, so what are we thinking is going to happen next here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia — It's Christmas day, even if you feel dispair that no one is engaging right now, we need to keep our cool and wait until at least the beginning of January. With the moratorium on change wrt prices, the fact that prices have been included for years, and that this debate has raged for over a month — there is hardly to be any cataclysmic effect of waiting another week or so. Carl Fredrik talk 23:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- <sigh> ... you are right, CFCF. It happens that, with a big Christmas party behind me, the food done with, and gifts purchased wrapped and delivered, today was the first day I could really finally focus. You are right that today does not have to be the day. My despair is more related to seeing Barkeep try so hard, and getting no results yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, as I noted below to Typto I do think we're getting somewhere. As Carl notes we're in a slow period. But I plan to recollect the various wordings, some of which seem to have more support than others, to see if we can get to a final version (if one doesn't emerge organically). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks again for still going above and beyond the call of duty. Lavendar herbal bath is calling my name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia — It's Christmas day, even if you feel dispair that no one is engaging right now, we need to keep our cool and wait until at least the beginning of January. With the moratorium on change wrt prices, the fact that prices have been included for years, and that this debate has raged for over a month — there is hardly to be any cataclysmic effect of waiting another week or so. Carl Fredrik talk 23:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Who are "others" that we are waiting for to see what they can do? All of the "Me, too, per editor-so-and-so" !voters, who don't engage to develop consensus? Are you expecting someone new to show up here? It looks to me like we're looking at us, and if *we* don't come up with something, we end up at Arbcom. It should be well evidenced by now that I suck at formulating RFCs, so what are we thinking is going to happen next here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I've made suggestions, and they have apparently been shot down. And, as I said, I'm not seeing a way forward under the terms we are working with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's possible we end up with more than one part (and said as much in my extended comments). However, when we started with multiple parts it quickly spiraled out of control and to a place we'd never achieve consensus. I'm hoping by staying smaller it will be easier for us to achieve consensus here on the questions and then to achieve consensus when it's formally putout to the broader Wikipedia community. But yes all this does require on people actively collaborating on wording or else putting forth concrete support for the wording of someone else. This conversation has generated some fresh perspectives so I'm still hopeful we're somewhat moving in a positive direction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I've made suggestions, and they have apparently been shot down. And, as I said, I'm not seeing a way forward under the terms we are working with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, Trypto, I haven't intended to shoot down or ignore any of your suggestions: they just aren't yet formulated in a way that I can get my arms around them. Because of the history of really badly formed RFCs leading to no conclusions, I think that Barkeep was right to suggest a format in which we could more easily see exactly what the questions would look like, and discuss from there. At this stage of frustration, I could better opine on your ideas if you would put them in the format as A, B, and so on above. WAIDs huge table is where my despair started; while *we* get it, I just don't feel most participants will. We have to stay simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish's two part question can be split into two questions. The second question is not relevant unless the answer to the first is "yes", so we can take the first part and ask it, and if the answer is no, the second question falls away. I see the second question as relatively straightforward, as it refers to economic content as opposed to medical content, but it may be that others have philosophical differences about the scope of medical content, and I am happy to leave that debate for another day. I present a modified version of Tryptofish's question. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, Trypto, I haven't intended to shoot down or ignore any of your suggestions: they just aren't yet formulated in a way that I can get my arms around them. Because of the history of really badly formed RFCs leading to no conclusions, I think that Barkeep was right to suggest a format in which we could more easily see exactly what the questions would look like, and discuss from there. At this stage of frustration, I could better opine on your ideas if you would put them in the format as A, B, and so on above. WAIDs huge table is where my despair started; while *we* get it, I just don't feel most participants will. We have to stay simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Trying to respond to several points above. User:Barkeep49 "a baseline (prices are/aren't encyclopedic)" question will need to be carefully worded. People have very different ideas about what counts as evidence of encyclopedic. Perhaps worth quoting WP:NOTPRICES here for reference:
An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers
- We have different opinions expressed about what that means and whether we should challenge it. WAID appears to want us to reconsider WP:NOTPRICES for any topic. Others believe WP:NOTPRICES already disallows the "two or three prices in the lead of every single drug article" approach that has occurred. When the above was quoted on 6 December, James wrote
"And I agree with that. All the sources being used to discuss prices are independent. And we have sources that justify the importance of pricing information"
. We have some editors who think prices concerns in national newspapers is what counts as independent discussion and WP:WEIGHT to include. Others claim that multiple drug databases listing prices satisfies WP:WEIGHT and finding some obscure internal memo on the price of X is sufficient discussion, or that general concern about drug pricing is enough to justify the inclusion in every single drug article. So we need a question that cuts through all that to make a clear consensus. If we just end up with a reworded WP:NOTPRICES that is immediately ignored/evaded we haven't achieved anything. - Can we try not to personalise the ownership of questions either as a reason to negate someone's support for them or to get all defensive about them, though unfortunately to discuss options we sometimes have to label them with a proposer's name. I appreciate Tryptofish's two "ideas" weren't literal "questions". I think we should be free to state concerns about one question or another without having those concerns described as "shot down" or "rejected". One reason I so dislike it when wiki/commons jumps immediately to a vote is that all discussion just gets polarised into adversarial language supporting one's position and rubbishing the opposition -- we see that elsewhere in the MEDLEAD discussion. Sandy's C and D could well work. My nervousness with D comes also to the area User:Pbsouthwood is commenting on: which angle should we approach the problem? I could well be wrong and by asking an open question we get some really good clear advise (personally, I'd be hoping that we'd agree that database sources we use currently are useless to us in anything other than unusual cases, because of all the original research, cherry picking, synthesis, etc). I fear however we may get unclear unhelpful replies where words like "independent", "secondary source" and "reliable source" are used which I hope everyone here agrees are in the chocolate teapot department of unhelpfulness to us wrt the current dispute.
- There seems to be some consensus around the C and D questions. I do think it would be useful to include examples, especially of current usage both for the "routine drug pricing citing price databases" and for the "exceptional drug pricing citing some newspaper or commentary source". -- Colin°Talk 12:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
arbitrary edit break
- F
Should reliably sourced and unambiguous dosage prices be routinely presented in articles on drugs (medications) in a prominent position (lead or infobox)
— User:Pbsouthwood- Pbsouthwood, can you give an example (current or invented) of such? I don't think I have seen any "unambiguous" (within article text) statement of dose (it has to be inferred from the database record cited, and in the case of some US prices, can't be inferred at all because the source links to a set of 25,000 prices for a given week). Take diazepam for example. It states
"The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.01 per dose as of 2014."
. Again there are a whole host of problems with this because the source lists only the Buyer price in the Dominican Republic and in Peru, and lists no suppliers at all. This should have run alarm bells for such a huge drug. In fact the 10mg tablet would appear to be uncommonly used (hence no suppliers at all, and in 2015 only Peru was a Buyer) and the 5mg tablet here with eight suppliers is far more reasonable. But what is a "dose". Would someone writing "costs ___ for a 5mg dose" and citing this be "reliably sourced and unambiguous" in your book? The source does not indicate which tablet size to pick or what is a "dose". Nor, for other drugs, does it suggest whether to use enteric coated tablets, or suspensions. The MSH is a "reliable source" for some things (nobody is doubting it is generally likely to be correct about the prices it lists) but not a "good source" for others (the Buyer prices in Peru and DR are not considered representative of the "developing world" according to ANY recommended usage of MSH). Other articles give a cost per day or per month or per treatment. Are they "dosage prices"? By "unambiguous" does one need to include the exact indication too. For example, the BNF gives all sorts of dose options for various indications, many in a range. How would we pick which indication? And if we picked one ("Muscle spasm of varied aetiology") the adult dose is"2–15 mg daily in divided doses, then increased if necessary to 60 mg daily, adjusted according to response, dose only increased in spastic conditions."
How does that translate to a "dosage prices" in an article? The BNF prices are here. - Btw, James has hinted he can't access the BNF (other than a paper copy which is very abbreviated wrt price). If others are having that problem, it would be good to know prior to the RFC. A VPN allows you to access the web from another country, and I've used that to access the US GoodRX website for example. -- Colin°Talk 12:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I have no example of an unambiguous dosage price, and am not sure I could find one if I looked for it. I consider the issue of medication dosages and pricing as outside of my skill set, and am not a big enough fool to try to bluff my way through. I do think I can recognise several varieties of ambiguity that might come up in an attempt to present such an unambiguous price, and you and others have mentioned a few of them already. My point is that it may be possible in some cases, and that it could be considered by the Wikipedia community whether, if and when it is possible, it is to be accepted as a standard component of an article on the drug. I am taking as a given that ambiguous dosage prices are not encyclopedic and are not acceptable, as being potentially or actually misleading to the reader, which is a MEDMOS issue. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to not only provide a reliable source, but also to ensure that the information provided is not misleading. Competence is required, both in researching the content, and in presenting it in an article. I may have the competence to identify a dosage price statementas badly expressed or ambiguous, but it is unlikely that I will ever try to add one. Your example for Diazepam for muscle spasm suggests that in many cases it is not reasonably practicable to provide an unambiguous and useful dosage price, even if restricted to a single market with stable prices. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- PS: BNF is only available in the UK according to the website, so not accessible to me either. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Would someone writing "costs ___ for a 5mg dose" and citing this be "reliably sourced and unambiguous" in your book?
That price is for 2015, which is not mentioned in text.
The actual price is not mentioned in text. Several are available in the source, which one is actually used is important, and it should be mentioned what kind of price it is. Buyer or supplier, median, mean, or range.
The specific source is one of possibly may, and is not mentioned in text.
5mg dose is unambiguous, but unless the article goes into some detail elsewhere of what dose is appropriate in various circumstances, it is not very useful.
The dosage form (tablet) is not mentioned in text, but I don't know if this is relevant for this drug.
I would call it ambiguous. I have no particular problem with reliability of the source as such. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I have no example of an unambiguous dosage price, and am not sure I could find one if I looked for it. I consider the issue of medication dosages and pricing as outside of my skill set, and am not a big enough fool to try to bluff my way through. I do think I can recognise several varieties of ambiguity that might come up in an attempt to present such an unambiguous price, and you and others have mentioned a few of them already. My point is that it may be possible in some cases, and that it could be considered by the Wikipedia community whether, if and when it is possible, it is to be accepted as a standard component of an article on the drug. I am taking as a given that ambiguous dosage prices are not encyclopedic and are not acceptable, as being potentially or actually misleading to the reader, which is a MEDMOS issue. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the information to not only provide a reliable source, but also to ensure that the information provided is not misleading. Competence is required, both in researching the content, and in presenting it in an article. I may have the competence to identify a dosage price statementas badly expressed or ambiguous, but it is unlikely that I will ever try to add one. Your example for Diazepam for muscle spasm suggests that in many cases it is not reasonably practicable to provide an unambiguous and useful dosage price, even if restricted to a single market with stable prices. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Pbsouthwood, can you give an example (current or invented) of such? I don't think I have seen any "unambiguous" (within article text) statement of dose (it has to be inferred from the database record cited, and in the case of some US prices, can't be inferred at all because the source links to a set of 25,000 prices for a given week). Take diazepam for example. It states
- F is getting at part of something that must be addressed. This whole dilemma (according to some of us, anyway) is the result of the breach or misapplication of multiple policies and guidelines (NOR, WEIGHT, NOT and LEAD). Some are suggesting that we should revisit guideline and policy (overall, for the case of MEDLEAD for the purpose of translation, and NOTPRICE for the case of medical product pricing per WAID).
I am concerned that our questions must be asked in a way that addresses the NOR aspect of these drug databases, the WEIGHT aspect of whether we should include prices at all, and the LEAD aspect of whether they should be in the lead. If we really have so many core policies being challenged, what the heck. NOR, NOT and WEIGHT are policy; why are WikiProject guidelines and practices challenging policy and why is that not being done with RFCs on the core policies? I am going to end up dissatisfied if we don't have questions that will get us to the core problems. If we still had an RFC/U process for user conduct, we would be asking these questions there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that three core policies are being breached, though we have rather lacked WP:MED regulars confirming this, leading us to only speculate why. This is partly why I am reluctant to ask a question that is essentially "Shall we allow several core policies to be broken for drug prices" rather than "Can we do _____ while still following core policy". The insertion into the lead only is an important problem, but perhaps not our first priority. Some have argued that some basic defining data could be in a lead (or infobox) and not repeated in the body. Of course nobody has satisfactorily explained why we should even consider price a defining data, other than to say so in order to justify inclusion in infoboxes or wikidata. The clear example is that drug prices can jump extortionately just because a generic manufacturer is bought out by a rival or decides to drop out leaving only one manufacturer, etc, emphasises that prices can be purely an artefact of the games soulless businesses play. The price of a drug in country YY can change purely because they adopt external reference pricing as a policy rather than cost-plus -- nothing to do with the drug itself. I can't really get my mind round the idea that we could take the dozens of prices on a BNF price page, multiplied by a handful of different indications and patient groups suggesting dose ranges, and condense that down to one entry in an infobox or one sentence in our lead. But that hasn't stopped multiple editors consistently and persistently saying they are fine with it and want to go further. So maybe we need to ask what seems to some of us as obvious, but we shouldn't be asking to be allowed to break core policy. -- Colin°Talk 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, let's look at F from the perspective of the admin who will have to close the RFC. MEDLEAD is only guideline, so it seemed to be a good small piece to get out of the way early on. We see translation advocates agreeing that guidelines should be ignored for the "greater purpose" of "children in sub-Sahara Africa" (although the overall benefit to anyone, much less children in Africa, is highly dubious, but I digress). We see almost no one engaging the policy/guideline fundamental questions (partly because of the RFC framing, but that is precisely the problem we are facing here, hence the example). And we see a matter too complex and entrenched for average editors to engage.
So, let's consider the answers that F will generate, and how the closer will interpret those? F presumes a baseline understanding of and achknowledgement of reliably sourced and unambiguous dosage prices. We don't have that in this price dilemma. If we did, we wouldn't be here. So, what will the closing admin do with the "ILikeIt", "Me, too, per editor-so-and-so" responses that will not engage the core questions and policies? The RFC MEDLEAD shows we will get "because I like it" responses. We need to be highly specific in our questions about the core policies: NOR, WEIGHT, NOT. With the MEDLEAD RFC, a closing admin can argue that guidelines are flexible and can be ignored. In that case, with respondents not engaging the core questions, we end up with protracted local discussions to determine consensus on individual articles, where one group will argue LEAD and another group will argue MEDLEAD. We end up with articles that cannot be taken to FAC, because you can't please two masters. This is really not a big deal, because essentially no one at WPMED is attempting to write complete articles anymore anyway, and no one is maintaining most of the project's Featured articles.
Unlike the guideline LEAD, on core policy questions, the problem cannot be so easily overlooked. In this case, if we end up with an inconclusive RFC where respondents do not engage policy because we haven't asked the questions with great specificity, what's next? Protracted local disputes end up at arbcom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Peter Southwood, I think many article texts are ambiguous. They just say "per dose" or "per day" or "per treatment" and that is "ambiguous" in the sense we don't in-text name the dose or indication or any other factor that influences how much you give, how often and for how long. But suppose we did. Suppose we named a 10mg Diazepam tablet or we stated a full course of X antibiotic at 25mg per day for 8 days. Then the "a" word I have a problem with is "arbitrary". Someone picked 10mg dose and chose a tablet rather than a rectal suppository, and chose an indication for treatment. So while we can certainly make minor changes to improve the article text to be unambiguous and many will argue the sources we cite are already "reliable", neither seem to me to be sufficient to allow what we currently have, even improved with minor tweaks. So I wouldn't want the end result of the RFC to just be "we need to name the dose and formulation in-text".
- Btw, I just installed windscribe.com extension onto my Chrome browser. It is free and I get 10gb a month through it. I was then able to select a server in Dallas US and access goodrx.com. I do suggest folk in this discussion do similar for a virtual visit to the UK and have a look at BNF for drug details including prescribing dosages and indications and medicinal forms including prices. I really wish the folk who think we can put this in an info box would look at that -- the infobox would be bigger than most articles. -- Colin°Talk 17:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Arbitrary is generally not useful to the reader, so I would consider it unencyclopedic. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, let's look at F from the perspective of the admin who will have to close the RFC. MEDLEAD is only guideline, so it seemed to be a good small piece to get out of the way early on. We see translation advocates agreeing that guidelines should be ignored for the "greater purpose" of "children in sub-Sahara Africa" (although the overall benefit to anyone, much less children in Africa, is highly dubious, but I digress). We see almost no one engaging the policy/guideline fundamental questions (partly because of the RFC framing, but that is precisely the problem we are facing here, hence the example). And we see a matter too complex and entrenched for average editors to engage.
- Here are the things that I can identify that need to be addressed for F. When we ask editors whether that kind of information "should" be handled that way, we still need to somehow address "as opposed to what?" It's easy for an RfC to close as "yes, it can be done this way" and then have someone come along and assert "but it didn't say we cannot do it this other way" – or for it to be closed as "no, don't do it this way", and someone claims that "my way isn't that, so my way is OK". Also, however we present a question, it's important that we present specific examples of what it would look like in an article, for at least two contrasting alternatives, and that we present editors with concise policy-based arguments for or against whatever it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, agree that there may be a problem with evading any decision by clever words/interpretation. That is a current concern wrt WP:NOTPRICES for many folk who disagree that drug prices meet that policy requirement for all drugs. If one person says "must use reliable secondary sources" to mean a commentary in a newspaper or journal explicitly talking about the high/low price and perhaps quoting a figure, another person might say "But MSH's prices are secondary sources (they aren't the supplier or manufacturer) and they are reliable". Wrt options, we need to always remember that one option is to not do it at all. For example, there are so many indications, formulations and manufacturers of diazepam that perhaps we conclude that wiki should not emulate the drug databases by trying to list them or nor to falsely condense them down to one price.
- At the other end of availability, look at Terbinafine. Peter Southwood, you mention above whether "dosage form is relevant for this drug [diazepam]". It certainly always affects the price, so picking one form or table size can hugely affect the price quoted. Different forms are required for different patient groups/ages and indications. The most amusing I just found was Terbinafine. We cite a source commenting (as an aside) that the price for a 12-week treatment fell from $547 to $10 after the patent had expired. Is that price drop notable or typical? Anyway, the point is the source is talking about a lengthy oral (tablet) treatment for nail fungus. But we also, in the previous sentence say "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about 2.20 USD for a 20 g tube" which isn't for nail fungus (the cream isn't effective) but for athletes foot or other itchy skin, which typically clears up in days, not months. So we are being very ambiguous and the juxtaposition is very much against policy. But also importantly, the source from 2014 doesn't list any Suppliers at all and only one Buyer (an organisation representing 9 Eastern Caribbean states). And MSH doesn't have any entry for the tablet. The only reasonable conclusion is that Terbinafine cream or tablet are not generally available from suppliers to governments in the developing world, yet we are so desperate to give a price that we quote any old garbage database entry we find and claim falsely that this represents "the wholesale cost in the developing world". Mostly, we should pick the "say nothing" option, and our questions should allow for that. -- Colin°Talk 09:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, we agree about that. I think there's a world of difference between taking terbinafine orally, under an MD's supervision and perhaps monitoring liver function, versus using an over-the-counter cream for an itch. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agree that three core policies are being breached, though we have rather lacked WP:MED regulars confirming this, leading us to only speculate why. This is partly why I am reluctant to ask a question that is essentially "Shall we allow several core policies to be broken for drug prices" rather than "Can we do _____ while still following core policy". The insertion into the lead only is an important problem, but perhaps not our first priority. Some have argued that some basic defining data could be in a lead (or infobox) and not repeated in the body. Of course nobody has satisfactorily explained why we should even consider price a defining data, other than to say so in order to justify inclusion in infoboxes or wikidata. The clear example is that drug prices can jump extortionately just because a generic manufacturer is bought out by a rival or decides to drop out leaving only one manufacturer, etc, emphasises that prices can be purely an artefact of the games soulless businesses play. The price of a drug in country YY can change purely because they adopt external reference pricing as a policy rather than cost-plus -- nothing to do with the drug itself. I can't really get my mind round the idea that we could take the dozens of prices on a BNF price page, multiplied by a handful of different indications and patient groups suggesting dose ranges, and condense that down to one entry in an infobox or one sentence in our lead. But that hasn't stopped multiple editors consistently and persistently saying they are fine with it and want to go further. So maybe we need to ask what seems to some of us as obvious, but we shouldn't be asking to be allowed to break core policy. -- Colin°Talk 15:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
NOR vs DUE
I really think this is important: NOR is not DUE.
Deciding which entry to cite in a database is not a NOR violation. It's (possibly) a DUE violation, but an accurate description of the content published in a reliable source is never NOR. This means that if you look up wonderpam in The Database, and it says "100 mg pill – generic – Specific Price Type – US$0.10 – December 2019 – UK", then writing "According to The Database, the Specific Price Type of a 100 mg pill of generic wonderpam was US$0.10 in December 2019 in the UK" is not original research. That's actually what the published reliable source said; therefore, that's not NOR.
Now, while that statement is not a NOR violation, NOTPRICE suggests that it's also probably not something that we want. It's possibly unencyclopedic, and it's very likely UNDUE emphasis (why that one size, that one date, that one country?), even though it's not actually original research. I don't think that we'll get a sensible RFC response if we go to editors and say "He copied this information straight out of a single reliable source – that's a NOR violation, right?" NOR means "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". If you're copying it straight out of a single reliable source, then it's not NOR. IMO we need to stop talking about NOR (which is either not a problem at all, or is a problem that can be fixed by copyediting) and focus this discussion on DUE.
"Focusing on DUE" IMO means that we ask editors how much emphasis we should put on this subject. "How much emphasis" is partly subjective. Yes, you have to have the sources, but if something is "always" DUE, then you can/should write a weak claim from whatever source you can get.
We need to know whether editors want minimal emphasis (in which case, we remove a number of existing statements, or at least move them out of the lead), or whether they want significant emphasis (in which case, MEDMOS can provide information about how to write non-NOR statements), or something in between.
It would be good to educate the respondents about how complex the subject area is, but if they want significant emphasis on this, then the feasibility of implementing their goals in any given case is not the primary factor in writing our advice. After all, we put a huge amount of weight on the dates and locations of people's births, even though we know that can't source birthdates and locations for every single biography. Putting a huge amount of weight on it just means that if you've got any source at all, even if it's just one unimpressive primary source, then you include whatever you've got, with whatever WP:INTEXT attribution and careful description that allows readers to understand the limits of the source.
When this started, I gave a pair of examples in MEDMOS:
- Do this: In the US, between 1987 and 2017, the wholesale price of long-acting insulin increased from US$170 to $1,400 per vial.[1]
- Don't do this: Insulin costs US$1,400.[1]
If editors want prices at all costs, we could add one that shows how to respect NOR while still including database-derived prices:
- Do this: "Prices vary according to dose, location, and other factors. As an example, according to Named Database, the government of Costa Rica paid US$0.10 per 100 mg pill for generic wonderpam in 2015.[1]"
- Do this: "Under the affordability model published by the World Health Organization and Health Action International in 2008, a medication is affordable if a month's treatment costs less than seven days' wages for the lowest-paid unskilled government employee.[2] In the WHO/HAI database, generic wonderpam is classified as an affordable medication.[3]"
We could also add an example from news media:
- Do this: "Shortly after its original marketing approval by the US FDA in 2010, Business News estimated the manufacturer's list price of Wonderpam at US$1,000 per day in the US.[1]"
I know those statements can be sourced for some medications without transgressing NOR. IMO what we need is to know whether editors actually want us to do that.
With that in mind, I think that the question to ask is:
- G
How much WP:WEIGHT should be put on the prices of pharmaceutical drugs?
This question can (and IMO should) be followed by examples (the despair-inducing table) and explanations (the impossibility of finding the One True™ Price for a drug that sells in 190 countries in six different doses and four common formulations under at least 90 brand names) and alternatives (we could skip dollars-and-cents and instead try to source a comment about affordable/expensive), and comparsions to similar subjects (e.g., how NOTPRICE is applied to other products), but I think that this is the most basic question to ask.
I do not think that we should be asking a yes/no question. I think editors should be encouraged to respond with both an overall view related to inclusion (e.g., always include, usually include, usually omit, only include under extraordinary circumstances, only for generic drugs, only for WHO Essential Medicines, only for drugs under patent protection, only for drugs with unusually high prices – whatever editors actually want) and with an idea of how to include (e.g., brief mention in the lead vs a whole paragraph or section, current prices vs original prices, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I do think we should give some serious attention to presenting the RfC in such as manner as to not conflate policies. But I also think that there is a serious need to keep things simple, rather than tl;dr. If we ask "how much weight?", there will be the issue of how to answer the question. How does one define "a lot of weight" versus "not much weight"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing a simple RfC coming from all this.
- Having information in the lead, an infobox, or in the article body are issues of weight. Presenting information in inappropriate context can be NOR, NOT, or POV issues.
- I think this examples of what to do and not do are very valuable in moving us to some consensus, and giving proper guidance to editors who are trying to address these problems in articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, am still not seeing a simple RfC here. I also think that concrete examples are very useful – not only to what we are working on here, but also potentially to be included in some way in the RfC. I'm willing to be a bit flexible with regard to covering every issue, even every significant issue (infobox versus body text, for example), in the interests of a manageable RfC, but I also think increasingly that we will just be spinning our wheels if we keep trying over and over to craft a single question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, sorry but I think you are totally wrong, because you keep having a strawman argument about fictitious possible price/cost/affordability statements some fictitious article might contain. We aren't having an RFC because of fictitious possible article text. Of the 500+ drug articles that currently display prices, all of them required original research to make the statement they do. When we chose one unnamed tablet to represent "the cost", that was indeed original research and when we multiplied by a "dose" that was also original research. Have you looked at the medicaid source links? They cite a "prices for week xx in 2018" database of tens of thousands of records. You need to then, by hand, filter the results to the drug the article is about and then you need to look at different formulations and tablet sizes and try to reverse engineer which one was picked to get $50.45 a month or whatever we claimed. And of course the medicaid site doesn't mention a dose at all, so no "intelligent reader" could possibly work it out from that source -- the very definition of original research.
And we also made claims that are not supported by the source at all, like "the wholesale cost in the developing world" citing one buyer price in Costa Rica, or claiming the price ranged from $x to $y when that is also not supported by the source. None of actual articles formulate the price statement like you did. If they did, then you could indeed make the argument that it was undue weight to mention one tablet size from one drug manufacturer in one country. But they don't and the difference is not solvable, as you put it, by "copyediting".
We nearly always give a price per dose, per day or month (which also require picking a dose) or per treatment (which requires an indication and dose). But we always don't mention what that dose is nor do we mention what the indication is. Terbinafine was one example above, Aciclovir another I spotted today, where the article does not state whether the costs are for a cream for cold sores or a tablet for shingles or post-transplant infection of cytomegalovirus. Yes there would be a WP:WEIGHT problem with explicitly giving the price for just one indication, and there would be a WEIGHT problem if we were explicit about the formulation/supplier/etc we used for our maths. But we aren't even specifying the indication, never mind the other things, so our problem isn't WEIGHT but just being dishonest with our readers in claiming there is One Price. The "we could be as specific as The Database is" argument is a false one to make and knock down, because nobody is proposing it. As you say yourself, just giving an example of all the permutations should be despair-inducing. We need to also remember MEDMOS prevents us from stating drug dose information in articles (for good reason) so we can't even explain to our readers why we picked the 250mg tablet.
WhatamIdoing, I have complained about the horrendous problems with the lead text in 500+ drug articles, and I think an RFC that appreciates the problems with that text will result in all those lead prices sourced to databases texts being removed from all 500+ drug articles. Please, the RFC must resolve the conflict over existing article text, not generate imaginary conflicts with imaginary texts. I don't think your WEIGHT question resolves this conflict at all. It isn't even in my mind a sensible question to ask. WP:WEIGHT is determined by reading the body of literature on the article topic, not by Wikipedians expressing a personal opinion. -- Colin°Talk 12:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, all of this is original research (not simple math). Let's not archive those sections yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Help me out with this, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Colin. You've been consistent in thinking that it's NOR. If you're looking at a database record in a reputable, WP:Published database that says this:
- "wonderpam – 100 mg pill – generic – Specific Price Type – US$0.10 – December 2019 – UK"
- and someone uses that to write:
- "According to The Database, the Specific Price Type of a 100 mg pill of generic wonderpam was US$0.10 in December 2019 in the UK"
- where exactly in that sentence do you see "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"? Or would this be fine (in NOR terms – I still have my doubts about it in DUE terms), and the problem is "merely" that none of the articles using this sort of source are following this model? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I'm working on a page that lists pretty much all the price statements I can find on our drug articles. Today or tomorrow I'll have something I hope. I think that should give us all a clearer idea of what is on Wikipedia and perhaps spark some suggestions about good things and maybe we can clear up some bad things. I strongly suggest you follow my suggestion above about getting a VPN for your browser and travelling over to the UK to have a peek at the BNF. It is easy to turn the VPN on and off and to travel to nice places. The BNF link for Colecalciferol aka vitamin D3 has 216 formulations/manufacturers listed. And that's only for manufacturers that supply the NHS, Amazon list a bazillion other options too. From what I've seen so far on wiki, a minority of articles mention a formulation/strength for a price, rather than the OR step of quoting a price per dose/day/month/treatment seen in the majority, but even those aren't making claims fully supported by the source. Rather than discuss imaginary databases, can you use one of our actual drug sources and see if you can come up with text you think avoids NOR and only has DUE issues. -- Colin°Talk 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, thanks for this question at the end. This MOS guidance is about what we should be doing. This doesn't mean it always will be done, but does give editors who change content in that direction a basis for doing so. In my own area of content expertise, books, the MOS discourages sections about characters. Yet I frequently find character sections and when I do I normally just remove them referencing the MOS. The same will likely be true here. After the RfC there will be guidance about how price/cost should be used but it will still be up to editors to make that happen (both with existing and new content). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Colin, I've done that. Remember the despair-inducing table? Those all have real-world sources behind them. I usually aim for obviously "model" sentences in guidelines, but if you want to see one that has real-world drug in it, with a real-world database cited, then that sentence could just as easily say "According to the Drug Pricing and Payment database maintained by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for 300 mg pills of abacavir was US$0.77 each in December 2019 in the US.[3]" What I want from you is to know whether this model (which does not appear to have been used in any articles yet; I know) is, in your excellent judgment, a violation of NOR. I grant that it may have other flaws (e.g., DUE and NOT), but right now, I just want to know whether you believe that sentence, from that source, is a NOR violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- While a model statement might be a good idea in a guideline, we have historically had a problem throughout the price debate of claims being made about sources providing information that they don't. For example, it has been repeatedly and falsely boasted that the MSH database is a source of external reference pricing when in fact our up-to-date sources on that topic do not claim its use (instead, a basket of prices from specific countries are used). While the MSH records are no doubt generally reliable for what they are, if you ask me, I would say that it is not a reliable source for prices for "the developing world" because its records are extremely patchy. There is a reason why when WHO use it for price comparison studies, they restrict themselves to 18 common drugs at very specific formulations and strength -- those are ones they can be sure have a healthy set of supplier data.
- So, back to your example. I clicked on the link and didn't see any mention of abacavir on the page. This may itself fail NOR requirements, because our dear intelligent reader has to figure out how to use the database, and it really isn't obvious. One might be tempted by the big [Search] box on the top, but that would be a mistake. So I click on the [View Data] button. It returns the first 100 rows out of 7,673,560! By a complete and lucky chance, abacavir is on this first page. But you and I both know that wouldn't generally be the case. So the reader has to figure out to insert "abacavir" into the [Find in this Dataset] box. Initially I got side-tracked by the [Filter] button but that led down a rabbit hole. (It isn't always the wiki article title you need: if you type "valproate" into the box, you'll get nothing). It isn't clear to me why I get 13 rows for the 300mg tablet for 12/18/2019 but at least they all have the same price of $0.77418 each. I don't know if that amount of manual-intervention and learning-how-to-drive-a-database is permitted for our sources? But assuming it is, then I would accept your article text does not breach NOR. Our current text, though, is in a galaxy far far away from that sort of sentence, and I sincerely hope nobody would want to write that in a lead. -- Colin°Talk 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Learning how to drive a database is permitted for sources. We may still have hundreds of probable NOR problems in articles right now, but we've got an agreement that something could be done with databases. I'll go add this to the Table of Despair. That database is probably not a good indication that including it is obviously DUE, right? So it'd be included if we put lots of weight on it, and not if we take a more stringent NOTPRICE approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is worth pointing out that Abacavir currently says
"The wholesale cost in the developing world as of 2014 is between US$0.36 and US$0.83 per day. As of 2016 the wholesale cost for a typical month of medication in the United States is US$70.50"
.[4][5] The DDD on the MSH site says 600mg daily dose, as does my BNF and Drugs.com. So that's two 300mg tablets a day as the developing world prices agree. But the US price of $70.50 is approximately the $70.35 I get by multiplying a 300mg tablet price of $2.34487 by 30. The actual 2016 US monthly price should be $140.69. (Why we have one price per day and another per month is beyond my understanding). Leaving aside that neither MSH nor Medicaid state what the typical therapeutic dose is, for us to do original research on, this is just mathematical incompetence. And it is very typical. I am repeatedly seeing prices citing the BNF that assume a pack of 28 tablets is a "month's cost", totally ignoring that a patient might taken more than one tablet a day. So, the evidence does rather suggest that disallowing original research is a jolly good idea, because we are crap at it. And then we see that the price hasn't been updated since 2016. As your citation shows, the equivalent price in 2019 for 60 tablets would be $46.45, which is about $100 a month less. No small change that, but nobody it seems, is interested in either the price in 2016 being right, or giving the right price for 2019. -- Colin°Talk 21:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC) - @WAID, I'm not ignoring this, just really needed to back off here for a bit and let you all take the lead. I've got my own Table of Despair, that is awaiting your feedback. @Colin, add to all of this the prescribing practices I see in the free clinic for migrant workers without insurance. If a pill can be split, and is less expensive in a higher dose, the physician prescribes the higher dose if the patient appears competent to be trusted to split it. If the drug is on the 30-day $4 list, or the 90-day $10 list, they prescribe whatever is cheapest, even if splitting is needed, and even if they are only saving $2 on 3 x 30 vs. 90 days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I wouldn't be surprised if there were any number of accidental errors, but the goal here is to write advice on how to do it right. The fact that it's currently not right in many articles may be a disaster, but it's a nearly irrelevant disaster. Once we get some decent advice together, we can sit down and apply the advice. If we try to fix all of that before getting an agreement about what the right approach is, we might end up making the articles a different kind of wrong, rather than really fixing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Abacavir is an interesting example for another reason. We can eliminate OR by stating a price for one thing -- with a barcode -- but then you argue the problem is DUE because there are multiple (dozens, hundreds even) of possible things with barcodes we could pick. But from my reading of most HIV pills, they tend to have one dose that everyone takes, and a limited range of suppliers. So the Abacavir 300mg pill in the Medicaid database is the only size in that database. It could then be argued that we could give the price of a 300mg tablet in the US. But we know the dose is 600mg, taken once or twice a day, and we can't tell the reader that because we aren't allowed to give dosing advice on Wikipedia. So the price of a 300mg tablet is fairly meaningless to our reader -- they don't know what to do with that information. That's probably why nearly all our price statements in articles give a price per day/month for an unspecified indication and unspecified dose and unspecified tablet size. So even in the few occasions where a particular tablet size is not undue, using the "price of a XXmg tablet" approach is not likely to be encyclopaedic. (Btw, the BNF has three suppliers for the 300mg tablet pack of 60: £177.60, £177.61 and £208.95 for the brand-name, as well as a 20mg/ml oral solution at £55.72 for 240ml, so darn the BNF for offering options!) -- Colin°Talk 12:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, I wouldn't be surprised if there were any number of accidental errors, but the goal here is to write advice on how to do it right. The fact that it's currently not right in many articles may be a disaster, but it's a nearly irrelevant disaster. Once we get some decent advice together, we can sit down and apply the advice. If we try to fix all of that before getting an agreement about what the right approach is, we might end up making the articles a different kind of wrong, rather than really fixing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- It is worth pointing out that Abacavir currently says
- Learning how to drive a database is permitted for sources. We may still have hundreds of probable NOR problems in articles right now, but we've got an agreement that something could be done with databases. I'll go add this to the Table of Despair. That database is probably not a good indication that including it is obviously DUE, right? So it'd be included if we put lots of weight on it, and not if we take a more stringent NOTPRICE approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, I'm working on a page that lists pretty much all the price statements I can find on our drug articles. Today or tomorrow I'll have something I hope. I think that should give us all a clearer idea of what is on Wikipedia and perhaps spark some suggestions about good things and maybe we can clear up some bad things. I strongly suggest you follow my suggestion above about getting a VPN for your browser and travelling over to the UK to have a peek at the BNF. It is easy to turn the VPN on and off and to travel to nice places. The BNF link for Colecalciferol aka vitamin D3 has 216 formulations/manufacturers listed. And that's only for manufacturers that supply the NHS, Amazon list a bazillion other options too. From what I've seen so far on wiki, a minority of articles mention a formulation/strength for a price, rather than the OR step of quoting a price per dose/day/month/treatment seen in the majority, but even those aren't making claims fully supported by the source. Rather than discuss imaginary databases, can you use one of our actual drug sources and see if you can come up with text you think avoids NOR and only has DUE issues. -- Colin°Talk 17:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Help me out with this, User:SandyGeorgia and User:Colin. You've been consistent in thinking that it's NOR. If you're looking at a database record in a reputable, WP:Published database that says this:
In terms of presenting this question, I think it needs a bit of explanation. The straight-up question is "How much weight?", but after that, some explanation is necessary. One way (of many ways) might be to explain the context, and then offer some considerations. It could look something like this:
All Wikipedia articles should present information with WP:Due weight. Generally, this means that the more our reliable sources talk about an aspect, the more attention that aspect should get in the Wikipedia article. However, there is some information that is considered so important that it is included whenever possible. For example, in a biography, we include information about the subject's birthdate whenever possible, but we normally mention the subject's hair color only if reliable sources dwell on the person's appearance.
Drug pricing and affordability is a significant area of discussion in reliable sources, but this discussion is almost always held at a general level, and does not extend down to individual products. The prices of individual pharmaceutical products vary so widely by place, time, dose, and other factors that general claims, such as "the price worldwide" or "the price in developing countries", are almost always incorrect. It is, however, frequently possible to source a statement about what a particular metric yields for the price of a particular size of a particular drug from a particular manufacturer in a single country on a given date.
Editors who work on medicine-related articles have recognized that much of the information about drug prices currently in Wikipedia articles is not an example of our best work. Much of it is outdated or otherwise incorrect. We want to fix it, but we have not been able to agree on the best approach yet. On the one hand, the cost of a drug affects whether people can get it at all, so some editors believe we should always include whatever we can source. Other editors believe that pharmaceutical drugs should be treated like any other manufactured product, and that means no prices unless we have multiple reliable sources discussing the price of that particular product in depth (as we do for some, usually because of very high costs). Editors fall across the whole spectrum from maximizing inclusion and prominence, through the middle grounds, to the opposite side of including as little price information as possible. All of us want to know other editors think, so we're asking you: How much weight should we put on drug prices?
To explain some of the positions, a few editors have offered background information that may be useful to you. We hope that you will join us in a conversation about the best way to handle this subject area.
(Collapsed – It's incredibly important) (Collapsed – You wouldn't believe how complicated and useless this is) (Collapsed – The middle road is WHO/HAI affordability, not prices) (Collapsed – People should care about pricing, not prices) (Collapsed – Where and how we mention prices matter more than whether we do) (Collapsed – What we could actually source is unencyclopedic) (Collapsed – Whatever other ideas/positions/recommendations I've forgotten)
My suggested "collapsed" sections could be written by different people, in the hope that editors would read more than just the headlines. Yes, it's long. That's not necessarily a showstopper. The important question is, if we asked this, do you think that we would get responses that would help us figure out how to clean up these articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think we already know how to clean up these articles. And I don't think we can craft an RFC that will prevent this from happening again after the RFC closes. I am unsure if any of the very well-crafted text above should be positioned as referencing editors (plural) representing ranges of differing opinions, because that gives the equivalent of UNDUE weight to a very minority position that has led all of us to all of this effort to attempt to formulate an RFC, where we used to have an RFC/U process for these kinds of issues. Speaking relatively, I don't think it matters in terms of the respondents how we phrase the questions: we will generally get, "me, too, per editor so-and-so responses". That is why we are where we are. WAID, you are seeing this through your own lenses, as an editor who carefully reads and contemplates issues. Most RFC respondents won't do that as you do. It is a timesink to try to figure out how to phrase a response that will generate contemplative responses; we need to phrase an RFC that will generate something useful to the closing admin knowing that we will get irresponsible responses from people who don't read or digest or contemplate the problem. I am not sure those two sets of potential questions intersect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I shall think about it. I fully agree with your Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion link and am not convinced voting is going to bring sufficient light here for all the reasons wiki has documented about why it is evil. The "It is, however, frequently possible..." sentence really isn't true. I think part of the problem has been upside-down thinking about our sources. We have an article topic, and what appears to be a database of thousands of product prices, and we type the topic into the search box. We get the price of a random sized pill in north east Democratic Republic of Congo in 2015. Or we get the price of a 20ml cream paid by the government of Sudan in 2014. It really isn't "frequently possible" to source drug prices at that level of precision for any given country or any given supplier/manufacturer. The MSH database is really way too sparse to be generally useful, yet I have seen it used desperately for everything including sanitising hand rub and chlorine bleach, which are both not even pharmaceutical supplies. The Medicaid database has average prices, not prices for a given manufacturer, and the drug descriptions can be so terse it isn't always easy to know what formulation is included. There is a suspiciously low range of pill sizes in that database compared to e.g. BNF or Drugs.com, making me suspect it only includes common ones or, worse, only the ones it got price data for. The BNF is almost the opposite in richness of price information, but we do need to bear in mind it is only concerned with drugs a doctor can prescribe on the NHS and are available via pharmacies. The wholesale price of drugs/products that are (also) available over-the-counter at a pharmacy or supermarket cannot be determined by citing the BNF. The BNF also fails to point out when drug prices are increased due to availability issues, or massively discounted due to (often confidential) agreements with the NHS on expensive new drugs. Also "frequently possible to source a statement " tends to suggest that doing so is actually a valid thing that makes sense and doesn't break policy. The 200+ prices for Vitamin D3 would suggest it really isn't "frequently possible" at all. So while we can get some arbitrary prices for mostly random countries or suppliers, it think it is dangerous to suggest that could reliably form a "statement" rather than merely form a piece of data that an editor may then wonder what to do with.
- The "Much of it is outdated or otherwise incorrect." is really "Nearly all of it is incorrect and misleading, and most of it is many years out of date, often citing a source that stopped being updated in 2015". It would greatly simplify any RFC if we could simply get prior agreement that the MSH database is not fit for our purpose. It was fine for the 18-50 products that WHO/HAI studied in their global price analysis projects a decade ago, but pretty useless otherwise.
- I think the "WHO/HAI affordability" has, with all good intentions, been rather over-egged as a solution. It is a historical project from 10-15 years ago. Look at the database of prices and expand all the countries. You get random dates of when a survey was done, mostly from 2001 to 2008 but a handful as recent as 2015. I wonder if it is not a coincidence that the MSH database stopped being updated in 2015. If you expand the Affordability tab to see all the drugs they have surveyed, you will find just 50 medicines (some in a few formulations/strengths). And if you consult the table of results, you see what we have noted previously, that many popular drugs are simply not available through the government health system and can only be purchased privately at extortionate retail prices. Those prices bear no relationship other than a tenuous much-greater-than the wholesale price. It is hard to understate how misleading and wrong our "developing world" prices are.
- I agree with Sandy, that we must be careful not to claim one editor with strong views and who added nearly every single drug price to over 500 articles, is "some editors". We are here because that editor persistently resisted challenges to the text added, and because WP:MED failed to intervene in any meaningful way. WhatamIdoing, I have every confidence you can think wisely about the sources and could, if so inclined, add some excellent price information where and when it is justified to do so. When Sandy says "I think we already know how to clean up these articles" that means those currently participating here and it is very obvious who are not participating. Is this really a content problem we don't already know the answer to and need to ask the community, or actually a user problem that should be dealt with another way? -- Colin°Talk 12:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- We are here because too many editors are not like WAID, and because in WPMED discussions that led to these impasses, the idea that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion was not in evidence. I appreciate WAID's care and consideration in crafting text and responses, but I fear we may be missing the obvious underlying tensions when we expect editors will engage extended commentary or discussion aimed at developing sound consensus. They won't (hence my reference to the table of despair). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think we are here because editors at ANI told us to start an RFC about "the question of drug pricing". My preference is to write the RFC in a way that results in improving this guideline, but SandyGeorgia's alternative (below) is also responsive to that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think it is useful to have different editors write different explanations, although there also will need to be some general discussion of it here before the RfC goes live, in order to have a consensus that views are being presented fairly, as opposed to being lopsided. But I think we have to be extremely careful of tl;dr. I'm not sold on the idea that the solution to making "how much weight" clear is to write a lengthy introduction to explain what we are trying to ask. Instead, I think it needs to be as clear as possible what responding editors are supporting or opposing. If we do have different editors each presenting different views, I could see an RfC where we do that, but without identifying views by editor names, and ask the community to support or oppose those views. It really looks to me like we have essentially two conflicting views that were laid out at ANI, one favoring widespread presentation of pricing, and one insisting on caution instead. In that way of looking at it, we really are not asking how much weight to put on prices, so much as how widely prices should be included. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think we are here because editors at ANI told us to start an RFC about "the question of drug pricing". My preference is to write the RFC in a way that results in improving this guideline, but SandyGeorgia's alternative (below) is also responsive to that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- We are here because too many editors are not like WAID, and because in WPMED discussions that led to these impasses, the idea that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion was not in evidence. I appreciate WAID's care and consideration in crafting text and responses, but I fear we may be missing the obvious underlying tensions when we expect editors will engage extended commentary or discussion aimed at developing sound consensus. They won't (hence my reference to the table of despair). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Start over again
SG's attempt at a new start over, abandon hope all ye who enter here
|
---|
IMO, the reason we are unable to formulate an RFC question or questions is that the task we are undertaking is the wrong one: we are attempting to formulate a general RFC to address what is in fact a very specific dilemma relating to very specific databases, when the answers to our sourcing and content dilemma are already addressed by policy. We have no other example anywhere, after weeks of discussion, of any other instances of drug pricing in articles presenting a problem. There has been no problem except the database-style sourcing. We are attempting to generate questions that will get respondents to read and respond to what is (should be) a policy question, but we will get "because I like it" responses that will give us nothing useful as result. That is why we are here. Everyone who has participated in this discussion knows how to add price data according to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT and WP:LEAD. Why don't we forget all the general questions we are trying to ask to solve a non-existent general problem, and instead just get straight to the specific problem? Put up one example of database-sourced text (I have repeatedly asked the database advocates to give us the strongest example, and none has been produced) and simply ask if this text is supported according to policy, V, NOR, NOT, WEIGHT, LEAD. Then each respondent will lay out arguments of why it does or does not breach each policy. We are spinning our wheels trying to solve a non-existent problem, as if this has been a generalized problem across all drug articles. We have one problem only; over 500 articles using a database to source text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC) |
- H
Do these examples of pharmaceutical drug prices comply with Wikipedia policies on verifiability, due weight, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not? If so, should this text be inserted into leads of articles?
- Ethosuximide: The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$27.77 per month as of 2014.[6]
- Carbamazepine: The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.07 to US$0.24 per day as of 2015.[7]
- Mebendazole: The wholesale cost in the developing world is between USD 0.004 and 0.04 per dose.[8]
But the examples need to be varied to included the other drug databases, and the other kinds of problems presented; I pulled these samples from one section above, but the three of them were to demonstrate one issue. The other kinds of examples should be give in place of two of these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Multiple examples of the same problem are useful, in that they demonstrate that the problem is not isolated. If we assume that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, then it might be more effective to provide an explanation of the source in the RFC question, like this:
- Ethosuximide:
- What the lead says: The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$27.77 per month as of 2014.[9]
- What the source says: One organization said that they sold 250 mg tablets for US$0.1845 each (100 tablets per package). This organization only sells drugs only to government-recognized healthcare organizations in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The defined daily dose (a complex statistical concept; not necessarily the dose any person takes) is 1.25 grams.
- I don't think that "if so, should it be in the lead?" is necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like the general approach here. I think it's much better than trying to ask a single question. What we could, in effect, do is to ask the community: do you support doing it this way, or that way? If we work on making something along those lines as clear and concise as possible, I think that would be the path to getting an RfC that results in an outcome that actually means something. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is a decent formulation, though we are presuming all respondents will both check the sources, and know what they are and how to interpret data from them. I'm not certain that will be the case, especially if the RfC is widely publicized. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Could a neutrally written background accomplish some of this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, if everyone could come to agreement on how to describe what they are, how they gather data, etc., that could be very useful knowledge for those who comment in the RfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Could a neutrally written background accomplish some of this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is a decent formulation, though we are presuming all respondents will both check the sources, and know what they are and how to interpret data from them. I'm not certain that will be the case, especially if the RfC is widely publicized. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- This concept of how to address ask the RfC seems to have some traction. Pinging participants from the past week: Colin, Kashmiri, Pbsouthwood, CFCF, and Ronz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like the general approach here. I think it's much better than trying to ask a single question. What we could, in effect, do is to ask the community: do you support doing it this way, or that way? If we work on making something along those lines as clear and concise as possible, I think that would be the path to getting an RfC that results in an outcome that actually means something. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I had wondered a similar thing to Sandy's idea: that we take each of the four(?) price-database sources and look at how they are being used and then together reach an agreement about the problems with them, what could be said using them, and what shouldn't be said using them. I actually remain optimistic that much of that analysis/discussion/conclusion could simply be done if we get a good-faith article-experienced bunch of editors to simply work together. All the previous discussion on specific problems felt like it was only me and James and that didn't work for various reasons. I'm not rejected the idea of an RFC, but it would be great to clear away a lot of the crap first, and there really is an awful lot of pretty straightforward crap we could eliminate IMO quite quickly, and focus an RFC on asking the community about price statements that are actually source->text honest and policy-legal. I would be much more confident that such an RFC would be successful in its goals (and to be honest, presenting all the awful prices to the entire community right now would IMO seriously dent WP:MED's credibility).
A mix of family priorities, the latest Star Wars film, and going back to work mean I've not yet finished some of stuff I was working on that demonstrate current text and current problems. I do hope I get a chance to put them up very soon. I think then it will be good if we can all see an honest full selection of drug prices in articles (rather than anyone accuse of picking a hard/easy example) and also quite a number of drugs where the price is genuinely notable and editors could make a really good effort to polish some excellent guideline text on how to present that to readers.
Barkeep49, could we have some kind of moderated workshop to focus on e.g. one source at a time. Advertised to the community. We want participation from wise owls or diligent investigators, rather than just ask for a big mob to vote all at once. I don't think we require medical experts at all, so please nobody rule themselves out on that regard. This is really straightforward source->text analysis. The only kind of ability I can see being useful is an appreciation of statistics to the degree that one can't make general statements from few data-points and to identify the weaknesses in one's data. But that is elementary stuff. We could do this workshop on this page even, and do one source at a time. I would certainly like all the current participants to help, but there is one obvious name who is not currently engaging in discussions, and who's participation is essential. --Colin°Talk 10:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think this idea has potential, and I am willing to invest some time in it if and where I think my contributions will be helpful. If we are looking for a moderator, I propose Barkeep49. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Despair recedes ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- But, as we present the different examples from the different databases, we should keep in mind that there is another outstanding issue: in spite of all of this discussion, we still have editors contemplating adding goodrx.com prices to infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- One can only deal with so much madness at any one time :-). --Colin°Talk 17:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Adding prices to the infobox falls short of the community endorsed prohibition on adding or removing this information and you can feel free to point editors to that discussion in removing the prices/costs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, am feeling increasingly optimistic about this direction that the discussion is taking. One aspect where my own understanding is rather poor, and it would be helpful to me to better understand, is one of how many different competing opinions there are. In other words, are there really one group of editors who like Source A, but not Sources B, C, and D, a second group who like Sources A and B, but not C and D, a third group who like Sources A, B, and C, but not D, and so on? It kind of looks to me (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not like that. It looks to me more like there are basically two "camps" that were in conflict at the ANI discussion: one that likes several of those sources and likes widespread presentation of drug prices, and another that opposes the sources that the first "camp" likes on the basis of things like NOR and opposes widespread presentation. So if – if – I understand that correctly, we might not need to evaluate Sources A, B, C, and D individually, but instead treat them as a group for RfC purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not useful to try to determine consensus based on "Me, too" or "BecauseILikeIt" declarations at ANI or anywhere else, and it's that sort of !voting rather than discussing that has plagued WPMED discussions. The answer to your question is elusive, because no one who may support these database prices has fully engaged this discussion. How are we to know if that means there is no defense of the sourcing used, or something else? The RFC needs to show sufficient examples and be phrased in a way that the closing admin can judge responses that engage policy (or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense. Would it be correct to say, conversely, that there are editors who would consider an entire group of such sources inadequate? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself. I see violations of V, NOT, NOR, WEIGHT or LEAD in every example given. I have asked for a best example of how to use these databases; none surfaced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, that's not entirely true. WAID gave hypothetical, "if we believe this", "then we'll do this" examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself. I see violations of V, NOT, NOR, WEIGHT or LEAD in every example given. I have asked for a best example of how to use these databases; none surfaced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that makes sense. Would it be correct to say, conversely, that there are editors who would consider an entire group of such sources inadequate? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, pretty much all the drug-database-sources->wiki-text have fundamental original research and/or weight and/or competence and/or source-honesty issues. I don't think good-faith impartial editors should find any of that contentious. It is possible that a workshop can identify if there are any limited ways those sources could be used properly. The conflict stemmed from a lack of follow-through from "you can't do this because it has X/Y/Z wrong" -> "ok, I won't do that". Is there actually any camp that still claims a database result-set listing no suppliers whatsoever for a product should be used to make claims about "the developing world"? Is there actually any camp that still claims that a source that gives prices for many formulations and specific pill strengths but does not give any therapeutic dose or recommended tablet strength or treatment duration cannot be used to make claims about "monthly cost" or "cost of treatment"? Is there any camp that claims Wikipedia should continue to use a source that stopped being updated in 2015? Etc, etc. Camp B seems to have gone rather quiet. -- Colin°Talk 23:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As you can probably infer, where I'm going with this is that I'm looking for ways to simplify the RfC structure (without ruining it, of course). Would it be appropriate to render this as: one perspective is that the sources all flunk policy, and the other perspective is that the sources can be OK subject to certain caveats? Adding after ec: so from what Colin says, that may perhaps actually be the case. I've become increasingly aware of that lack of responsiveness during my brief involvement here. In one fish's opinion, if editors don't engage, they are entitled to one last alert before the RfC goes live, but if they still don't respond, then they lose out on determining the parameters of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- All of those suggestions seem to be leading. The problem is how to strike a balance between my "Is it in sync" (which got responses that didn't engage at all, rather "Me, too'd", and only later read each point to change their position), which attempted to not lead at all, and providing more text without leading? As to editors who aren't engaging an RFC formulation they know is underway, and have forbidden pings and talk page posts, I'm happy leaving notification decisions to Barkeep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I'm just thinking out loud here, but: It sounds to me like it would be pretty feasible for the editors who are participating actively here to articulate arguments against all of the sources in question. The dilemma is how to formulate the RfC with respect to perspectives that support some or all of the sources. I'd like to avoid making the RfC creation process more difficult than it needs to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- All of those suggestions seem to be leading. The problem is how to strike a balance between my "Is it in sync" (which got responses that didn't engage at all, rather "Me, too'd", and only later read each point to change their position), which attempted to not lead at all, and providing more text without leading? As to editors who aren't engaging an RFC formulation they know is underway, and have forbidden pings and talk page posts, I'm happy leaving notification decisions to Barkeep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As you can probably infer, where I'm going with this is that I'm looking for ways to simplify the RfC structure (without ruining it, of course). Would it be appropriate to render this as: one perspective is that the sources all flunk policy, and the other perspective is that the sources can be OK subject to certain caveats? Adding after ec: so from what Colin says, that may perhaps actually be the case. I've become increasingly aware of that lack of responsiveness during my brief involvement here. In one fish's opinion, if editors don't engage, they are entitled to one last alert before the RfC goes live, but if they still don't respond, then they lose out on determining the parameters of the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not useful to try to determine consensus based on "Me, too" or "BecauseILikeIt" declarations at ANI or anywhere else, and it's that sort of !voting rather than discussing that has plagued WPMED discussions. The answer to your question is elusive, because no one who may support these database prices has fully engaged this discussion. How are we to know if that means there is no defense of the sourcing used, or something else? The RFC needs to show sufficient examples and be phrased in a way that the closing admin can judge responses that engage policy (or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- I, too, am feeling increasingly optimistic about this direction that the discussion is taking. One aspect where my own understanding is rather poor, and it would be helpful to me to better understand, is one of how many different competing opinions there are. In other words, are there really one group of editors who like Source A, but not Sources B, C, and D, a second group who like Sources A and B, but not C and D, a third group who like Sources A, B, and C, but not D, and so on? It kind of looks to me (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not like that. It looks to me more like there are basically two "camps" that were in conflict at the ANI discussion: one that likes several of those sources and likes widespread presentation of drug prices, and another that opposes the sources that the first "camp" likes on the basis of things like NOR and opposes widespread presentation. So if – if – I understand that correctly, we might not need to evaluate Sources A, B, C, and D individually, but instead treat them as a group for RfC purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- But, as we present the different examples from the different databases, we should keep in mind that there is another outstanding issue: in spite of all of this discussion, we still have editors contemplating adding goodrx.com prices to infoboxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Despair recedes ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I've been regularly pinging people who appear to be engaged with the process while respecting those who, for whatever reason, have stopped participating. I think to Trypto's point we're close to being ready for a ping to WT:MED that could invite people who haven't been participating to join in before the RfC. Ultimately if editors who have a certain position choose not to help formulate the RfC they lose out on the chance to structure the debate but obviously not the chance to weigh-in during the RfC. I do think we the end RfC will be better if editors who end up with contrasting thoughts at the RfC help formulate it, but as a volunteer project we move forward with the volunteers who are willing to spend the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think a message to all interested editors at WT:MED (perhaps what you meant by a "ping") is entirely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I think we can simplify SandyGeorgia's proposed question:
- I
These examples of pharmaceutical drug prices have been taken from the leads of some articles. Do they comply with Wikipedia policies on verifiability, due weight, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not?
- It could have a line about "If you think this needs to be improved, then what changes would you advise?" Editors could then provide their specific opinions (like explaining the contents better, moving it out of the lead, using it as an external link, not including prices at all, or whatever else they think).
- On a related point, I'm not sure that addressing "all of the sources in question" in a single RFC is a good idea. The inherent problems with the NADAC database are fewer than the inherent problems with the MSH database. I think we are better off asking about one set of problems, and then having another RFC on another source later (if necessary). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like it. <oops ... yes, I said that>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I like the idea of presenting the community with specific examples of article content, and asking whether they approve or disapprove. I think specific examples are much better than asking about generalizations. I'm weighing, however, how best to pose such a question. A bit higher up in this talk section, Sandy quite rightly pointed out the issue of not making any aspect of the RfC a "leading question". With respect to I, I could imagine editors coming to the RfC would surmise that we would never open an RfC asking about policy compliance of selected examples from leads unless there were a significant concern about policy violation. Another point that occurs to me is that I think we want to get community feedback about how widely drug prices should be included on pages, and it seems to me that any consensus derived from this question would only be applicable to lead sections. The "what changes would you advise?" approach could also lead to a very large number of proposed changes without leading to a consensus about which changes are the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I would like a bit more time to prepare some data pages like I've linked below. There's also a couple of wiki articles on price-related topics that still need a bit of work. I'm keen that we present real data rather than appear to cherry pick. As Sandy notes below, for many of the sources, other editors will not easily grasp how on earth the price was derived from the source. It has taken a while for us to figure this out (while picking jaws up from the floor at the amount of original research and arbitrary choices made). WhatamIdoing you ask "Do they comply...."? Is there anything about this that the group here currently discussing prices disagree on or don't know the answer to? I still think a workshop could be a better approach to tackle and resolve the basic stuff that isn't opinions about what is or isn't encyclopaedic or what does or does not belong in a lead. Those are questions we could ask an RFC, but there are basic mistakes with all the texts & sources that really we don't need to ask the community. Do we? Having an RFC to resolve issues with what one editor alone has written and defends is a bit weird if you ask me. If you ask the above question, it is admitting that WP:MED has no competence to discuss, reach consensus and write honest source-based facts about drug prices. That it hasn't a clue whether the prices in the articles are good or bad and needs some help from Pokemon editors and Historical Fiction writers. And while I think that has been true, that WP:MED has been incompetent here and has failed to address or even examine the problem over many years, it doesn't need to be. -- Colin°Talk 14:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, how I wish that this all could have been resolved through discussion. However, past attempts at discussion left you frustrated because a number of editors showed up to disagree with you without engaging you on the merits of what you were saying. And then the discussion to the extent it did happen became heated - in part because of comments like
"Having an RFC to resolve issues with what one editor alone has written and defends is a bit weird if you ask me."
which takes a jab at an editor (who while unnamed is clear to us who've been following this) and which could have been omitted without diminishing the larger point. The broader community decided that the way forward was through the RfC process, a way of gaining binding consensus. Any consensus reached without an RfC will need to include the consent of editors not currently participating in the discussion but who are invested in the outcome. Unless those editors choose, voluntarily because this is Wikipedia and we all have options afforded to us by being volunteers, to agree to that consensus then it will need to go to RfC. I wouldn't say that the chances are 0 of finding consensus without an RfC but they are slim. And if we can't get to an RfC then the only option is to focus on the behavior issues first (through ArbCom) in hopes that this then creates an atmosphere where consensus can be found on the content question. And even then we still might end up with an RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- Barkeep49, because we have to so carefully choose our language here, I want to be certain I am understanding. Are you saying that, if the editor(s) who made all of these edits were to voluntarily withdraw them (although that case appears unlikely), then an RFC could be avoided? Or are you saying an RFC has to proceed regardless if any pings to editors not participating result in a chance in stance? The time we are spending on this (and related) is what continues the despair. Regardless of the outcome of either RFC, I am unsure we will have changed the overall picture with all of this effort; I would rather be improving content (eg Epipen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if the editors who are members of the WikiMed Project and who have, in a variety of venues, supported inclusion of prices/costs where you (and others) have not, agree to standards about where and how to include prices/costs then no RfC would be needed. This could happen even if they don't voluntarily withdraw them - though if they were to voluntarily withdraw them that would be an even stronger indicator of support for the consensus (but is as you point out not likely). I think it unlikely that that consensus can be reached without an RfC. Not impossible but unlikely. And hopefully, at the end of this, we have standards that let us focus on improving that content because I agree that improving content is multiple more rewarding than this :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, which clears up my uncertainty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- My view on the "Do we hafta?" question is even more restrictive than Barkeep's. ANI said that nobody gets to touch that content until there's been an RFC. Fine, let's have an RFC (or several). The fastest way through that restriction is probably having an RFC that says "Is this stuff okay, or not?" Fine details, like what ought to go in MEDMOS, can be handled later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, which clears up my uncertainty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, if the editors who are members of the WikiMed Project and who have, in a variety of venues, supported inclusion of prices/costs where you (and others) have not, agree to standards about where and how to include prices/costs then no RfC would be needed. This could happen even if they don't voluntarily withdraw them - though if they were to voluntarily withdraw them that would be an even stronger indicator of support for the consensus (but is as you point out not likely). I think it unlikely that that consensus can be reached without an RfC. Not impossible but unlikely. And hopefully, at the end of this, we have standards that let us focus on improving that content because I agree that improving content is multiple more rewarding than this :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, because we have to so carefully choose our language here, I want to be certain I am understanding. Are you saying that, if the editor(s) who made all of these edits were to voluntarily withdraw them (although that case appears unlikely), then an RFC could be avoided? Or are you saying an RFC has to proceed regardless if any pings to editors not participating result in a chance in stance? The time we are spending on this (and related) is what continues the despair. Regardless of the outcome of either RFC, I am unsure we will have changed the overall picture with all of this effort; I would rather be improving content (eg Epipen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I've posted a reminder of this discussion at WT:MED#Plans for RfC about drug pricing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Existing Prices
I have created User:Colin/ExistingPrices that is an automated extract of drug prices from drug articles. I got the list of drug articles by looking for external links to the MSH price guide, the Drugs.com price pages, the Medicaid NADAC pages, or referred to the BNF. It isn't all the drugs, but it 530 is good sized sample. I then extracted lines containing the word "price" or "cost" and did a bit of hand-editing on the result.-- Colin°Talk 17:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- User:Colin, would you please change that to put a plain
<references />
tag at the end of each ===Example===? I'm pretty sure that a simple regex find-and-replace across the page would do it, but I wasn't able to figure out the right combination. The main ref tag was updated to auto-limit itself to only the stuff in between the current one and the previous one, so that will get us the refs in each section (so people are more likely to look at them) without exceeding the template limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)- WhatamIdoing, with Colin's indulgence (and at the risk of taxing my poor Mac with the copy and pasting I did), I have Done this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Barkeep49/WhatamIdoing. I didn't know you could have multiple reference groupings. -- Colin°Talk 23:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- The mw:Editing team worked on Cite.php a couple of years ago. This was one of the happy results. Another is automatic display in 30em columns (at wikis where this is enabled, including this one), although that somehow broke last week (and will remain so until next WP:THURSDAY). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Barkeep49/WhatamIdoing. I didn't know you could have multiple reference groupings. -- Colin°Talk 23:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, with Colin's indulgence (and at the risk of taxing my poor Mac with the copy and pasting I did), I have Done this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I have also created User:Colin/MSHData which lists every MSH Price Guide reference along with the data year cited and the number of suppliers and buyers. In the WHO/HAI price survey methodology, how representative reference prices are depends on the number of suppliers quoting for each product. Because of this, they focus on a small set (14 or 18 products) that have good supplier data. We can see that 30% of our drug citations have no suppliers at all, yet we claim a price in "the developing world". A further 28% only have one or two suppliers, which makes the claim to be representative of "the developing world" a tenuous one. The majority (58%) of our MSH citations for "the developing world" refer to fewer than three suppliers. While some suppliers are international in scope, many target a single country or even just one part of a country. Nearly all (92%) of our MSH prices are from 2014, five years ago. The remainder are from 2015. The guide used to be updated annually but has not been updated since 2015. -- Colin°Talk 23:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Colin, let's assume everyone coming to the RFC is going to access this data, and do what I did: check meds they know. I checked the most commonly prescribed at the clinic where I volunteer. First, readers trying to understand this data are going to get incredibly frustrated, because it is so hard to find what one is looking for in those sources, and then when one figures it out, it's unbelievable.
- Levothyroxine claims "In the United States, a typical month of treatment costs less than US$25" based on an old hard-print source I can't access. That information is not very useful, so sure does not belong in a lead, but this is crazy. Levothyroxine is on every $4/30-day and $10/90-day list. Walmart sample. Everyone gets 90 days (you take it for life, why get 30?). It's $3.33 per month ... <sheesh>. Inserted into the lead three years ago.
- Chlorthalidone claims "In the United States the wholesale cost is about US$13.50 a month", based on NADAC. So, the average reader goes to that source, finds a bunch of gibberish, and finally figures out that some real person, seriously, took the wholesale cost for a 25-mg tablet and multiplied the 0.45 cents per tablet x 30 for a monthly supply.[10] But the standard dose for chlorthalidone for high blood pressure is 12.5 mg. Since it only comes in 25 mg tablets, it has to be split. How much of this kind of error do we have? Do we have no drug editors reviewing this data? The wholesale cost of how many days to treat what? It doesn't even say. And, by the way, since I assume we are not supposed to mess with price data before the RFC, we are supposed to leave this error in the lead for how long?
- Lisinopril gives me "In the United States the wholesale cost per month was less than 0.70 USD as of 2018", based on NADAC. I can't figure out why that information is useful or belongs in the lead. Basically, lisinopril is a generic that nobody pays anything for anywhere. Yes, the wholesale cost is extremely low, and pharmacies give it away. So our information here isn't blatantly wrong, just not at all useful.
- So, that's my sample. Number one and number two top prescribed meds in the US. This is wacky. With the extent of the problems you have raised on this page, how are we going to choose which drugs to use as meaningful and representative examples to put forward in the RFC? Seeing this amount of gibberish in leads of articles, I am becoming convinced again that we have to deal with the lead problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- And I'm afraid I may be going backwards on my suggestion that we only need to deal with the databases. One of the two errors above (levothyroxine) is not due to a database source: it is from a hard-print source. I may be coming back to we have a problem bigger than the databases. We have sources BEYOND these databases being used to insert formulaic undue information into leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Sandy the prices from the Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia are based on a $, $$, $$$, $$$, $$$$$ pricing symbol much like your holiday guidebook indicates if a restaurant is a cheap-eat or an expensive night out. I complained about it earlier at WT:MED. Here's what they the book says about its symbols: (the underline italics is theirs)
- RELATIVE COST
- Code / Cost
- $ = < $25
- $$ = 25 to $49
- $$$ = $50 to $99
- $$$$ = $100 to $199
- $$$$$ = >= $200
- Cost codes used are "per month" of maintenance therapy (e.g. antihypertensives) or "per course" of short-term therapy (e.g., antibiotics). Codes are calculated using average wholesale prices (at press time in US dollars) for the most common indication and route of each drug at a typical adult dosage. For maintenance therapy, costs are calculated based on a 30-day supply or the quantity that might typically be used in a given month. For short-term therapy (e.g., 10 days or less), costs are calculated on a single treatment course. When multiple forms are available (e.g., generics) these codes reflect the least expensive generally available product. When drugs don't neatly fit in to the classification scheme above, we have assigned codes based upon the relative cost of other similar drugs. These codes should be used as a rough guide only, as (1) they reflect cost, not charges, (2) pricing often varies substantially from location to location and time to time, and (3) MHOs, Medicaid, and buying groups often negotiate quite different pricing. Check with your local pharmacy if you have any questions.
- RELATIVE COST
So whenever you see "is inexpensive" or "under $25" that came from a "$". If you see "between $25 and $50" that came from "$$". And so on. If you see "more than $200" that came from $$$$$. So even if the drug costs an eye-popping $9000 a dose, we'll just say "more than $200". And as you point out, the majority of drugs are "under $25" even if actually they are just a few dollars. None of the values 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200 appear in the source-data for the wholesale price of those drugs. Those values are all artefacts of Tarascon's price grouping into $ symbols. Our readers couldn't give a damn about Tarascon's price grouping. Reverse-engineering a $ into "less than $25" is a heinous crime. Saying a thousand-dollar drug is "more than $200" is a heinous crime. -- Colin°Talk 13:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Lovely. (I unfollowed WT:MED because of the bullying; sorry I missed that.) So, we're using a source to insert UNDUE information into leads that is good for nothing. Walmart is a plague that has infiltrated every part of the US, and at Walmart, you get levothyroxine for $3.33 per month. If you're going to a different pharmacy than Walmart, most likely, your insurance is covering the drugs (I just picked up four prescriptions for my household, and paid a Big Fat $0 because we chose the right insurance).
In thinking about how this relates to or affects the general question we've posed, I decided to look at the other med we deal with most commonly in the clinic where I am an interpreter. I was not as familiar with metformin pricing, because we are often giving away free samples. (Actually, many patients have their family send metformin from Mexico.) So, I decided to check that one (diabetes). Wikipedia has:
- In the United States, it costs US$5 to US$25 per month. That is sourced to drugs.com.
- I can't find those numbers in there; perhaps it is similar to the restaurant guide above. At any rate, fourth most commonly prescribed drug in the US, and it is also on the Walmart $10 for 90-day list. In fact, I believe Walmart may have $24 for 180 days of metformin. We have useless, UNDUE, inaccurate information in leads.
What remains astounding about this formulaic editing is that, in one demonstrable case where we SHOULD have information in the lead about price (epipen), there is NONE. We could give that as an example, but we can't edit prices right now. (If we decide we need that as a good counter-example, we can do a mock-up.)
In re-thinking how all of this impacts the formulation of the RFC questions, I am coming back to the lead problem, which must be dealt with.
- J
These examples of pharmaceutical drug prices have been taken from the leads of some articles. Do they comply with Wikipedia policies on verifiability, due weight, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not, and do they reflect the guideline on leads?
- We have to deal with the lead problem; that is where WPMED editing is focused these days, and that is where we are consistently finding problems. Alternately, I could be convinced that we could leave LEAD out of the RFC question, so as not to dilute the policy questions, but the fact that we are finding bogus drug price info in leads will be noted by those who bother to read and they can comment that it doesn't belong there. Open to ideas between I and J. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly the Drugs.com links mostly don't contain prices on the pages being linked-to. I assume Drugs.com moved their site content about a bit since the first link. Either that, or the editor was citing Drugs.com for other info and couldn't be bothered creating a separate link for the price info. If you look down the page, you'll see a "Pricing & Coupons" link. Alternatively, just Google "NameOfDrug Drugs.com prices" and that should find it. Metformin prices are here. The article also gives a developing world price of "between US$0.21 and $5.55 per month as of 2014" and links to the 500mg tablet. The MSH site says the Defined daily dose is 2g (DDD is what is being used for "typical daily therapeutic dose" even though WHO says it is not a typical therapeutic dose and should not be claimed to be such). Drugs.com agrees that a typical adult dose is 2g taken in divided doses. The $0.21 is clearly coming from the 0.0070 unit-price from cheapest supplier IMRES (which is an international supplier) multiplied by 30 -- so this is actually only one 500m tablet a day not four. I can't make $5.55 no matter how I try. The dearest price is 0.0372 unit-price from supplier MEDEOR/TZ (which you might guess, supplies just Tanzania) and would be $1.12 a month for 30 or $4.46 if we take four-a-day like the doctor ordered. I have absolutely no idea how to get "$5 to $25 per month" from Drugs.com, it seems to depend how much you order and even then there can be a huge price range. Metformin, according to Wikipedia, is the fourth-most prescribed medication in the United States, so you might hope WP:MED would care if the price is correct or even makes any kind of sense.
- You can see from my Existing Prices page that most of the specific price information is only in the lead, and occasionally copied in the body. I think adding "should it be in the lead" to the RFC at this stage is premature, since "Is this all a steaming pile of ____?" is more immediately relevant. -- Colin°Talk
- I found Epipen info at Epinephrine (medication), which claims that "In the United States, the cost of the most commonly used autoinjector for anaphylaxis was about US$600 for two in 2016, while a generic version was about US$140 for two." We paid $280 for 2 last year, so I don't even know where to start. But the controversy about Epipen pricing is not even addressed in that lead, and here we have one instance of where it should be. We have formulaic insertion of dubious price data, with no regard to how a lead should be contructed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I need to dig up all the articles I previously have mentioned...
- Pyrimethamine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is another example where there could be a great deal in the lede about pricing, but instead there is just the basic price information as found elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:List of drug prices has an interesting lede, and appears to have entries not mentioned prior. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wish I could unsee that. When despair sets in, the healthiest thing I can do is go volunteer at the local food shelter. Every time I think we are getting a handle on this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Draft:List of drug prices has entries that appear to have been written by other editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was just asked about that on my user talk
(which is I suspect where Ronz saw it too).If an editor wants to invest time in something that might ultimately lead nowhere well that's their choice. It's even possible that the work helps move this conversation forward by providing "real life" examples that can be used in the RfC, or in this discussion leading to the RfC. This page needs to be where the conversation continues collaboratively but like with work Trypto and Colin have done doesn't mean work can't continue on the side also. Courtesy ping to QuackGuru. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)- Barkeep49, I could have this wrong, but please check the timestamps closely re "which is I suspect where Ronz saw it too". The timestamps give the appearance that your courtesy ping may have been redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope you're correct. My apologies. I've struck that comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I thought. QuackGuro, since you seem to be following this discussion so closely that you posted to Barkeep's talk within moments of Ronz raising this issue, I would point out that your participation here could be useful. This discussion has revealed extensive instances of dubious price information in drug articles; your opinions on the topics might help us advance towards consensus. "Student editing" has not been shown to be a way to produce good outcomes, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I've been searching for other related articles, and came upon the draft earlier. It's an example of someone else's work on the topic.
- For another example, here's an entry to the body of an article written by a SPA: [11] --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'll probably create a workspace as I search articles, but I've found an example of (apparently) good price info in the lede, added by Nbauman (talk · contribs) [12] --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Remember that Abatacept the price statement is 4 years old. The lack of any community maintenance/upgrade/fact-check of these prices is a major issue. Also note that in the UK the price is confidential (in 2013) no matter what number appears officially in the BNF. In the UK, the powder for infusion is a tiny fraction of the price of the pre-filled syringes for injection. Getting the right price for this could be a challenge or impossible. -- Colin°Talk 21:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- As I thought. QuackGuro, since you seem to be following this discussion so closely that you posted to Barkeep's talk within moments of Ronz raising this issue, I would point out that your participation here could be useful. This discussion has revealed extensive instances of dubious price information in drug articles; your opinions on the topics might help us advance towards consensus. "Student editing" has not been shown to be a way to produce good outcomes, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nope you're correct. My apologies. I've struck that comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I could have this wrong, but please check the timestamps closely re "which is I suspect where Ronz saw it too". The timestamps give the appearance that your courtesy ping may have been redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was just asked about that on my user talk
- Draft:List of drug prices has entries that appear to have been written by other editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I wish I could unsee that. When despair sets in, the healthiest thing I can do is go volunteer at the local food shelter. Every time I think we are getting a handle on this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I found Epipen info at Epinephrine (medication), which claims that "In the United States, the cost of the most commonly used autoinjector for anaphylaxis was about US$600 for two in 2016, while a generic version was about US$140 for two." We paid $280 for 2 last year, so I don't even know where to start. But the controversy about Epipen pricing is not even addressed in that lead, and here we have one instance of where it should be. We have formulaic insertion of dubious price data, with no regard to how a lead should be contructed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Status check
- We've more or less settled into a question that is approximately like H/I/J.
- We've got a few examples that we can explain in detail. (These could be posted upfront, or they could be part of individual editors' personal responses.)
- We've got pages (which we can link) that list hundreds of examples of current content.
What else needs to be done before the RFC is officially launched (other than waiting a couple more days)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on how one interprets "approximately like", but I'm not sold on the idea that we have really settled onto anything. I'd say that the more recent suggestions are regarded as moving in the right direction, relative to the earlier ones, but I'm not satisfied that we are close enough to our destination. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to see us write up the specific examples soon, so we can see exactly what we've got. And to be sure we have one example from each "database", the "restaurant guide" hard-print source, and one example not using this kind of sourcing. I'd also like to see a mock-up of the whole thing. Obviously, I'm gun-shy :) :) I certainly thought a broad, simple, one-question (is it in sync) was the right way to go because it wasn't leading, but it was only the right way to go to get "ilikeit" responses! I really want to see how this thing "looks" before we launch. That's why I keep saying we need to define the name of the page we will put it on, and start working there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the next step really should be to settle on that page name. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are the ones I put up earlier ... we have evolved :)
- RFC on NOPRICE and pharmaceutical drugs
- RFC on pharmaceutical drug content
- RFC on pharmaceutical drug pricing and sources
- RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and sources
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- As we have evolved, I
likeprefer #4. Have we decided if we still need a preamble discussing Ronz's price/pricing terminology distinction. I think we could do it in one or two sentences, and hope Ronz will do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)- Maybe just RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Happy 2020 to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Likewise for me, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me. Happy 2020 to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe just RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep's Update
I had written a long update to the community spurred in equal measures by how close we are to the tipping point here (either towards success or towards a failure to formulate an RfC) and QuackGuru expressing a desire to appeal an aspect of the prohibition. Quack has now said they're not going to appeal so with half the justification for the update gone I undid it.
Barkeep's Summary at AN
|
---|
A little over three weeks ago I closed a long and unsurprisingly acrimonious ANI thread relating to the behavior of several editors. The ANI discussion also had heavy elements of a content dispute around what should be or not be included in the Medicine Manual of Style page. The major finding was that an RfC was needed. In the time since I (as penance for closing that discussion) have been helping interested editors move towards an RfC. I am updating the community now both because I think we're going to be at a tipping point soon as to whether an RfC will ever get crafted (I'm hopeful but it's hardly a sure thing) and because an editor has expressed desire to appeal to the community for an exemption to one area of that close which I expect will be forthcoming soon. All are of course welcome to read the whole long discussion but here's my summary of major points since then:
While all of the editors participating are incredibly skilled and knowledgeable about the topic – far more so than I – sometimes that understanding of complexity sprawls the discussion in interesting, relevant, and important to the topic ways but not necessarily ways that are helping lead to the RfC. I am hopeful that this update is helpful when considering the appeal that is about to come and in the interests of having some more uninvolved editors who can help move the RfC to launch. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
If this is going to get to RfC the more focus we can have on the specific examples to be used the better. Naming is not unimportant but if we can't finish finding the examples for H/I/J the name won't matter. I suspect that this next week is going to be all the difference as to whether we will get the RfC launched and have it find a consensus (still my hope and well with-in our grasp) or not. Best, 01:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wrt examples, are we going to focus on one database/source or pick examples from several. If we pick one, then that should perhaps be part of the RFC page name, for we will certainly need other RFCs to tackle the other sources. If we pick one, then the MSH International Medical Products Price Guide seems an obvious first target. -- Colin°Talk 11:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 notes the lack of recent participation by those wanting prices. Indeed the last comment I can find was on the 16th December by Doc James, who suggested the RFC questions:
"Sure we could start with "do you think the approximate price of a medication can be estimated for various regions of the world?" And "Should Wikipedia articles contain information about the cost of medications?"
. Furthermore I think it is relevant that when WP:NOTPRICES was quoted earlier, James claimed to agree with it, despite clearly disagreeing with others as to what it means. I note at Talk:Ivermectin#Price that Seraphimblade wrote"Pricing, per policy, is not permitted in articles, with rare exceptions when the price is a significant part of something's notability or is very extensively commented on (not just mentioned)."
. Ronz linked here saying"All discussion so far supports removal"
and James yesterday replied"Ah lots of discussion supports keeping it."
. James's two questions aren't a million miles away from my Question A: can we establish "the price" "for various regions of the world" and "should articles contain them" (though most of us want a "while obeying policy" included in that question). Rather than addressing that bigger question, we seem now to be focusing on chipping away at the prices, either by establishing each source shouldn't be used like it has been (and possibly discover if there is any way it can be used), or get community agreement that the current examples fail policy. Maybe that is the correct approach, but we need to be clear that the chipping-away RFCs are not asking the-big-question. Even if we conclude that our uses of sources A, B, C and D are all awful and should never have been permitted and must be swiftly removed, we still haven't resolved WP:NOTPRICES because some editors read it to mean one thing and others read it to mean another. -- Colin°Talk 11:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)- I think examples of content created by other editors are important to have, especially any that don't have the NOR, POV, and NOT problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dealing with a single source (MSH is used in more than half of the identified articles) means a simpler task for respondents. They tend to have the same set of issues, such as the question of how to using DDD to estimate a monthly cost and reporting a few data points as being representative of the entire developing world.
- If you want a "good example", I could re-write one of the MSH and NADAC sources to (IMO) avoid NOR problems. We'd have to pick different drugs to deal with the DUE and NOT problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think examples of content created by other editors are important to have, especially any that don't have the NOR, POV, and NOT problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I think we have to decide next who is going to be the editor to start chunking text in where. My brain is linear. I am to a point where I am stalled until I see something on a page. And we know we don't want me doing the writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- If we focus solely on MSH, we'll have further RfCs, and need to make that clear.
- I think WhatamIdoing's suggestion of having some rewrites would be very helpful. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, Ronz; if we focus on MSH, and get a clear result, that should take care of the similar. Remember, in responses to the RFC, people can extend beyond the question asked. @WAID, I don't see how you can get a good example out of MSH, that doesn't muddy the picture wrt DUE WEIGHT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Barkeep used the formulation of good news/bad news, and I'm going to do my own version of it. First of all, I think it's entirely due to say out loud that we all owe Barkeep a debt of thanks for his very helpful guidance here. Thanks! I also think it's good that we seem to be having a growing consensus that it's a good thing to present editors in the RfC with specific examples to evaluate, as opposed to asking about generalities. And I do think that we are making genuine progress. For me, that's the good news.
Now for the... you know what. As much as we really are moving forward quite well, and despite the fact that we are approaching our self-imposed deadlines, I think that we have yet to resolve some really important issues for the RfC, and we cannot just wish them away. I'd rather get it right, than get it fast. We've been saying that G/H/I/J are getting close to what we want. But I want to be honest about that: I'm not really seeing a consensus that we are there yet.
I said something earlier, and I'm going to repeat it because some editors agreed with it then and I don't think anyone has really objected to it. I've said that the RfC needs to address two issues, both of them in a way that will lead to a clear consensus, one way or the other:
- Whether drug prices should be widely presented on drug pages, and
- What kind of sourcing is needed to support such content.
Those are not proposed questions. They are issues that the community needs to answer, in a way that no one will be able to argue against once consensus has been achieved. Even if we get a consensus that, no, we should not be citing drug prices to those sources, we still need a further consensus that, yes, we should present the information this other way. That's important: we need to get consensus for something and not only against something else. And I've also said that I don't think that we can really accomplish that in a single question. I also don't want to leave the RfC format so open that we fail to get focus in the responses.
So: it seems to me that we need to think outside the box, compared with G/H/I/J. I've been thinking about this hard, and it seems to me that we need to present the community with two or more specific choices. For each of those two or more, there should be specific examples of what it would look like on the page, how it would be sourced, and the policy-based rationales for it (or against something else).
If editors here are receptive to that, I can propose what it might look like, but I don't want to do that unless there actually is interest. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I think the consensus now seems to be a step-by-step approach rather than trying to formulate an RFC that solves all drug price issues in one big bang. So let's focus on that. I think an aspect of your first issue might lead many editors to optimistically / naively say "Yes sure, that sounds really useful to our readers" but when we go into the specifics of "is there really One Price" and "do we have any sources for that" then the response is more like "dang, this is hard and complicated and messy". For the second issue, I don't think it has ever been contentious that high quality commentary sources on drug prices can be appropriate for drug articles, provided we are conscious that "current affairs" sources may be temporal in nature and need reconsideration after a while. So there's a core of drug prices that we all have always agreed on, which leaves just the "routinely added to drug articles" contentious aspect. I think we are likely to make progress on the "As much as you'd like it, it really can't be done" approach to this. -- Colin°Talk 22:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Trypto, we must simply move forward now, even if we only take baby steps, even if we don't resolve everything. It has been a month, and issues are beginning to fester. Yes we owe Barkeep an enormous debt of gratitude, but I suspect he is beginning to weary, too. We need to get on with it. We have about a dozen editors here expending crazy amounts of time on something we will never get perfect. Let's set a goal to launch within a week (Jan 8); people will rise to the occasion. I don't want to be doing this the rest of my life, and if this is what Wikipedia is going to be about, I've got better stuff to do in real life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- PS, Trypto, which doesn't mean I'm saying you shouldn't do a mockup of your suggestion, but let's not go back to square one here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if the response is going to be negative, I too have better things to do. But I'm not going to support an RfC that I think is going to fail. If the consensus here is to go forward with a format to which I object, then so be it, but if I'm objecting to it, I think it's pretty likely that you'll get a negative reaction from the community, and I don't see what good that will do.
- I do not think that there is a consensus that we should have a preliminary RfC now, and then have a follow-up RfC some time later. The virtue of having the community respond to specific examples is that we don't have to solve "all the issues" via some kind of complicated question; instead, we can have a consensus that a specific way of doing it is preferable to a different specific way – and that will cover everything that we need to cover for now. Of course we don't want naive answers, but that should not happen if, as I said, we have well-crafted explanations of how policy applies. But are we going to present those explanations in what would be, in effect, a POV way? Are we really going to present it as "As much as you'd like it, it really can't be done"? Talk about a rigged question! But if editors are presented with a choice: one is "it really can't be done, and here's why", while the other is "yes it can be done", then the community will see that as a neutral RfC and they can weigh which argument wins the day.
- If I were to ask everyone here to go back to square one, well, I would not do that. I'm not doing that. That would not be fair. I'm saying that I can do the lift of showing how it could be done, and everyone else just has to take a look at it. That's not so hard. But I'm not going to do it if I'm going to be wasting my time. And I'm not going to do it if it's just a grudging "go ahead and make a mockup but we're just going to say no." But here's the alternative as I see it: you all go ahead and propose a revised version of G/H/I/J that actually works. Personally, I think that's near to impossible. But if you think that's going to be less work for you, go right ahead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Let me put it this way. Please go ahead and do try to create a version of G/H/I/J that actually works. If it flies, I'll gladly support it. But if it turns out as I expect to be harder than it sounds, then I hope you'll have an open mind. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tryptofish, I've just started a draft at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. I don't think it will answer all of our questions, but I do think it is capable of producing some useful information. I'm interested in whether you think it has a chance of producing some useful information.
- User:Ronz, on the subject of a re-write, I think the NOR problems could be avoided by re-writing the first to say "In 2014, a non-profit organization sold 250 mg tablets of ethosuximide for US$0.1845 each to recognized healthcare organizations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I'm not sure how to put that in the RFC "question", but I think it would be easy to post that as a response to the RFC (e.g., "It violates NOR, which can be got around by copyediting to say ____, but then the DUE problem becomes more obvious and insurmountable, especially if it's placed in the lead"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Congo example is NOTPRICE and UNDUE, though. We need policy-compliant examples. @Trypto, our choice is to end up at Arbcom, or put up an RFC to get us moving towards something, even if partial. Arbcom has already mandated that Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus, which gives us a good idea of how they might lean on multiple WPMED matters. I really think we should not be looking Barkeep49's gift horse in the mouth, and it's time to get an RFC going. We have to stop the paralysis by analysis, and accept a partial solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do we actually need policy-compliant examples in *this* RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- The example I've given above has only minor problems, at least from what's been pointed out so far. --Ronz (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, Not necessarily, and WAID, your implication that the existing text is not "policy compliant" just confirms my frustration with having to ask this RFC. But, here we are. -- Colin°Talk 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Do we actually need policy-compliant examples in *this* RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- The Congo example is NOTPRICE and UNDUE, though. We need policy-compliant examples. @Trypto, our choice is to end up at Arbcom, or put up an RFC to get us moving towards something, even if partial. Arbcom has already mandated that Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus, which gives us a good idea of how they might lean on multiple WPMED matters. I really think we should not be looking Barkeep49's gift horse in the mouth, and it's time to get an RFC going. We have to stop the paralysis by analysis, and accept a partial solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Let me put it this way. Please go ahead and do try to create a version of G/H/I/J that actually works. If it flies, I'll gladly support it. But if it turns out as I expect to be harder than it sounds, then I hope you'll have an open mind. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well I have been suggested the need for a prioritized solution from the get go. However, it is important not only that we get the RfC out (and that is important) but we do so in a way that will get the kinds of responses necessary for consensus for those priorities. Put another way, it is important that the right priorities are put forth and it is important that the broader community doesn't reject the RfC. I have been pushing a single question not because I think that's what is ultimately going to work (I don't - H/I/J would really be three questions after all) but as a way to try and focus on what's important and a way to focus the question so the community will provide feedback that leads to a consensus. I am not sure if the worse outcome of all this is no RfC or an RfC that comes up with no consensus. If there's no consensus because the community as a whole is split the way editors here are split well that's one thing. But if it's no consensus because of an ill-formed RfC well that's just an unforced error that will have spent a lot of editor time for naught. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Tryptofish, I never suggested "As much as you'd like it, it really can't be done" would be a question or that the RFC should take a non-neutral stance. Of course those crafting the RFC want to see an answer that is useful rather than one that does not resolve anything. I think there may well be a popular (though hopefully minority) vote to support prices per the agenda (Big Bad Pharma want to hide prices from consumers; Wikipedia is Not Censored), but an RFC must ensure that respondents carefully analyse whether this is possible. I object to merely asking the question as if the wish could be granted. I also don't know why necessarily we might conclude "a specific way of doing it is preferable to a different specific way", when generally not doing it is likely to be preferable, especially considering that "generally not doing it" has been WP:NOPRICES official policy for years.
- User:WhatamIdoing, can you please avoid using the word "copyediting" like above. A copyeditor fixes minor issues with prose without changing the meaning or adding and removing facts or points made. Changing
"The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$27.77 per month as of 2014"
- to
"In 2014, a non-profit organization sold 250 mg tablets of ethosuximide for US$0.1845 each to recognized healthcare organizations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo"
- Is very very much not copyediting. If a statement is untrue and not per-source, no amount of copyediting will fix that. -- Colin°Talk 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear friends, I am unwatching this page because, IMO, our considerable efforts here are being undermined by back-channel conversations, and the topic of drug pricing has not been confined to this remit as required at ANI. A few of us are doing all the work to solve problems that aren't being addressed as the ANI receommended. Sorry, bye. Ping me if there is any urgent need for my useless and verbose opinions. I will keep the RFC formulation page started by WAID watchlisted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy I'm really sorry to read this and this is rather a blow to making further progress. We are already hampered with lack of recent participation from anyone on the strong-pro side of the debate. Btw, Barkeep49, I'm not sure if I broke the rules with comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. I thought that comments specifically on WAID's RFC text were appropriately made on the RFC talk page. But perhaps that's prohibited and we need to continue to discuss that here. If so, you are welcome to move the text over here in a sub-section, or ask me to do it. -- Colin°Talk 14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Colin, going forward it would probably be helpful to reply here (though maybe collapse it?) to honor the discussion in one place element of the ANI close. Also I will join you in sadness of Sandy actively withdrawing from here. The lack of participation will be a problem in general, and the lack of participation of those most in favor of pricing does carry risks to a successful RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've moved it all here. I've also asked User:JzG and Iri's talk page stalkers to look over the draft and see whether it makes sense to people who are smart and highly experienced, but who haven't been actively involved in developing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- If there are any "back door" discussions, I'd like to know where they are. (If it's just the talk page at WAID's draft, my opinion is that it's no big deal, other than just the practical issue of keeping the discussion in one place. But for that reason, I'm going to comment about it here, not there.)
- Just so everyone knows, I'm watching this page closely, so you don't really have to ping me. (But I'm not troubled if you do.)
- WAID: thank you very much for setting up that mock-up page. I've looked at it, and I'll comment here rather than there. I raised a concern about that format before, and I'll repeat it now. If we present the RfC in that way, we will potentially get a result that says that the mshpriceguide.org website (the only one cited in the three examples) should not be cited in that way. Then, a few months later, an editor will come along with a different source and make the same kind of widespread edits using that different source. And they will say: "but I didn't use that source that consensus said not to use, so I was honoring the RfC consensus." So my point is that, to get a useful RfC, we need to get consensus for something, in addition to getting consensus against something else. I see that as being a fatal flaw in the single-question approach to formatting the RfC. I also continue to believe that the way that draft presents the question comes across as a loaded question. It implies that there must be some sort of problem with policy noncompliance. And I can predict that the result of going that route is that editors (some of whom may have been quiet so far) will show up at the RfC quite loudly, and say that the RfC is bogus, and it will go off-track. And these concerns are the same ones I've been raising all along in these discussions, without them really being addressed.
- On the other hand, I've gone ahead and created User:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2, which shows a format for the RfC that I think will work. Please don't anyone get too hung up on any of the wording that I used there, because that will be easy to revise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tryptofish see my user talk for more on back door discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I was just going to post that I've seen that, and also at Doc James' talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tryptofish see my user talk for more on back door discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I have two basic thoughts about your POV (which I mostly agree with), and if you promise to uphold my reputation for being verbose, I'll try to keep it short:
- Yes, we need to get consensus "for", not just "against". But does it have to happen in *this* RFC?
- Do we really think editors are so far gone into the voting mentality that we won't get responses that help us figure out what people are "for" as well? I keep hoping that we'll get responses that say rather more than just " Bad dog. No biscuit!" or " Who's a good boy?!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sure in either the HIJ format or Trypto's format we'll get many responses, some of them at substantial length, beyond yes and no (support, oppose whatever). The two questions I'd throw out is which format poses the most important question (there will be voter fatigue, especially with one MEDMOS RFC already out there) to get a sense of consensus for/against and which format makes it more likely to get a consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've moved it all here. I've also asked User:JzG and Iri's talk page stalkers to look over the draft and see whether it makes sense to people who are smart and highly experienced, but who haven't been actively involved in developing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Colin, going forward it would probably be helpful to reply here (though maybe collapse it?) to honor the discussion in one place element of the ANI close. Also I will join you in sadness of Sandy actively withdrawing from here. The lack of participation will be a problem in general, and the lack of participation of those most in favor of pricing does carry risks to a successful RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Potential accusations of bias
- WAID, my answer to your first question would be "yes". My answer to your second question is that it will be a mess if we plan on figuring out after the RfC what the community is for. Who will make that decision? What happens if the closing admins see it one way, but some editors who are very active disagree? It's far better to ask, and get an unambiguous answer. Also, as I'm about to explain some more below, I've just revised my draft page in response to the feedback from Doc James and Colin. You, in turn, might want to revise your draft page in response to the feedback that I have given. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I'm pinging you because I'm not sure whether you saw my comment immediately above. And I want to ask you this question: Let's say we are a few days into the RfC and editors who heretofore have not been active in these discussions suddenly find their voice and complain loudly that the RfC is hopelessly biased and should be discarded, because it basically presents only one "side", and then uninvolved members of the community start agreeing with them. What is you plan of action in that event? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate you asked WAID, but IMO I really hope you don't try to sabotage the RFC by "complain[ing] loudly that the RfC is hopelessly biased and should be discarded" just because it isn't yours. That would not go down well for you at arbcom. Will others? I don't think the main question
Do you think that this content complies with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, due weight, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, and how to write a lead section
is biased. It is the kind of question we ask of content every day. It is a very ordinary question for Wikipedians. It is really very neutral. Are the examples neutral? Well look at User:Colin/MSHData and see if you think they are representative. I think (with the substitution of diazepam for mebendazole) they are. If you think the background and info is biased then please argue specific problems. It is also asking for comments, not a vote, which is something I very very much support. All wiki wisdom suggests a plain vote on polarised options (which is your RFC) is a recipe for polarised and adversarial comments and disunity and in the end "consensus" by counting votes. I have no doubt that some in the pro-prices faction will totally ignore the factual, source and policy issues, and present their case based on Big Pharma suppressing prices and Wikipedia being Not Censored. We will see sweeping statements that of course WHO/MSH and Medicaid and BNF are totally reliable secondary sources. And drug pricing is such an obvious world concern you'd have to be a drug company shill to want to censor prices. And some people will be totally cool with wiki-docs doing original research. This will happen. Let it happen. If Wikipedia decides those things are more important then so be it. -- Colin°Talk 22:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)- As you know perfectly well, I did not say, loudly or softly, that "the RfC is hopelessly biased and should be discarded". I cautioned that other editors are likely to do so, if we do not get it right. I'm trying to get the RfC done right, and I'm quite comfortable with how that will go down if this ends up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate you asked WAID, but IMO I really hope you don't try to sabotage the RFC by "complain[ing] loudly that the RfC is hopelessly biased and should be discarded" just because it isn't yours. That would not go down well for you at arbcom. Will others? I don't think the main question
- @WhatamIdoing: I'm pinging you because I'm not sure whether you saw my comment immediately above. And I want to ask you this question: Let's say we are a few days into the RfC and editors who heretofore have not been active in these discussions suddenly find their voice and complain loudly that the RfC is hopelessly biased and should be discarded, because it basically presents only one "side", and then uninvolved members of the community start agreeing with them. What is you plan of action in that event? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- WAID, my answer to your first question would be "yes". My answer to your second question is that it will be a mess if we plan on figuring out after the RfC what the community is for. Who will make that decision? What happens if the closing admins see it one way, but some editors who are very active disagree? It's far better to ask, and get an unambiguous answer. Also, as I'm about to explain some more below, I've just revised my draft page in response to the feedback from Doc James and Colin. You, in turn, might want to revise your draft page in response to the feedback that I have given. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Tryptofish, because I did miss that.
I've been one of the regulars at WP:RFC for about a decade now. I consider accusations of a "biased" question to be par for the course on contentious subjects, and if you want to search the old archives, you will find that my opinion is consistently that claims that "The question is biased!" mean "My side is losing!" I'm not afraid of seeing those accusations, and my plan is to ignore them, because they say more about the fears (and usually inexperience) of the accuser than about the question. (Now, if you personally thought that the question was biased, I'd be very concerned, but that doesn't exactly seem to be your concern.) If you'd like, we could ask the other RFC regulars whether they think the question is biased.
The other theme in your comments is that the results might be hard to interpret. I agree with you: That's a risk. However, I see this phase as information-gathering, and then (as stated in the RFC "question"), I expect the next phase to involve a proposal that people can be for or against.
The way I expect to handle this is to care less during this RFC about summative "votes", and more about the rationales. Let's say, hypothetically, that editors read the three RFC examples and say, "Ugh, that's all wrong". What actually matters to me is the next sentence: Do they think it's bad because per-pill costs were converted to monthly costs? Or is that okay, and the problem is that the sentences are in the lead but not in the body? Or because MEDRS suggests a five-year timeline for sources (all the WT:MED regulars know what I think about that) and 2014 prices are now technically six years old? Or because they think NOTPRICE for a drug requires a source saying that the price of specifically ethosuximide itself is terribly important to the world, and no amount of sources saying that the price of WHO Essential Medicines for epilepsy can possibly suffice to prove that the price of ethosuximide is worth mentioning? Once we've seen which points of policy and common sense people care about, I think we can build on your draft to make an actual proposal for adding a section about prices to MEDMOS. Or, to put it another way, the purpose of this RFC is to make yours produce a clear consensus for fixing this guideline. This is just the necessary baby step to get us on that path. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'm glad we are discussing this now. I want to make it very, very clear what my motivation is: the community instructed at ANI that there be an RfC that would resolve the content issues underlying the dispute, and I want that RfC to end with everyone feeling like that goal has been achieved. I'm not referring to things like "fiascos" because I want that to happen. I'm referring to them because I want them to not happen. And you can be sure that this has nothing to do, for me, with whether my "side" wins or loses, because, perhaps more than anyone else who has been commenting here, I really do not have a "side". Now, if the community ends up being happy with two successive proposals, I think that would be a very gratifying outcome. But I'm not confident that this is going to happen, and I've had a lot of RfC experience, too. I think the community may well want a clear resolution in the first RfC of whether the kinds of price edits that Doc James made have, or do not have, consensus. I think there is a very strong risk that, when you have an RfC of the form: Here are three passages from three pages, with their cites. And here is what the sources actually say. What do you think?, a lot of editors are going to react by saying that it's flawed because why would anyone have an RfC like that if the sources actually were presented accurately. You are making it look like: Here is the way the sources were presented, but in fact, that's not what the sources say. Editors are likely to see that as biased. And that could make things take a very bad turn for the worse. And furthermore if the RfC is designed to not have a clear closing statement, that will make the community feel that the ANI instructions were not followed. I'm not saying that because I want to make trouble for anyone here. I'm saying it because I want to avoid the trouble happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like other people want a closing statement, so we'll have one.
- You are making a prediction about how people will feel about copying some information from the source onto the page. I think it's a good thing to consider, and I think it's a reasonable prediction. My current guess is that some of them will feel that way, but most won't, and that the amount of that feeling won't have a serious effect on the discussion. I could be wrong.
- The problem I'm trying to solve with that format is one of the "laws of the internet", namely that every click costs readers. If we don't put that information in front of everyone, then some of them will not click on the sources (and thus make comments that aren't based on the sources). Or they'll click but not scroll down (and thus unfairly think that the text is wrong, because the buyer prices are below the scroll, and none of the supplier prices add up to the numbers in the sentence).
- If you can think of a way to put information about how that database is being used in front of participants' eyes without anyone thinking that it implies a failure of text–source integrity (beyond the fact, as you say, that nobody holds an RFC on this kind of subject without someone thinking that there's an opportunity for improvement), then I'd be happy to hear your ideas.
- I do not know whether the principals will feel like, at the end of this, we have completely resolved the subject. My prediction is that we will have made progress, but that we will still have some work to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Those are good points and I appreciate this discussion, thanks. At the draft I'm working on, one of the things that I'm trying to address is that very issue of minimizing clicks, which is something where I agree with you entirely. I need a few more hours of work on that (will I ever finish responding on this page?), and maybe tomorrow you might want to take a look there and see if you like any of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WAID, I've just been looking at the two drafts side-by-side. In one fish's opinion, the draft you've worked on seems kind of chatty and maybe tl;dr. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take a look at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that would be a safe prediction for almost everything that I write.
;-)
I have more than once attempted to shorten something and ended up with a significant increase in the length. I can simplify, but shortening is not my strength. - The stylistic question is whether it's more appropriate to have short, dense text or longer, easier text. I can tell you that the latter is easier for me to write, but I cannot tell you which one is objectively better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK. While you were posting that, I was going back and reading the comments from Nil Einne that are collapsed in the #General, version 2 section below, and he comments about whether or not to have 2 RfCs. It's worth taking a look at. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that would be a safe prediction for almost everything that I write.
Convenience break
- We are currently using secondary and government sources for prices such as Medicaid, MSH, and Tarascon. Unless people consider those primary sources? So not sure why "Secondary sources should not be required. Appropriate primary sources include: example, example." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Doc James, most databases are considered primary sources under Wikipedia's system. (The MSH and NADAC databases are second-hand or secondary data, which is not the same as a secondary source.) Primary sources can be perfectly reliable. That sentence could be completed with "Appropriate primary sources include the MSH and NADAC databases". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- We are currently using secondary and government sources for prices such as Medicaid, MSH, and Tarascon. Unless people consider those primary sources? So not sure why "Secondary sources should not be required. Appropriate primary sources include: example, example." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Responding to Barkeep post of 03:55 3 Jan, made while I was in Ceylon, asking which format will get more responses. Neither RFC is ideal, but IMO we were charged with formulating an RFC to address the wrong (indeed, a non-existent) problem, so it has been difficult to nail down. We typed for a month. We did our best, and we came to WAID's formulation. Should we switch gears now? I believe that Trypto's formulation will suffer the same fate as my ill-formed RFC on the medical disclaimer of several years ago. When you present options, people pile on other options. So, I go with WAID's, even if we are only addressing one issue at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, the solution to that would be to specify in the RfC introduction that no new versions should be added after the RfC begins, although editors are free to comment about alternatives within the discussion. And there is also that danger in the other format: editors could make all kinds of comments about how that example with [name of drug] could be rewritten in a particular way, without any consensus about which "particular way" is the best one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Tryptofish I appreciate that asking only about MSH-sourced text will not reliably put out the fires at NADAC or BNF or Tarascon or Drugs.com sourced texts. But if anything can be seen from the volumes I've written about the flaws in our texts, is that it is amazing that one can make so many mistakes and commit so many policy crimes in just a few words. I think if we try to explain why the "drug prices everywhere" approach is not just not-encyclopaedic but also totally impractical, for all examples, we will get totally bogged down. Fatigue will then likely to see over-simplistic replies like "Support: we using secondary and government sources for prices such as Medicaid, MSH, and Tarascon". We need to allow participants a chance to focus on a smaller level of practical issues than "all drug price sources".
I think Wiki largely discourages "prices everywhere" on fundamentally practical grounds, more than on "encyclopaedic" grounds. We aren't a standard paper encyclopaedia and already contain much trivia or dubious lists of facts. Practically, there are plenty sites (GoodRX, Drugs.com, BNF in the UK) where patients and readers can reliably find out about drug prices in their country, and get figures that are accurate TODAY for the indication or prescription they are concerned about, rather than citing a book from 2015 for a totally unknown indication and dose. All the evidence suggest Wikipedia is crap at this. Same goes for the prices of other things from mobile phones to insurance to properties in your area to train tickets.
I think it is a huge mistake to frame drug prices round concepts like primary and secondary sources, which Wikipedia has historically had mixed interpretations of meaning. James says above that the BNF is a secondary source, and it is true that it gets its information from the NHS, who in turn give a mix of regulated price and/or indicative price for the drugs, the latter of which comes from drug companies and pharmacy contracts. A better distinction is that all those sources (with the exception of Tarascon's $$$ symbolic prices, which have their own huge problems) are simply databases of prices of products with barcodes, and all those sources give their own unique kind of price (all different variants of wholesale or retail, some actual, some list, etc). Those sources are raw data, at a level of multiplicity and complexity that none of us are proposing is reproduced on Wikipedia.
Wrt notability of prices, saying "secondary sources have written about issues that are specifically about the pricing of those medications". Repeatedly it has been claimed that the fact that e.g. BNF include prices for all their drugs (similar for Drugs.com and Tarscon's book) means they have been written about. Clearly the authors of those sites/books, when writing about each drug, considered it relevant to give price data. And Google will find someone somewhere mentioning that X is a low cost drug compared to the new drug Y which is expensive. But doh!, all new on-patent drugs are expensive and most existing generic drugs are cheap, so that isn't exactly news to anyone that someone might make that remark in print or online. The advocacy argument for including prices is so strongly held by some, that we need a much higher barrier-to-entry than simply being written about in secondary sources.
I'm very nervous about get-out-of-jail clauses like "or used only with care". We aren't here to redefine fundamental policy. Anyone can argue they are careful. We see in the lead RFC that e.g citation excess is justified on the grounds that there is no policy against citations: any guideline-caution or recommendation to seek per-article consensus about citations is simply cast aside. An "or used only with care" clause simply says one can ignore the preceding text.
So I don't think, sorry, your RFC is appropriate today. Let's start with the RFC on MSH-sourced price statements today and see where that takes us. We can learn lessons from it. It may be that Wiki so clearly rejects raw-database-sourced drug prices that existing policy on WP:NOPRICES becomes the clear consensus, and we all do already know how to write about prices when newspapers, etc have made comments about them and give us a price-to-treat or a price-per-year without us having to get our calculators out. -- Colin°Talk 08:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Doc James and Colin, thank you both for the feedback. I've just made some revisions in response to that feedback (and I think it might be a good idea to, likewise, revise the H/I/J draft to address the feedback that I've given about that). Here's a quick summary of what I changed. I removed all mention of primary and secondary. Thanks for correcting me about that; I hadn't understood that properly before and I appreciate the opportunity to clear up my understanding. I changed the description of what had been primary sources to instead be sources that are databases of prices (based on Colin's mention of "raw-database-sourced drug prices"): please check me on that, as I can certainly change it again. I also removed that "get-out-of-jail" clause. As for the broader point that, presumably, everyone should already know that Wikipedia largely discourages "prices everywhere", I'm pretty sure that if everyone really agreed about that, we would not be having this discussion or this RfC. And as for the difficulty of tl;dr if we try to cover many database-style sources, I'm fine with having just a few, not every one. We can do as many or few as we wish. But we should do at least two, because then there will be an established general principle as opposed to something that could be gamed as being about just one source. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- More looking for "Medication prices can be included when appropriate sources are avaliable." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the revision attempt. I think, though, the issues are too complex and require some effort on the part of voters to look at actual article text and actual usage to appreciate the problems. Simply asking people to support polar-opposite A or B approaches is wrong. Particularly as B is effectively asking people to support original research and undue weight and out-of-date sources. I don't think we should be asking people to support a fundamentally broken option. Nor do I remotely support the kind of question James poses above, which is leaving "when appropriate sources are available" to the judgement of whoever edit wars the best. -- Colin°Talk 13:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I think your draft is too much of a skeleton at this point in the game. We've been discussing this since October and fatigue is already causing some to unwatch and drop out. I think we should put our energy into WAID's draft. It doesn't meet exactly what any one of us would have wanted, but nor does it ask to community for permission to do unacceptable things, which is what your question B asks and what in practice James's question would continue to permit to do. -- Colin°Talk 15:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your replies. James, my concern with "when appropriate sources are available" is that it presupposes that sources are "appropriate", which is something very much at the heart of the disagreements here. Colin, I would say the same thing about your objection to asking about part B: you are assuming that the consensus must be that the sources are inappropriate. But these are the things that we should be asking the community to determine, as opposed to, in effect, rigging the RfC to get a desired result. As for the skeleton, my intention is that interested editors here would be able to fill those things in themselves to complete the RfC, particularly when there are those of you who have already written and analyzed so much about it. I'm sure that you, for example, could easily provide examples and pro/con rationales. You probably could even copy-paste them. Of course, not doing that and then complaining that no one has done it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Notifications given
- [13]
If there are any "back door" discussions, I'd like to know where they are. ... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Putting this here per your request, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that you did not see: [14]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, Trypto ... I was in Ceylon for a day :) Anyway, this section gives a place for others. My apologies, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Newbies to the debate
User:Tryptofish thank you for the notification at WP:MED. I was not following the debate but would like to participate as a newbie. As I understand it, there area two parts of the debate. The first is regarding point #5 of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY which states,
"Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers."
From what I can read, part of the RfC will debate whether or not medication prices falls into the exceptions listed above (e.g. is there a justified reason). The remaining question will debate which medications and which sources are acceptable? Can you confirm if I have this correct and if so, is the draft on your talk page now? Also which opinions you're seeking at this time. Thank you for shepherding this topic. Ian Furst (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ian, there has been much discussion about how the RFC should pose questions, give examples, be structured. There are currently two drafts. The first is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and is being discussed at the #Debugging the draft section below. The second is at User:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2 and some comments about that have been posted above. James, above, has also proposed a one-line question, but nothing more than that. IMO the former, by User:WhatamIdoing is further advanced (the other being just a skeleton) and by focussing on one source and a few concrete examples, is best placed to uncover the issues surrounding the routine inclusion of drug prices. -- Colin°Talk 15:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
- The formulation of an RFC was remitted to this forum almost a month ago by ANI. WAID's draft is further developed, and while addressing only one part of the overall picture, I believe it has the best chance of giving us a clear answer on at least that one part. Depending on what kind of response it generates, the topic might broaden, but I fear that Trypto's format will not lend to a clear answer on any one part of the broader issue, as it will encourage others to suggest even more options. We have been working for a month; we should finalize and launch WAID's RFC in the coming week. Also, welcome Ian! Since we have put so much work in to this, there is voluminous information to read on the page. I hope you will find the time to read through the entire large page, as it is late in the game to re-hash territory already covered. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ready, steady, go
User:Barkeep49, I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices is ready. As I understand it, ANI thought it would be best if an uninvolved admin endorsed its neutrality. Can you post a request at some suitable forum to find volunteer for that step?
Here are my thoughts about how to manage the RFC once it's underway, and I'd like to hear all of yours, too.
First, I'd like to encourage all the "principals" in the original dispute to stand down for the first day or two. Let's imagine that an admin certified it as neutral very soon. In that case, I could probably take the draft tag off and list it as an RFC as early as Tuesday. If that's the schedule we end up on, and if you think that other people might think you've got a dog in this fight, then please stand down until at least Wednesday. There's nothing like long or angry posts, especially from our recognizable community leaders, to scare off some contributors. I may not post my own views at all, and I certainly don't plan to do so during the early days. We can let this run for weeks, or even months if we're still getting good responses. There's no magic timer for RFCs. I promise that you will have a chance to have your say, even if your post is #10 instead of #1.
Second, I want us to be encouraging the uninvolved editors to engage in this RFC enough to tell us what they think. Some people will just want to dump a drive-by vote on the page, but if they're willing to explain their thought process, then I want to find out more. I am discouraging straw-poll or "survey" approaches, and I hope that you can all support that in practical ways, like breaking long discussions into sections with useful names like === Thoughts on X ===. Getting detailed explanations from our volunteer editors is a gift that we should treasure. I expect to be asking some editors questions to encourage discussion. If you think that you can ask a question that will draw out more details from an editor or that will encourage that editor to connect with another editor, then please consider doing that. Something like "Do you feel like your idea relates to what User:Example was saying last week?" or "Do you think that might work better with <this slight change>?" could be good. The goal is to get the other guy talking. A good, responsive question, phrased with respect, can be an excellent tool for producing further explanation. An amazing success looks like a couple of editors putting their views together to come up with something that's better than what any of them started with.
Third, if you see an opportunity to meatball:DefendEachOther, especially if it's someone from the other "side", please do so as quickly and as gently as you can. Nobody involved in constructing this RFC wants Wikipedia to get worse. We all have the same ultimate goal. If you'd like, I can ask the WT:RFC regulars to help out with this.
Fourth, I personally don't feel like I'll need an official "closing statement" to know what I've learned from this RFC. However, if you do, then please be bold and speak up now, especially if you'd like to have a "team of three" approach. Recruiting three people after an RFC has ended can be difficult and result in needless delays.
If others have advice they'd like to add, or would like to suggest a different approach, please post here. I'll make time to check this page between meetings (probably in ~12 hours or so). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing I think it is important to mention that one seller like the IDA Foundation sells at the stated price in more than 130 LMIC. LMIC make up about 80% of the global population. And most people in these countries pay for their medications out of pocket.
- Per "many are out of date" is fairly non neutral. Many of the prices are from 2015. That is not out of data but simple from 2015. Additionally many of them are not otherwise incorrect. They are simple approximates. Yes sometimes 30 days rather than 31 days is used for a month (using 30 days for a month does not make an approximate "incorrect".
- That is a fairly one sided background. It is missing details such as that the lack of transparency around prices results in deaths per Doctors Without Borders.[15] Or that prices of electronics are often included in Wikipedia articles including featured articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it is important to mention one supplier (IDA) when there are 35 in the database and a third of all uses of the MSH database cite records with no suppliers at all. The majority of our citations rely on a buyer price, either because that is the only price or because it has been used for the upper-bound. The Guide says
"Buyers: These prices should not be used as international reference prices"
. WHO/HAI says:How representative reference prices are generally depends on the number of suppliers quoting for each product.
. We do not have a source saying "IDA is representative of wholesale prices in the developing world". - The "pay for medicine out of pocket" argument is also not directly relevant to quoting an international reference price. Again WHO says
"in many low- and middle-income countries medicine prices are high, especially in the private sector (e.g. over 80 times an international reference price); availability can be low, particularly in the public sector (including no stocks of essential medicines); treatments are often unaffordable (e.g. requiring over 15 days’ wages to purchase 30 days’ treatment); government procurement can be inefficient (e.g. buying expensive originator brands as well as cheaper generics); mark-ups in the distribution chain can be excessive; and numerous taxes and duties are being applied to medicines"
they give an example:"The price of originator brand atenolol 50 mg tablets is over 20 times the international reference price in all the countries except India (where it is still high at 5 times the reference price) and Kazakhstan. Even the lowest-priced generic is very expensive in all countries"
. So basically, the wholesale price of generic medicines to the state healthcare is irrelevant if the state healthcare has no stock of that medicine and the patient has to buy a premium-brand version on the private market. And that is the norm. - Wrt "Many of these are out of date or otherwise incorrect" I would agree we can state that more neutrally. The 92% of MSH prices in articles are from 2014 so lets say that "Nearly all cite records from 2014". As for being incorrect, we are not talking about number rounding or the exact number of days in a month, but basic maths errors with multiplying (or forgetting to multiply) or basic beginner-level statistical errors with how the data is offered. Perhaps a more neutral statement is that "the mathematical and statistical correctness of figures given has been questioned".
- The background is merely the background on the source, and the question asked is simply about source->text policy. We are not at this stage asking that we should include prices in Wikipedia because otherwise PEOPLE WILL DIE. Let's leave advocacy out of Wikipedia please.
- Similarly the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument also has no place in deciding if text meets policy.
- In summary, James, you are welcome to make these points when you make your case in the RFC, but these points are not neutral facts, they are easily challenged, and most are not directly relevant to this RFC. -- Colin°Talk 09:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, the notion that "prices are included in Featured articles" was covered above. If that faulty, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS emerges during the RFC (as it is an oft-repeated meme), then I will have to unpack the analysis even further on the RFC. FAs are from perfect even when they get the star, and are even less so now that FAC and FAR have died (FAC stats-- I was 2007 thru 2011, scroll down), and there is basically NO ongoing review of older, out-of-compliant FAs. One of the FAs held up as an example was written by an editor whose socks supported the FAC, whose FAs I was forced to promote by "consensus" (of his socks), even though all of his FAs were awful. Someone will introduce that bogus argument to the RFC; I hope I don't have to unpack it there, and I hope that won't come from you. This particular RFC isn't looking at the broader pricing issue; it's looking at drug prices. And even at that, in some cases, the prices that are in Featured articles are in compliance with WP:NOTPRICE. I hope this RFC doesn't have to unpack all of this, which is beyond the scope of a first step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it is important to mention one supplier (IDA) when there are 35 in the database and a third of all uses of the MSH database cite records with no suppliers at all. The majority of our citations rely on a buyer price, either because that is the only price or because it has been used for the upper-bound. The Guide says
Quick replies:
- IDA offers some drugs to 130 countries: The description says "many countries", so I think that's already covered. This supplier could be important ...assuming that it's listed in the database entry being used. It's possible that editors will tell us that if an entry has a dozen supplier prices, or the suppliers sell to more than 50 countries (or whatever) that it should be considered "the wholesale price in the developing world", but when only suppliers from a few countries are listed, or when there are only buyer prices, then we shouldn't use it, because "IDA sells to 130 countries" is irrelevant if IDA doesn't report a price for the specific drug under discussion.
- IMO the important point here is that other editors will tell us. We don't need to give our own views on this page. This is about "writing the question", not about "answering the question".
- My goal in saying that the prices are out of date or otherwise incorrect isn't to show any disrespect to the work that was done five or six years ago, but to indicate that in an ideal world, we would be updating this content anyway. If uninvolved editors read that sentence and think that we're hoping to improve that area of content anyway, so now would be a great time to give us their best advice, then I've succeeded.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- WAID, I fully endorse your launch-step commentary, and agree that most of us should initially stand down. I hope that admins intend to assure that the civility sanctions in place are, at this stage, aggressively defended (as by now, everyone is aware),
and that in particular, as I mentioned explicitly in the ANI, CFCF is held to the civility restriction. Thanks for all your work! Re: your mention of what we've learned: regardless of outcome, I learned a lot already. Only yesterday, when I saw your comments as you wrapped this up, did I understand that by staying focused on "what should MEDMOS say", the result is that we additionally cover the NOR/SYNTH problem. You were focused on "what should MEDMOS say", while I was focused on, "is there an example of these sources not using NOR/SYNTH". The search for the elusive example consumed too much bandwidth in this discussion, and that one's on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)- SandyGeorgia — I do not believe I have on any occasion been uncivil, having with arguments pointed out what I percieve to be WP:GRIEFING. I understand that this position may be percieved as insulting as such, but it does not violate WP:CIVIL. If it did, we could never act in any way against the will of an individual editor (see: Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact)
I have argued for my position and it is no matter how we look at it — a fully legitimate position to hold. If anything I find that the collegiality within WP:MED has been taken advantage of — and abusive and disruptive behavior has been let slide too long.
What is however noteworthy: chosing to single me out in the manner above, despite no comments from my part for a week, and me not having commented on the issue of PRICE for over 3 weeks. That does not seem in line with WP:CIVIL. Carl Fredrik talk 15:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)- @CFCF: While I may disagree with some parts of your post, I agree with and acknowledge that singling you out here was not at all helpful or wise. I thought of this within minutes of posting, but unfortunately, pings are not undoable (another of the many reasons I hate the pingie-thingie-- you can't walk them back), so it didn't seem that striking it would be helpful. I do apologize for singling you out. At any rate, I hope you will agree with WAID regarding what she hopes to see in the conduct department from recognized leaders of WPMED. I will do my best, and hope you do as well. Once again, my sincere apologies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, and do feel free to accept my apology if I have been abrasive. I do fundamentally believe we are all striving for the same goal; that there is only a difference in lesser values. I believe we would do well to on occasion step back and ask ourselves if it truly is a tempest we see, or whether we can make out concave walls in the distance. Carl Fredrik talk 15:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @CFCF: While I may disagree with some parts of your post, I agree with and acknowledge that singling you out here was not at all helpful or wise. I thought of this within minutes of posting, but unfortunately, pings are not undoable (another of the many reasons I hate the pingie-thingie-- you can't walk them back), so it didn't seem that striking it would be helpful. I do apologize for singling you out. At any rate, I hope you will agree with WAID regarding what she hopes to see in the conduct department from recognized leaders of WPMED. I will do my best, and hope you do as well. Once again, my sincere apologies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia — I do not believe I have on any occasion been uncivil, having with arguments pointed out what I percieve to be WP:GRIEFING. I understand that this position may be percieved as insulting as such, but it does not violate WP:CIVIL. If it did, we could never act in any way against the will of an individual editor (see: Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact)
Just a note to all involved that I decided to take a break from this yesterday and am catching up on it today. I want to acknowledge that I've seen WAID's comment above but want to have caught up fully before I launch. As I am fairly busy at work this week, I may not be able to fully catch-up here until this evening. Just wanted to set appropriate expectations. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC
Thank you WhatamIdoing for moving this along. I think we're at a point where an update to the community will be helpful in order to get an uninvolved sysop (who isn't me) who is willing to to certify this as neutral (which I don't think we're quite at given James' concerns). I think you offer good general guidance about behavior during the RfC. Let me just add to the guidance you've said and say that even when entering the conversation not bludgeoning it will be important. Really try and pick and choose which conversations make sense to engage in and - even when you have value - consider leaving some of them alone.
The one piece that caught me off guard and I'd love to hear from others about is your comfort with no formal closing statement. It had been an intent of mine to try and find an uninvolved closer sooner rather than later (as RfCs do not necessarily need to run 30 days and are sometimes done before or after that cut-off) and possibly the "team of three" approach that you mention. Either there will be enough consensus to make changes to the MOS or there won't be and a subsequent RfC will be needed to formalize changes to the MOS. Even in this latter case, without a formal close (and to some extent even with a formal close) I fear the second RfC (really the third RfC, with the already launched LEAD RfC being the first) will end up rehashing a whole lot of the first RfC as editors debate exactly what was learned there. This is especially a concern as a subsequent RfC in a short time period will see diminished participation as compared to the first RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing and Barkeep49: pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what you mean by "no formal closing statement". Also, how do you feel about pinging the earlier participants at this stage (Ronz, kashmiri, Seraphimblade, Signimu, did I miss anyone?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You know that some RFCs end up enclosed in colored boxes ("closed", to discourage further participation) and get a short note at the top ("statement", so nobody else needs to read the discussion)? For the last several years, someone's main contribution to Wikipedia has been listing most of the RFCs at a new-ish noticeboard to ask admins to add the box and write a closing statement. It's sometimes helpful and sometimes not, but with rare exceptions, it's not usually harmful (except in the sense of wasting time and discouraging editors from reading beyond the summary). I don't need this service, but I've no objection to it happening, if someone else wants it and someone can be found to do it. They should probably be warned that there's nothing vote-like about this, so it may require more work than the average RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, I see. I thought we always had those, and I understand your reasoning. I don't care much one way or the other, but considering there were concerns that the past RFC on prices was not adhered to, I wonder if it would be helpful in this case. Defer to people who are not idiots about RFCs (moi :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- You know that some RFCs end up enclosed in colored boxes ("closed", to discourage further participation) and get a short note at the top ("statement", so nobody else needs to read the discussion)? For the last several years, someone's main contribution to Wikipedia has been listing most of the RFCs at a new-ish noticeboard to ask admins to add the box and write a closing statement. It's sometimes helpful and sometimes not, but with rare exceptions, it's not usually harmful (except in the sense of wasting time and discouraging editors from reading beyond the summary). I don't need this service, but I've no objection to it happening, if someone else wants it and someone can be found to do it. They should probably be warned that there's nothing vote-like about this, so it may require more work than the average RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Separately, I am concerned that having another RFC up (MEDLEAD) at the same time is a detriment, but I don't have any idea how to go about addressing/fixing that. If anyone has any advice for me, perhaps they will post to my talk. If you look at the talk page of that RFC, there was actually consensus building that caused many of us to move our initial positions, so I'm not sure what is accomplished by having that RFC stay open, but not sure how to withdraw it in recognition of the consensus that did develop among those who actively engaged at the RFC talk. Open to advice; Column B is actually a position that showed movement of the "keep it all" and the "delete it all" towards each other's positions. Is there a way to work that out off-RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, IMO the only contentious text is "Many of these are out of date or otherwise incorrect", though the example at the bottom of this page does rather add evidence to the latter problem, and I'm not sure we'd get many people seriously suggesting that the 92% of the sources from 2014 and 8% from 2015 are "up-to-date". I have made a suggestion above for alternative wording. However, I strongly disagree with James's other suggestions or complaints, which imo fall firmly into the category of contentious statements and arguments that participants can add during the discussion. We do need a wise neutral editor (don't see why it has to be an admin, but I don't make the rules) to decide, but satisfying all parties is not imo a requirement. For what its worth, WAID's RFC question is not the one I proposed and her approach to introducing the topic and recommending how participants respond is not how I'd have gone about it. And that's no bad thing. -- Colin°Talk 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW if ANI hadn't specified a sysop I would be agreeing with you that any well qualified neutral editor would do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- And in rereading this I realize since I closed the ANI it feels like a bit of a cop-out. I will just note in case anyone needs the reminder that the language I used for closing and which had the community consensus behind it was not my own. As a closer I feel my job is is to reflect back the community consensus which is where the language came from. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW if ANI hadn't specified a sysop I would be agreeing with you that any well qualified neutral editor would do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just going to say this: I expect that by the end of the day today, I will have User:Tryptofish/Drug prices RfC draft 2 at approximately the same level of readiness as this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would like to suggest that if we reach a point where an RFC has been chosen and agreed to be acceptable by a neutral bod, that we postpone launching it for a week, say. Everyone agree to go do something else entirely, and avoid prices and RFCs and stuff. If that helps clear the MEDLEAD RFC away, then all the better. -- Colin°Talk 21:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- And I fully agree. That's a very good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I also think that's a good idea. But it will mean we truly take a week-off from discussion which I fear will be a tougher ask in reality than theory. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest that you decide on your report to the community first. But a bit of a cool-off might be good (doesn't have to be a week) before finalizing anything about the RfC might work very well. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that we need any further delays. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I also think that's a good idea. But it will mean we truly take a week-off from discussion which I fear will be a tougher ask in reality than theory. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- WAID, the organization and the conversational tone/style are excellent. It draws the reader in, and creates a "non-combative" environment, in a way that is decidedly not conducive to the "ILikeIt" votes we see in other RFCs. Again, very well done, and I look forward to seeing the kinds of responses such a well-designed RFC will produce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Why not link to previous discussions?
I wish to add a link to Wikipedia:Prices#Discussions_about_best_practices to the RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. This link presents a list of all previous discussions of drug prices, which I feel match the subject of this RfC. The point of sharing links to this previous discussions would be to show the history of Wikipedia community discussion of drug prices.
SandyGeorgia objects, saying with a revert that "this is not an RFC on pricing, this is an RFC on source --> text integrity". What reason is there to avoid presenting this archival collection of previous discussions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blue, please read the entire discussion. The RFC proposed is not an RFC on pricing overall; it is specifically focused on source --> text integrity so that later an RFC on drug pricing can be conducted. Your addition complicates what was a narrower topic, and burdens the respondent with information that is not relevant to the narrower focus of the proposed RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Contentious statements
IMO, the editors representing the polar opposite lead "sides" of this discussion should refrain from directly editing the RFC. I have said this before, but now James is adding contentious statements or replacing/removing factual information with over-simplified statements. He has disputed that prices are "incorrect" and has replace the
- "a complex statistical concept; not necessarily the dose any person takes, especially when the same drug is prescribed for multiple medical conditions"
with
- "the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults; not necessarily the dose any person takes, especially when the same drug is prescribed for multiple medical conditions"
The problem with, what WHO admit is simply a "basic definition" is that it is over-simplistic and misses out the key factor of DDD that our article gets right: it is a statistical measure of drug consumption, a rough estimate for population-level studies. This statement implies this might be an average Prescribed daily dose and it really really isn't. Let's look at what WHO say:
- Products used only in children (e.g., growth hormones and fluoride tablets) are given the child dose
- "The recommended maintenance dose (long term therapeutic dose) is usually preferred when establishing the DDD. The initial dose may differ from the maintenance dose but this is not reflected in the DDD. If the approved dose recommendation provides limited information about maintenance dose, the DDD will usually be the average of the maintenance dose range. Examples of interpretation of approved dose titration recommendations:
- “Titrate up to a high dose if it is tolerated”: the high dose would normally be chosen as the DDD.
- “Consider to increase the dose only if efficacy is not satisfactory with initial dose”: the DDD would normally be based on the initial dose
- For some groups of medicinal products specific principles for DDD assignment are established (e.g. the DDDs for the selective serotonin agonists in the treatment of migraine are based on the approved initial dose). These principles are given in the guidelines for the relevant ATC groups.
- The treatment dose is generally used. If, however, prophylaxis is the main indication, this dose is used, e.g. for fluoride tablets (A01AA01) and some antimalarials.
So in practice, the figure is much more complex and involves a human making a non-clincical judgement. Hence the original text said "a complex statistical concept".
The WHO also say: "The main purpose of the ATC/DDD system is as a tool for presenting drug utilization statistics with the aim of improving drug use. This is the purpose for which the system was developed and it is with this purpose in mind that all decisions about ATC/DDD classification are made. Consequently, using the system for other purposes can be inappropriate."
. The DDD is also not updated to reflect changes in prescribing practice or recommendations. A better definition would be (from WHO)
- The ATC/DDD system allows standardisation of drug groups and represents a stable drug utilization metric to enable comparisons of drug use between countries, regions, and other health care settings, and to examine trends in drug use over time and in different settings.
So I think we should stick to linking to the wiki article, and reverting back to the original text which made a neutral statement about this technical metric rather than offering an over-simplistic statement that will mislead. Our readers who will wrongly think that "average maintenance dose per day" reflects some clinical-practice average prescribing statistics rather than some pen-pushing statistician looking at drug dose remarks in the BNF or wherever, and choosing either the initial, the max dose or the mid-point between these depending on the words they read. It is simply "a complex statistical concept", a "technical metric", with no clinical application whatsoever, and we should not pretend it is in any way related to actual clinical practice.
James has repeatedly stated a view of DDD and how it can be used that is at odds with what WHO use it for and that WHO firmly discourage. For that reason, he should not be the editor to make claims about it in the RFC. He is welcome to state his personal beliefs in the response to the RFC.
Wrt the "Many of these are from 2014 or 2015 or are otherwise incorrect" tagged as "dubious", we have megabytes of prose outlining how incorrect these prices have been. Not just in ways that editors may disagree about but simple maths and statistics errors. I don't think that is dubious at all. Below we had a discussion about Carvedilol where for over a year we have incorrectly stated the "wholesale cost per dose is less than 0.05 USD". If fact there carvedilol ER tablets costing $6.44, $6.61, $7.08 and $6.57 for each 10, 20, 40 and 80mg doses. -- Colin°Talk 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Wrt Doc James involvement in being able to edit the RfC, imo he is a world-expert on health care information sharing. Regardless of our disputes here on this single topic, my personal opinion, is that limiting what he's able to do, compared to any other editor, is not fair at best and limits valuable information/opinion we need to make a choice at worst. Ian Furst (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ian, the problem is James is the heart of the dispute and much of what he has claimed throughout this discussion is highly contentious. If some editors feel that these edits by James are making dubious claims about prices, which in turn are based on dubious claims about other things like MSH Price Guide or DDD, then really the last thing that is going to help resolve that is to let the editor making these claims edit the RFC. And I most strongly object to one editor being placed on some pedestal above other editors and therefore demand some entitlement. That's not how Wikipedia works. If we simply trusted "a world-expert on health care information sharing" to correctly edit drug prices in articles, we wouldn't be having a dispute, and frankly we wouldn't both with WP:V or WP:NOR. -- Colin°Talk 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know a lot about the drug prices debate but have been reading as much as possible in these threads. We are over 60k words so, realistically, I and many other editors will need to hear both sides in the RfC summary being created. Imo, if James is one side of the dispute its even more reason to include his opinion. Nowhere did I ask anyone to simply trust James. I would just prefer that he was not excluded from the process as I, personally, value his opinion. As with everything, we're seeking consensus so I'm offering my opinion. Ian Furst (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ian, just to be clear, the RFC I'm talking about is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. This does not offer any side's opinion, and we must be very careful not to offer any side's opinion as fact, or word it in a contentious way that supports one side's opinion. You are welcome to suggest it include a side A / side B opinion section at the end of the intro section if you want that (and I don't want that) but the RFC body should be neutrally edited. For example, if you wanted my opinion, I'd say that
"The MSH International Medical Products Price Guide is a generally unreliable source of information about drug prices, because WHO only regard an "international reference price" as being "representative" if it has many supplier records, and many drug records in this database lack any supplier records and many others only have one or two"
. But we're not doing that approach in the RFC and I'm not about to start edit warring with others to push for that in the Background section. James has contentious views on what DDD is and how it can be used, and this is at the heart of the dispute. Therefore he should not be permitted to write about DDD in the RFC in a way that tends to support his views. If you value his and my opinion, you can wait for that in the response section of the RFC. Does that not seem reasonable? -- Colin°Talk 15:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ian, just to be clear, the RFC I'm talking about is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. This does not offer any side's opinion, and we must be very careful not to offer any side's opinion as fact, or word it in a contentious way that supports one side's opinion. You are welcome to suggest it include a side A / side B opinion section at the end of the intro section if you want that (and I don't want that) but the RFC body should be neutrally edited. For example, if you wanted my opinion, I'd say that
- I don't know a lot about the drug prices debate but have been reading as much as possible in these threads. We are over 60k words so, realistically, I and many other editors will need to hear both sides in the RfC summary being created. Imo, if James is one side of the dispute its even more reason to include his opinion. Nowhere did I ask anyone to simply trust James. I would just prefer that he was not excluded from the process as I, personally, value his opinion. As with everything, we're seeking consensus so I'm offering my opinion. Ian Furst (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ian, the problem is James is the heart of the dispute and much of what he has claimed throughout this discussion is highly contentious. If some editors feel that these edits by James are making dubious claims about prices, which in turn are based on dubious claims about other things like MSH Price Guide or DDD, then really the last thing that is going to help resolve that is to let the editor making these claims edit the RFC. And I most strongly object to one editor being placed on some pedestal above other editors and therefore demand some entitlement. That's not how Wikipedia works. If we simply trusted "a world-expert on health care information sharing" to correctly edit drug prices in articles, we wouldn't be having a dispute, and frankly we wouldn't both with WP:V or WP:NOR. -- Colin°Talk 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the {{dubious}} tag. I've been trying to think of a softer way to say it for two days, and I haven't got any good ideas. In the meantime, for those with a calculator handy, US$0.1845 per pill, times five pills per day, times 30 days per month does not equal the US$27.77 monthly price tag that the first example in the RFC claims is the monthly cost. I will cheerfully tell you that this particular error (typo?) is sufficiently small that the difference is not likely to be material to an accountant, but it is nonetheless actually incorrect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure will change it to "27.68". It was still very much "about" 27.77. Anyone was free to change it to 27.68 if that was actually the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, please don't change it, because then we aren't representing what's been in the articles for years. Please just accept that, yes, there are some statements that are actually "incorrect", and go remove the {{dubious}} tag that someone re-inserted on your behalf.
- It would actually be more surprising if we'd managed to make 500+ manual calculations and didn't end up with a few errors along the way. If we're lucky, then they'll all be as immaterial as this one. If an editor claims to be shocked at the idea that there might be some errors in Wikipedia, well, the fact that there are a few errors is why we all (everyone, on all possible sides of this discussion) want to be re-verifying and improving all of this content. And since we need to re-check all of the numbers to find those errors anyway, we might as well make any other changes the community advises at the same time. There's no point in making a nine-cent correction if they tell us to round that price off to the nearest dollar anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing If the only thing that was being requested was greater consistency in calculations of the approximates that we are currently providing than we would not be here. It has already been brought up that I have used 30 days for a month (and sometime even 28 days for a month) rather than the RIGHT answer of 31. I would be happy to change all the months to 31 day ones (or even use 365.2422/12) but I imagine we all know that that will not solve this issue.
- If this discussion was actually about how best to provide estimates of costs of essential medications in low and middle income countries, we I am sure could come to a compromise. If there are people here wanting to discuss that I am still interested in doing so. But I do not think this is everyone's goal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, honestly the dispute has never been about how many days are in a month (though 28 vs 30 does seem to be an industry problem, and I don't know why you might think 31 is the "RIGHT" answer). You keep using the word "approximates" as in "the approximates that we are currently providing" and saying our readers are intelligent to know they are only accurate to some magnitude 4 level of approximation. The problem is you simply can't give a monetary value accurate to dollars and cents like "US$27.77" and stick "about" in front of it and expect readers to think "well what they mean is it is more than $5 and less than $100". The prices are "incorrect" on many levels, ranging from journalistic practice, statistical rules on claims from raw data through to very basic arithmetic errors. Rounding errors are not the issue. -- Colin°Talk 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- This statement is pushing a specific POV "Many of these are from 2014 or 2015 or are otherwise incorrect"
- First it is implying that 2015 is so out of date that it is "incorrect". It is not which can be simple seen by looking at the consistency of prices of essential medicines over the 10 years of data provided.
- Second it is implying that unless an estimate is present to some large number of significant figures that it is incorrect. Ie that we cannot have estimates (despite the fact that everything within medicine is an estimate for the patient in front you and most much less accurate than this one). Should we shorten these estimates to the nearest two figures to make the fact that these are estimates clearer? Sure would be happy to do so.
- But once again I am not sure this is issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure will change it to "27.68". It was still very much "about" 27.77. Anyone was free to change it to 27.68 if that was actually the issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
James (can someone else please ping him) you are upset about the "Many of these are from 2014 or 2015 or are otherwise incorrect". I am also upset that DDD is not currently being described as "a technical drug use metric" which is also a definition from WHO, and very much gets to the heart of its primary purpose. Instead we use a definition which, without supporting explanation, looks like the definition of average Prescribed daily dose or Recorded Daily Dose, and it very much is not. So I propose a compromise. If you will accept changing:
the defined daily dose ("the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults"; not necessarily the dose any person takes, especially when the same drug is prescribed for multiple medical conditions).
to
the defined daily dose (a technical drug use metric)
Then I'll not complain if "Many of these are from 2014 or 2015 or are otherwise incorrect" gets dropped. Our readers can work that much out for themselves. Obviously WhatamIdoing and others may have their own opinion on acceptable compromises. -- Colin°Talk 10:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Mistakes
The RFC assertion that many prices are "incorrect" has been challenged by Doc James and AlmostFrancis. Of course, IMO the prices are incorrect on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. But apparently even high-school rules of statistics are open to question on WP:MED so I'll stick to listing below mistakes of basic maths or where unsourced statements about "dose" are clearly wrong per reliable sources. And I'll stick to using the same methodology wrt cost per DDD that James has used (which itself is contestable). I've only picked 6 examples from the 31 drugs with the letter A that cite MSH (322 drugs total). So that's one in five with clear mistakes:
- Aciclovir: "The wholesale cost as of 2014 to 2016 was between US$0.03 and US$0.12 for a typical dose by mouth."
- This is a bit confusing as it doesn't say "developing world", gives a range of dates, and doesn't say what it is treating. It is clear those prices correspond exactly to the $0.0300 and $0.1183 unit price for a 400mg tablet in 2014 alone. The DDD is 4000mg (herpes zoster). According to Drugs.com, the adult treatment is 800mg five times a day for 7 to 10 days (BNF agrees). So we have quoted the price for one tablet, yet patients take two in each dose. The cited source does not supply a "typical dose" so the statement is unsourced as well as wrong.
- Activated charcoal (medication): "The wholesale costs in the developing world is between US$0.46 and US$0.86 per dose."
- The cited ACT/DDD of activated charcoal is 5g for "treatment of common diarrhea", and the price given corresponds with taking 40 (!) of these tiny black 125mg tablets to reach a 5g daily dose. I can't find a reliable source recommending activated charcoal for common diarrhea but some websites suggest this is a folk remedy in some countries and that one would consume tablets in multiple doses throughout the day up to 5g in a day. There's no way someone is swallowing 40 tablets in one go, so the text should say "per day" rather than "per dose". The article also needs to explain that this daily dose is for common diarrhea, because the lead is all about treatment of poisoning. The emergency room treatment of poisons uses significantly higher doses (e.g. 25 - 100g, minimum 25g) and more likely a liquid suspension of 25g or 50g rather than fiddly little 125mg tablets. The price per dose here is not only wrong but the unspecified treatment indication very misleading.
- Albendazole: "The wholesale cost in the developing world is between 0.01 and US$0.06 per dose."
- The price given corresponds to one 200mg tablet. The drug treats lots of different parasitic worm infestations and the dose and frequency/duration varies on indication. The DDD is 400mg for "the treatment of different nematode infections e.g. ascariasis (roundworm) and hookworm infections" and indeed the treatment dose for ascariasis and hookworm infections is a single 400mg dose, and nearly all other infections in adults require 400mg doses. So the article has given the price per 200mg tablet, not per 400mg dose. The cited source does not supply a "dose" figure so the statement is unsourced as well as wrong.
- Allopurinol: "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.81–3.42 per month"
- The price here corresponds to a 300mg tablet taken once daily and cites a record with no suppliers (4 buyers). The DDD is 400mg (for gout) which doesn't divide by 300mg. This is a good case where the DDD and the tablet size cited does not permit simple maths. Drugs.com say the dose is initially 100mg and goes to 200-300 for mild gout and 400 to 600 in divided doses for moderately severe gout, with a maximum of 800mg per day. The tablet strength we should have cited is the 100mg tablet which has 5 suppliers (and 4 buyers). The 100mg tablet has far more likely usage and hence actually has suppliers, so we've cited the wrong record. If that record had been used, the price per month would be "US$1.39 to $12.50", which is considerably different to the article text. Original research leads to random numbers.
- Artemether/lumefantrine: ""The wholesale cost in the developing world is between US$0.10 and US$1.2 per day as of 2014"
- The price here is "per day" and the source record has no DDD. So any statement (OR or otherwise) of a daily cost is unsourced. It is hard to come up with the numbers from the source. The $1.2 would appear to be 4 times $0.2997 dearest tablet price, but 4 times $0.0120 cheapest tablet price is only $0.048, not $0.10. Drugs.com recommend "4 tablets as single initial dose, followed by 4 tablets after 8 hours, and then 4 tablets twice a day (morning and evening) for the following 2 days (total course: 24 tablets)". And BNF recommend "Initially 4 tablets, followed by 4 tablets for 5 doses each given at 8, 24, 36, 48 and 60 hours (total 24 tablets over 60 hours)". So 4 tablets is one dose and total treatment is 24 tablets over three days. A cost "per day" might then be 8 tablets, which would make the $0.10 minimum value correct, but not the maximum. We've got the dose and daily dose confused and regardless, this is a short treatment course of 3 days so a daily dose is inappropriate. -- Colin°Talk 14:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aspirin: "As of 2014, the wholesale cost in the developing world is US$0.002 to US$0.025 per dose."
- The price here corresponds to a single 300mg tablet citing a record with ATC Code for "Analgesics". Most reliable sources say that for pain relief, the dose is "1 to 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours as needed", though the BNF permits 1 to 3 tablets up to a max of 4g per day. The DDD is 3g which corresponds to 10 tablets and minimum 4-hourly intervals would only permit 6 doses per day. There really is no one "dose" for aspirin for pain relief but if the DDD is a guide (and James says it is) then one tablet per dose is insufficient and two tablets would be a typical dose. For this common medicine (as with ibuprofen and paracetamol) saying "dose" is ambiguous for our readers. As an aside, all the suppliers offer the tablet at 0.5 cents or less. The 2.5 cent upper price comes from a single buyer record -- this is an outlier price. The source (and WHO) recommend using the median supplier price, to avoid outliers.
-- Colin°Talk 18:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't seen this mentioned here before but the IMPPG for diazepam gives the DDD as "10 Mg" (as in megagram, a.k.a "metric ton") when it's surely 10mg (milligram) [16] [17]. I hope no one is reading the IMPPG page to figure out how much valium they can safely take in a day. A hapless Wikipedia editor doing the straight math ($0.01 USD per tablet times one billion tablets per day) will come up with "In Peru, diazepam costs one million dollars per day as of 2015". – Levivich 19:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Diazepam: "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$0.01 per dose as of 2014."
- As always with a "per dose" price for the developing world, it is unsourced as the IMPPG does not define a "dose", and anyone who knows anything about diazepam and its multiple uses knows fully that there is no One Dose for diazepam. The DDD/ATC Code at the IMPGG is N05BA01 and that is for treating anxiety. Our article does not state "anxiety" as the indication for that dose, and it does matter. Drugs.com tell us the "Usual Adult Dose for Anxiety: ORAL: 2 to 10 mg orally 2 to 4 times a day", and BNF says "2 mg 3 times a day, then increased if necessary to 15–30 mg daily in divided doses". You can see from the latter and the algorithm at Defined daily dose article, how WHO came up with 10mg a day, which is taken in divided doses (in the UK there are 2mg, 5mg and 10mg tablets available). So taking a 10mg tablet 3 times a day is very much at the extreme end of the scale, which is why IMPPG does not list any suppliers. The drug in that tablet size is not generally available in the developing world. They do list the 5mg tablet with 8 suppliers and 5 buyers. In that case the article text would be "$0.006 to $0.036 per dose". The unsourced "dose" was badly chosen by original research and the result of permitting original research is random numbers. Btw, updating the record to 2015 would result in text "$0.003 to $0.030": the lower unit price is 2 x cheaper after just one year. -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Out of date
The original RFC assertion that many prices are "out of date" and even now mentioning they are from 2014/2015 has been challenged as biased by Doc James and AlmostFrancis. I have compared the unit prices in the MSH price guide cited for 2014 and compared with 2009, five years previously. This can give us an indication perhaps of how much prices change in five years since 2014 data. As above, I'm just looking at 31 drugs starting with the letter 'A'.
- For aciclovir, albendazole, amiodarone, amitriptyline, artemether and azithromycin the minimum price has doubled or more, whereas for abacavir and atazanavir it has halved or more.
- For acetazolamide, amiodarone, amitriptyline, ampicillin, artemether, artesunate, aspirin, atropine and azithromycin the maximum price has doubled or more, whereas for abacavir, anastrozole, artemether+lumefantrine, asparaginase, atazanavir and atracurium besilate it has halved or more.
- In particular
- The minimum price of artemether is 42 times cheaper and the maximum price 8 times cheaper in 2014 vs 2009
- The minimum price of artemether+lumefantrine is 10 times cheaper in 2014 vs 2009
- The maximum price of abacavir is 14 times cheaper in 2014 vs 2009
So that's 50% (16 out of 31) of drugs where one of the price range figures has doubled or more, or halved or more at a five year interval. And three drugs with extraordinary shifts. Us Wikipedians should be evidence and sourced-based in our assertions and claims. Disagreeing with a statement because it doesn't suit one's case is not enough. -- Colin°Talk 18:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I have also compared the prices for the following year (or in a few cases, the previous year as there was no following year data).
- For artemether+lumefantrine the minimum price has doubled or ore, whereas for artemether and atracurium besilate the minimum price has halved or more.
- For abacavir, aspirin, atropine the maximum price has doubled or more, whereas for allopurinol, artemether and azithromycin the maximum price has halved or more.
- In particular
- The minimum price of artemether is 15 times cheaper in 2015 vs 2014.
- The maximum price of azithromycin is 8 times cheaper in 2015 vs 2014.
So that's 25% (8 out of 31) of drugs where one of the price range figures has doubled or more, or halved or more, from one year to the next. And two drugs with extraordinary shifts.
In summary, annually we see a quarter of drug prices change by a factor of 2, and over five years we see half of drug prices change by a factor of 2. Some prices will change by huge amounts. We have seen claims that drug prices don't vary that much, and this research shows conclusively that this is untrue. Further, nearly all prices change annually by an amount that makes it hard to justify quoting a price to 4 significant figures. Using the median supplier price where there are three or more suppliers would result in less variation, though that would permit only a small minority of articles to quote "developing world" prices. -- Colin°Talk 13:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
include a side A / side B opinion section at the end of the intro section
Why not include a pro / con statement at the end of the RfC? In the United States these statements come with government voter guides before the election. In my view, the text of the RfC is not easily understandable by anyone who is not already invested in the issue. I question whether this text could inform anyone of the complexity of the issue if they are not already informed. Elsewhere there was wish that the regular players not immediately jump into the discussion in hopes that early voters would post original comments rather than ride in support of the status quo positions.
The people who are already in this discussion have chosen the best identified arguments for presenting their perspective. In conventional debate the various sides put forth their best interpretations. Let's include positions in the RfC because that seems like the conventional way to do this. What reasons are there to not do this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Lane. I think that the pro/con style (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting) would work better for a subsequent RFC on what advice MEDMOS should give, which actually is a matter of opinion (at least partly).
- For this one, the main goal is to see whether people think that this content complies with existing policies. I agree that it may be hard for some editors to get started, but I don't really think that spoon-feeding them a list of what they "should" notice or care about is going to help us gather information about what people actually care about.
- Also, I'm concerned that the lists would not look at all comparable. The "con" side can:
- point out mathematical errors (typos?) in the prices,
- ask why this record was cherry-picked instead of these five others,
- note that the source itself says not to use a third of the entries,
- note the database says if you're going to use anything, then only use this other number (which isn't used in any of them) and only if there are a lot of datapoints (there goes another third of the entries),
- ask why the price in any single country is described as the price in all of the developing world,
- wonder why is there content in the lead that isn't even related to anything mentioned in the body of the article,
- say that the database is a primary source, which PSTS discourages and MEDRS firmly discourages,
- complain that combining the price per pill from this entry with a different source (to determine which of the multiple database entries should be used) with the decision about whether the price is reported per day (for acute conditions) or per month (for chronic conditions) in a calculation used in a fourth source is SYNTH, etc.
- That's not even an exhaustive list of all the problems found. The "pro" side can:
- say that the calculation is modeled on what some reliable sources have used themselves (thus making some editors decide that it's not completely unreasonable, and making others editors reject it as self-admitted original research),
- agree that there are some typos and other problems that should be fixed,
- state an opinion that money is so important to healthcare systems that it deserves to be in the lead even if never mentioned elsewhere in the article, and
- claim that anyone who wants to remove the price that Costa Rica says they paid for that drug in 2014 from the lead of an article is trying to censor Wikipedia and playing into the hands of Big Pharma.
- That's not going to feel like a neutral RFC question, but I really don't think that the "pro" side's argument for these particular statements, as they have been in articles for the last several years is actually any stronger than that. The thing I want to learn is not whether editors can go down a checklist of someone else's concerns and adopt them all "per others". I want to learn whether they are more concerned about LEAD than NOR, or the other way around (or maybe something else), and whether they can agree upon a reasonable way to use this database (which I value, even though we probably should plan to remove all of it by 2025 if they don't start updating it again).
- OTOH, I think that for the more opinion-oriented question of what we should say, the views are more equally balanced: "You know, most of the time, this just isn't going to work, or it's going to be too weirdly limited and specific to go in the lead, and there's this long list of mistakes that you might be tempted to make" vs "Sure, we can't do everything, but we can do a lot more than nothing, especially for historical prices and high-priced drugs, etc., and let's just get some practical advice down about how to avoid errors." I think that's the place for the pro/con approach.
- Maybe we should advertise the RFC at some research- or statistics-oriented pages. Also, NORN folks probably have pretty well developed views about how many numbers you can multiply before you've exceeded CALC's range, so a specific invitation to them might help. We could even ask for interested editors on the research mailing list. They understand stats and databases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Everything you say is correct and right to say. For me though, this is not the conversation I would have in discussing how to include price information in Wikipedia. The RfC has a question formulated and the way I interpret that question, I would put different weight on pros, cons, and issues other than these. I wonder how mixed the response will be at the RfC, and how many ways people will interpret the question, and how we are to make sense of conclusions with so much variation in what people identify as the premises. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm hoping for mixed responses, explained in detail and with references to why they find others' views compelling or insufficient. Merely voting "good" or "bad" won't give me as much information as I want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Everything you say is correct and right to say. For me though, this is not the conversation I would have in discussing how to include price information in Wikipedia. The RfC has a question formulated and the way I interpret that question, I would put different weight on pros, cons, and issues other than these. I wonder how mixed the response will be at the RfC, and how many ways people will interpret the question, and how we are to make sense of conclusions with so much variation in what people identify as the premises. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Questions not Opinions
Ian_Furst and Bluerasberry, please carefully read WAID's carefully crafted RFC and also her recommended approach at the top of this ready-stead-go section. She's explicitly asking for new voices, new thoughts and for them to be based on looking at a small set of representative examples of article text using one database source. What I believe she isn't looking for is a dump of James and Colin's opinions and then for the community to discuss our opinions, biased on their impression of whoever may or not be a World Expert on Healthcare Information Sharing :-)!
I don't believe the RFC is hard to understand:
Main question:
Do you think that the content in the examples above complies with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, due weight, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, and how to write a lead section?
Our policies require simply that an intelligent non-expert reader be able to look at our article text and look at the source given (and only that source) and determine that the article text is supported by the source. It is a little more work for a reader to determine WP:WEIGHT for that requires one to invest in reading the body of literature on a topic, but it isn't rocket science to consider if choosing one particular (unspecified) strength and formulation of the drug and one (unspecified) indication in order to quote a treatment price is reasonable or not. Our lead guideline also gives advice on contents of the lead vs body. We really really aren't asking folk to have to read all this lengthy debate. Only to examine as you would any wikipedia article and source. Rather than opinions, perhaps I could offer some questions?
- Cost
- Is the source giving a "wholesale cost"? What do I understand by that term? Is there one such or many?
- What countries do we even include in our definition of "cost in the developing world"? Are they really all paying the same price?
- Does the source claim this is "the cost in the developing world"? If not, is our claim a reasonable one? For all/most/some drugs?
- Does the source contain the number in the article (e.g. US$27.77). If not, how was that obtained from this source? Is that reasonable per WP:OR?
- Is the "wholesale cost in the developing world" representative of the cost that patients in the developing world actually have to pay (WHO/HAI have lots of studies on drug availability and affordability).
- Treatment
- Does the source give a treatment cost "per month"? If not then?
- What indication is that treatment cost for, particularly if the drug is used for many indications?
- What is "Defined daily dose". Do your own research. What does the source say about it (it does) and what does WHO say about it (they have strong opinions)?
- Does the source use DDD to give a treatment cost? If not, should we?
- If the price is claimed to be based on the most common indication, does the source indicate what that is?
- Is it reasonable to pick one (unspecified) indication?
- What does "per dose" mean? A dictionary definition would be the amount taken in one go.
- Does the source indicate the "dose"? Remember that patients might take their dose once or twice a day per doctor's prescription, and especially this may vary depending on whether the pill is standard or extended release aka sustained release. Is it clear to our readers then how this "does" relates to treatment costs?
- Often the dose is one tablet but not always (think of those two ibuprofen or paracetamol tablets you take for a headache). How did the writer pick what dose to claim a price for? Is that reasonable?
- If the DDD is not necessarily an amount on any prescription (e.g. a mathematical midpoint between initial and max possible dose) what do we do if that doesn't divide into one or two tablets?
- Data set
- If the source lists multiple strengths and formulations, why does this source link to just one? Is that reasonable?
- If the source, which samples 35 suppliers, some of whom are large and some small, has no supplier data at all for a particular pill, should we be concerned? About 30% of our uses of this source point to records that lack any suppliers offering to sell.
- The source explicitly states that "Buyer" prices should not be used for an international reference price. 30% of our uses totally rely on Buyer prices and a large number of the rest use the Buyer price as the higher price in a range. Is that reasonable?
- The WHO state that how representative the median supplier price is of being an international reference price depends on having a good number of suppliers listed. 60% of our uses have 0, 1 or 2 suppliers quoting, rather than many. Is our source generally reliable then, or only occasionally?
- The 10mg diazepam pill we cite has no suppliers, so we give a price based on two buyers. The 5mg diazepam pill we didn't cite has eight suppliers. Is that acceptable?
- Statistics
- The source recommends taking the median supplier price, yet we often quote the lowest and highest price among suppliers and buyers. Is that reasonable?
- When we say the cost is "about US$0.07 to US$0.24 per day" what does this range mean? Is $0.07 the cheapest price per day for any form of the drug and for the whole "developing world", or just the min-max of a set of records in a certain database for one particular strength of tablets?
- Is it statistically wise to give a min/max range rather than median, which is what the source recommends? Do you think the max in particular is prone to being an outlier?
- How does min/max, each based on only one supplier or buyer price, work wrt WP:WEIGHT?
- Is it mathematically sensible to say "about US$27.77"?
- Variability
- The developing world price is from 2014 (92% are) or 2015. Is that reasonable in 2020?
- How much does the price vary from year to year. Do your own research. Look at low, median and high prices.
- Is that price more likely to vary if we quote low-high range vs median price?
- Can we related to a price in dollars for "the developing world" when income level may vary from country to country? In other words, could we consider if the drug is "affordable in the developing world" based on this cost value?
- Is the cost in local currency likely to vary vs price in dollars in developing world currencies?
- Improvement
- Should we restrict use of this source to only certain drugs that have "representative" data per WHO (e.g. ones with 3 or more suppliers)?
- Should we rephrase the statement to be a more literal statement of the source, without expanded claims or calculations or OR?
- Should we list all the strengths and formulations in the source? If not, how do we pick one per policy on WP:WEIGHT?
- Is it even worth "improving" text that is based on a source that is five-years-old, was previously updated annually, but has not been updated since 2015 data?
- Is there any other source of data for cost in the developing world that could be better?
Perhaps you can think of your own. They aren't hard questions, or ones that require hours of study or a degree in medicine. -- Colin°Talk 20:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
(BTW I'm not wanting answers to those questions here. That's the point of the RFC.) -- Colin°Talk 20:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- All of these are good and relevant questions. It is challenging for me to understand how you can demonstrate and express this much insight and understanding of what we all see as important, and then come to such a different conclusion. I imagined that if we agreed on the basics, then agreed at the next level of complexity, and so on, then when we reached the end we would have a similar conclusion.
- The biggest objection that I have to what you say is with something at the beginning. The RfC question has great emphasis on the lead section, which I think is a distraction. Price information could be anywhere, like in the infobox from Wikidata, and not only in the lead. I do think that it is important to have in the lead, but by framing the question as whether content should be in the lead, that still leaves an open question about keeping content in the body if not the lead. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry I urge you to strike the disparaging portion of your comment above, implying a lack of insight based on something I can't decipher in your writing. Please refrain from commenting on the contributor, and comment on the content. As to "emphasis on the lead", please reread (lead is one part of the question, which mentions four policies, independently from the lead guideline).
Do you think that the content in the examples above complies with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, due weight, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, and how to write a lead section?
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I apologize for my failure to understand your comment, and I will preemptively offer an apology now for my wrongdoing even though right now I do not understand what I did or what you see. I would talk more if you wished to continue. I would apologize more directly and retract any inappropriate statement I made, but right now, after re-reading my text, I am unaware of any error. Can you say which part of what I wrote you interpret as disparaging?
- I did not intend to disparage anyone and am unable to recognize what I said that you interpret as disparaging.
- I was complimenting Colin's insight and understanding, which recognize and I sincerely respect, and only said that despite his clear communication I personally fail to understand how we see differently. It is no failure of anyone but myself if I lack understanding.
- Yes, I confirm, the base RfC question seems mostly irrelevant to me in the context of this discussion. It is not the question I would ask to make a policy decision, but I respect the effort you have put into developing the conversation. I respect the attempt to develop a question but I do feel that this RfC has a basis in some philosophy and understanding which is unknown to me. To me, it seems obvious that this content meets Wikipedia standards for verifiability, weight, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, and if not the lead section then what a Wikipedia article should include. The RfC question is heavy though and I cannot predict how commentators will understand this complex issue or respond to the huge amount of context and conversation around this question. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry I urge you to strike the disparaging portion of your comment above, implying a lack of insight based on something I can't decipher in your writing. Please refrain from commenting on the contributor, and comment on the content. As to "emphasis on the lead", please reread (lead is one part of the question, which mentions four policies, independently from the lead guideline).
A simple version
I feel the drafts are too long and complicated to get meaningful input from a broad range of editors via an RfC, so I've created a very simple version for consideration: User:Levivich/Drug prices RfC draft 3. – Levivich 20:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- IMO the problem with drug prices isn't trivial and requires more than a short response to a simple yes/no question, which is quite likely to be responded by emotive advocacy and generalised statements about how on earth anyone might think that an organisation like MSH could not possibly be a reliable source of the first order. It does need readers to invest a little bit of time, and to do some research, but also it really doesn't require subject knowledge or to have read all the opinions expressed so far. There are some very very basic source -> text issues with what is being done that are a general problem with drug prices and the kinds of sources being used. These should really be quite obvious to any experienced Wikipedian. The original research calculation using DDD is probably only complex if you want to consider if that is a reasonable calculation for a researcher to do. Considering if it is "original research" for a Wikipedian is an altogether more trivial question, because all the components you need to work it out are not actually present in the source (and it is even worse for Drugs.com, NADAC and BNF, which don't even include the DDD). I'd rather we get on with trying an RFC than with endlessly discussing alternative variants. That's my 2p. -- Colin°Talk 21:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich, I agree with the simplicity, but at AN, someone is complaining that the long version is already not spoon-feeding enough information to editors, so I'm not sure that providing no information would be accepted.
- Also, I think that the real question is "Can you use it in this way?" (e.g., to calculate a monthly cost rather than the per-pill cost stated in the database entry) rather than "Can you use it at all?". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I support this as a fair solution that gets to the heart of the dispute. Editors can add what information they think is necessary in the discussion where it belongs. If absolutely necessary let both sides craft a short introductory statement before it goes liveAlmostFrancis (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that "Can you use this general category of source for some yet-to-be-specified way?" is the heart of the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Who are you quoting? It certainly isn't me or the OP's link.22:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)AlmostFrancis (talk)
- I don't think that "Can you use this general category of source for some yet-to-be-specified way?" is the heart of the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel like this RfC has to singlehandedly solve the problem with drug prices
. It doesn't have to be The RfC to End All RfCs, it doesn't have to be One RfC To Rule Them All. It does have to be digestible by dozens of editors who know nothing about this. Instead of the heart of the dispute
, pick one important part of the dispute (lungs, brain, really any major organ will do), and resolve that. Then, pick another. Like all good RfCs, it should be phrased in such a way that when it is over, someone can make an edit (or is prohibited from making an edit), and everyone will know that this edit does (or does not) have consensus based on such-and-such RfC. – Levivich 22:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I agree that it's impossible for any single discussion to singlehandedly resolve everything. I think that we need an even smaller question: "Should this drug price database be used to support these statements?"
- The problem with asking about any drug price database is that every database has its own limitations, and our hoped-for "dozens of editors" don't know anything about any of them. It's hard enough for us to get them to think about just one real database. It's very very very easy for editors to blithely assert that of course WP:SOURCESEXIST, so if this drug price database has inconvenient limitations, then that doesn't matter, because surely, somewhere out there in this big world, there will be a drug price database that doesn't have limits. I know editors will say this, and if you want proof, you need not look any further than my own comments in the last big RFC on this subject. I still believe that it will be true, but in the meantime, the problem is that I've got a sentence that reports the price from a single supplier, serving a single middle-sized African country, as "the price in the developing world". I don't think that a vague question helps us identify that problem.
- The problem with not specifying how these databases should get used is that we basically know the answer to the question you suggested. It is pretty much answered in the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ: "Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual." Policy already says that databases can be used as sources ...within some limits. What we need to understand is what those limits are. Is it okay to represent a single supplier, serving about 1% of the world, as being the entire developing world? If not, how many data points, or what size of an organization, do we need before we can generalize from the dataset to LMICs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Simple is good, but this seems too simple, too general. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I added to draft 3 additional options 3B ("Should articles state wholesale prices in the developing world, cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide?") and 3C ("Should articles state any pricing information cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide?") I also added some additional examples. – Levivich 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Since the database only provides information about wholesale pricing in LMICs, there is little practical difference between those two questions.
- However, both questions still ignore the problem of WP:RSCONTEXT. You're still effectively asking whether the source should be banned. That's not the right question. The right question is about how you use the source. Do you use the source to say "According to the IMPPG, the government of Costa Rica reported paying this average wholesale unit price per pill during that year"? It's IMO reliable for that. Do you use the source to say "The price in LMICs was n"? It's IMO not reliable for that. The question you're asking doesn't elicit that response. We don't need voters to say "Yes, you can use it (and don't bother me with the details like whether the source is talking about one country or more than half the world)" or "No, put it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated". Both of those are the wrong answer.
- (Also, seven examples is too many. The previous examples were chosen [by other people, through discussion] to cover the common cases: a simple record with just a single data point, a record with a lot of data points, and a record with no [highly recommended] supplier data points [like about a third of the cited records]. They also show the range of handling, e.g., costs per pill vs per day vs per month.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I added to draft 3 additional options 3B ("Should articles state wholesale prices in the developing world, cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide?") and 3C ("Should articles state any pricing information cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide?") I also added some additional examples. – Levivich 00:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Simple is good, but this seems too simple, too general. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(sigh). Levivich, I don't think it is helpful at this stage of a multi-month discussion on formulating the RFC, to turn back the clock and basically start again. The RFC proposed by WAID is the result of this process. We all had a chance a month a go to propose "our RFC question" and the current text came about from thinking about and discussing that for a long time. Let's not begin 2020 with "I want my question" "No, I want my question". I'm sure everyone has an opinion how they'd do it if they had their way, but please respect the process we have all been through and the result of that process is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. -- Colin°Talk 10:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe draft 3D will stand out. – Levivich 20:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Eight multiple-choice questions is really hard to handle on wiki. You'll normally get responses to the first two, and most people give up after that.
- I think you covered most of it. You missed the one that would look like this, though: The median wholesale price for carbemezapine in 2015 was US$0.1302,[18] US$0.1392,[19], US$0.0202,[20] and also US$0.0185 per tablet.[21] And the issue of whether it should be in the lead is missing, too. So that's at least 10 questions. I don't see that working well on wiki.
- Colin is correct that the original "simple" question was proposed (with only a few extra words, mostly links to various policies that respondents should consider) a month ago, and editors rejected it as being too short. User:Isaacl was encouraging the addition of even more detail at WP:AN, just when you were proposing removing all of it. Between the two of you, the feedback is evenly divided on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- These are two different styles of RfCs: one seeking general input in order to help develop new proposals, and one seeking to answer specific questions. I'm not necessarily advocating for more detail in an RfC of the first type; I suggested a different way of framing the request for feedback (*), which may not result in a net gain of detail from the current version. That being said, I appreciate that others don't agree. I hope that the RfC in its current form is successful in collecting meaningful input. However even in a worst case scenario, all it means is will take longer to establish a consensus view, which isn't the end of the world.
- (*) Obviously I wouldn't characterize my suggestion as spoon-feeding, but I understand why others may do so. isaacl (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking pretty good. Wouldn't mind if it was a mix of version c and d though. C to frame the overall question and d to get the specifics. If editors only answer some of the questions then that is fine. We are trying to find consensus not create it. I would also keep it to no more than 5 examples. The question on the lead can wait. AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, the latest RFC is really doing what Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion recommends against. You've opened up 8 polls each with 2 to 6 candidates and asked people to vote on them. That's exactly the wrong approach. What if people don't like any of the candidates you came up with, or start trying to add candidates during the RFC, and with 8 polls that's 8 questions for people to discuss whether they are reasonable or not. Some of the questions aren't ones we are worried about just now (rounding -- the issue of what James calls "approximates" is much bigger than whether it is 2 or 4 decimal places) and we really can't ask about "labels" since the label totally depends on the available sources. More reasonable to criticise the not-infrequent use of a unspecified "cost" or juxtaposing wholesale with retail cost, or juxtaposing "per dose" with "per treatment" costs, etc, etc. Wrt time period, not all drugs have a DDD and not all drugs are used regularly or even for as long as a month (some are given just once, or just for a week). There is some inconsistency in using "per dose" where a daily or monthly cost could be used, and I agree it would be nice to be consistent about whether we give daily or monthly costs for long-term therapy, but that's a pretty minor issue that doesn't need community RFC and will always need some per-drug exceptions. In short, the questions you ask, are really actually the sort of opinions we hope to get out of WAID's RFC, but WAID's doesn't straightjacket people into only discussing those opinions. -- Colin°Talk 11:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Let me ask you this: what lessons if any have we learned from the recent MEDLEAD RFC that we are applying to this proposed RFC? – Levivich 17:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the "more reasonable" point of criticism is the "not-infrequent use of a unspecified 'cost' or juxtaposing wholesale with retail cost, or juxtaposing 'per dose' with 'per treatment' costs, etc," then how about starting with an RfC narrowly focused on this aspect? Structuring feedback isn't straightjacketing, because this is an ongoing process. Let the minor issues as you put it wait, and start with some key sticking points. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Leviv, isaacl, yes I can answer both. The recent lead RFC started really badly. It asked a yes/no question "Should WP:MEDLEAD be in sync with WP:LEAD" which frankly nobody really understood. Some complained that the question was leading, so folk wasted time arguing about the question. Sandy said we weren't in sync but should be. James claimed we already were in sync. So the question didn't actually resolve the problem, in the minds of two people with polar opposite POV. Votes followed in a "per XXX" fashion and it all got a mess. Do you understand the question or the votes? The RFC only started making progress once folk stopped trying to score votes and oppose each other, and started discussing. Isaacl, this "simple RFC" isn't "structuring feedback" but is putting words in peoples mouths and expecting them to be happy with one of the candidate options as a response to a question they aren't asking. Instead we want folk to think for themselves and express themselves in ways you or I can't imagine right now. Since when did Wikipedia ever do anything around: you can have the following five options, pick one? How is that consensus-forming? The RFC from WAID gets people discussing, and hopefully we can move towards a consensus.
- Look at your question 2. The source has 12 suppliers (good) and WHO tell us we should use the median of suppliers (and need many such to be "representative") as an "international reference price". So I could say "The MSH International Medical Products Price Guide has $0.0185 as the median supplier price for 200 mg tablets of carbamazpine in 2015" or perhaps "The international reference price in the developing world for carbamazpine 200mg tablets in 2015 was $0.0185" if we agree with the WHO. But that only works for that dose of carbamazpine, and we may have WEIGHT problems with that. And, for crying out loud, if 50% of drug prices change by a factor of two after 5 years, why are we in 2020 even using a source that stopped being updated in 2015! Another strength or another drug may not have enough (or any) suppliers and so we should say nothing, even though 60% of the time our articles do. I'm not given that option on question 2. Further, nobody is suggesting that for this record, with a generous number of suppliers, that we need only give a buyer price for the Peruvian government. Indeed, the source itself tells us not to use buyer prices. And it is a separate argument whether the price of a drug in Peru carries any weight in the lead of an article. Consider candidate A "No information must be included beyond the price information. : carbamazepine costs $0.0189 USD per tablet". Nobody at all has suggested that, so why waste our time on it?
- Honestly, Levivich, there are so so many problems with the questions and candidates in this RFC, that it is most likely to just get Wikipedians criticising the questions and candidate options rather than considering the issue with drug prices in articles. That would be a huge waste of time, lead to no conclusion other than how not to do an RFC, and we return to the status quo with hundreds of incorrect and misleading prices in our drug articles. Which is the result some people want, but I don't think that's the result you want. -- Colin°Talk 19:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you compare the list of 24 editors who edited the MEDLEAD RFC [22] with the top editors of this page (WT:MEDMOS) [23], the top editors of WT:MED [24] (large page), and the WPMED members list [25], you'll see that the MEDLEAD RFC attracted discussion mostly among the same editors who have been discussing these issues for a long time now. Almost all "outside" editors made one edit, some of which, as you point out, were along the lines of "reject RFC". I submit to you that it's possible that everybody on this website who wants to engage in an in-depth discussion of the IMPPG and how it can be used, is already here engaging in said discussion. I don't think you're going to get a lot of people to volunteer their time to dissect in detail the IMPPG and how it may or may not be used in accordance with our numerous policies. I think some basic questions should be put to the community: (1) should our drug articles have any prices, at all, from anywhere? A basic question. (2) Is IMPPG a reliable source for anything? Another basic question. If these questions come back "no", it would make all other questions moot. That said, there is little harm in running the proposed "RFC #1" other than that I predict it'll end up just like the recent MEDLEAD RFC, and we will be back here in a month, having made little progress on the issue of prices. I guess there's only one way to find out. – Levivich 19:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "RFC #1"? -- Colin°Talk 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. – Levivich 20:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Glad to hear it. Well I remain optimistic that that RFC will attract outside comment. I don't think the "basic question" is basic at all. Of course the IMPPG is a reliable source for some things: the WHO/Health Action International Project on Medicine Prices and Availability made use of it for a core set of 14 up to 50 drugs at one formulation for one treatment condition. Though it seems that project is historical and so perhaps the IMPPG is now too. Whether the price of a particular tablet in 2015 has any WEIGHT in 2020 is another question, and the examination of 5-year prices I did above suggest the answer is no. Can we please focus on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices and seek admin approval for moving forward. -- Colin°Talk 20:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. – Levivich 20:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "RFC #1"? -- Colin°Talk 20:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I do not support Levivich's RfC draft. It doesn't focus on the key issue you raised. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Isaacl, so for my clarity then do you support any current RfC formulation? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe in consensus and in letting those who are putting in the effort to decide how they want to structure discussions to gather information. So if the current draft RfC based on WhatamIdoing's initial draft is the one that has the most support (if not universal), that's great! If for whatever reason it doesn't work out as desired, then something else can be tried. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Isaacl, so for my clarity then do you support any current RfC formulation? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think if you compare the list of 24 editors who edited the MEDLEAD RFC [22] with the top editors of this page (WT:MEDMOS) [23], the top editors of WT:MED [24] (large page), and the WPMED members list [25], you'll see that the MEDLEAD RFC attracted discussion mostly among the same editors who have been discussing these issues for a long time now. Almost all "outside" editors made one edit, some of which, as you point out, were along the lines of "reject RFC". I submit to you that it's possible that everybody on this website who wants to engage in an in-depth discussion of the IMPPG and how it can be used, is already here engaging in said discussion. I don't think you're going to get a lot of people to volunteer their time to dissect in detail the IMPPG and how it may or may not be used in accordance with our numerous policies. I think some basic questions should be put to the community: (1) should our drug articles have any prices, at all, from anywhere? A basic question. (2) Is IMPPG a reliable source for anything? Another basic question. If these questions come back "no", it would make all other questions moot. That said, there is little harm in running the proposed "RFC #1" other than that I predict it'll end up just like the recent MEDLEAD RFC, and we will be back here in a month, having made little progress on the issue of prices. I guess there's only one way to find out. – Levivich 19:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Levivich, you've put a lot of work into these drafts, but I come back to the simplest possible format put forward so far is the one put together by WAID, and proposed at AN. It is true that editors outside our realm may not engage, but I do not think your drafts spell out to them what they are engaging, or draw them in and promote interest, as WAID's version does. If we complicate too far, we get no feedback. If we simplify too much, we get useless feedback (your comparison to MEDLEAD RFC asking a simple yes/no question). I hope we can get WAID's version moving, so that we can put these source-->text issues behind us and move on to asking the real question of where the community stands overall on NOTPRICE. IF no one engages WAID's RFC, we are at least not further behind, and it is preferable to have people not engage than to have people not understand what they are engaging. I think WAID's version gets to the heart of that matter: how can these sources be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- PS, Levivich you also asked what lessons we can apply to this from the MEDLEAD RFC. The lesson I learned is that some good-faith editors will engage and move towards consensus-building no matter how badly you (I) mess up an RFC, while others will not engage no matter how hard you (I) try, and that will probably also be the case regardless of what a remarkable job WAID did on this RFC. Some will insist we are talking about minor rounding errors or inconsequential mathematical errors, overlooking the 100-fold errors on this page, or the fact that we represent sources as representing the developing world when they represent one data point for one country. You can't please all the people all the time, so all you can do is your best. WAID's version is our best so far. We need to move forward, because we haven't even gotten to the real questions yet. We need to trust that good faith editors will engage with good faith. If they don't, we can all go edit in other areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like I'm going to be the uninvovled sysop to launch the RfC and so it's a good thing I don't really have a horse in this race. If the will is to go with WAID's proposal then I will launch that. However, the whole purpose of this mandated RfC is to try and bring fresh thinking to a dispute WP:MED has been unable to to resolve on its own. For years. So I would just urge real caution and careful thinking over uninvolved serious editors like isaac and Levivch saying "the RfC isn't the best" especially as it seems (I think) that AlmostFrancis and DocJames also are preferring this line of RfC formulation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- If you do launch, I hope you can call attention to WAID's pleas at the top of this section for certain behaviors from well known WPMED editors, since we cannot be sure who all has read what on this page. Perhaps repeat WAID's post, and ping the world pre-launch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever the relative advantage of WAID's RFC over Levivich it is a non starter to launch a RFC that is not Neutral. Until Colin's original research links are removed from the RFC header and the content that is based on them removed that RFC will not be neutral. Are you really arguing Barkeep, that a RFC can be neutral if one side of the dispute gets to add their research to the lead. If the background section is removed from WAID's draft and the second of Colin's links removed, I think a neutral presentation could be worked out as long as the bludgeoning is kept to a minimum. If it goes live now I suspect it will be the same case as the lead rfc where the discussion goes nowhere because the RFC is seen as invalid. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, have you proposed a revised version that addresses the problems you're seeing for consideration by others? If so I apologize for having missed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- No apology necessary. This conversation has been bludgeoned to death and it is understandable to have missed input from others. I first recommend uniting and wordsmithing Levivich's option C and D. Their RFC is neutral and any input that involved parties wish to add can be done in the discussion where opinion and original research belongs. Otherwise stripping out the POV from WAID's could be done except they seem intent on keeping in the original research and their own opinions in the lead.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that "Colin's original research links" in "the RFC header" means the "link" (singular) to User:Colin/MSHData, which contains a table with basic statistics about how many buyers and suppliers are available in each of the already-cited database entries on wiki. Policy geeks know that NOR only applies to the mainspace, of course, but if someone believes that a link to that information will somehow make their own position unpopular with others – well, I congratulate them on still being optimistic that anyone will even click on the link, but as far as I'm concerned, it could be moved to another section. It just made more sense to me to put that link, which is about the source, in the section about the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hate to correct you again so soon after the last time, but no there are two links to Colin's research in your RFC. If you keep going down you will see another one. I am surprised you missed it since you complained about me reverting that it was dubious and used it as a source for background text. Do you see it now? If it helps just search for "User:Colin/ExistingPrices". Do you not think that letting one side of a debate add links to their own subpages might just possibly prejudice the debate? AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are two links. Calling them "Original research" is unfair and inappropriate. The first User:Colin/ExistingPrices is an extract of all the price statements on 530 drug articles, which were selected by an automatic process based on references/links. That represents a huge amount of work, almost exclusively by Doc James, and if he is proud and defensive of his work on Wikipedia, he should have no problem with showing them off to everyone. Perhaps people will look at them and be astounded. To hide that link would rather suggest one is ashamed of them. The only "original research" going on on that page is the wiki article text, ha ha.
- The second User:Colin/MSHData is again an automatic extract of all 320 drug articles that link to the MSH price guide. The values on that page are just raw facts, numbers that are easily verifiable. If folk want, I can remove the comment about "the WHO/HAI price survey methodology", though it is true. If the MSH data indicated that most of our cited tablets and vials have lots of suppliers and only one formulation, then I'm sure you and James would be happy to show that off. Wanting to hide that link suggests you are trying to suppress facts. Suppressing inconvenient facts is not neutrality.
- WAID's RFC is neutral and gives a fair introduction to the topic for contributors. All I'm seeing from AlmostFrancis is a smear against any facts being included in the RFC at all. I suppose then the first word anyone will read is Doc James telling us that anyone wanting to remove prices is collaborating with Big Pharma, who want to suppress prices, which is killing people, patients want know the prices of drugs, Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED and MSH Price Guide is a Reliable Source. I don't think that is an acceptable alternative at all. -- Colin°Talk 08:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- mshpriceguide.org now redirects to what looks like a random URL with the message "Congratulations", although there is still a link from msh.org. Archive versions display the correct page but no data. Does the price guide still exist? Peter James (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Peter James they moved websites a couple of years back. They are now here http://mshpriceguide.org/en/home/ Was hoping to get a bot to do the update. Will do it manually if the community decides they want to keep this type of data (along with other requested updates). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Peter James I have seen the same thing at times. Randomly you get redirected to a scam page. I was thinking perhaps my PC or browser had got a virus (though my anti-virus is good and up-to-date). It doesn't happen all the time. I'd be interested to know if other people have seen this. I have tried emailing info@mshpriceguide.org, which is the link on their website, and after a while Gmail returns undelivered -- there's no server listening at that address. I've tried leaving a phone message and get no reply. If other people are seeing this scam message at times, then I suspect their site has been hacked or compromised. It does rather look like the guide is dead and the website unmaintained and kept up only for historical purposes.
- I'm not clear what James is referring to about new address. All the URLs I've seen use the url you claim is the current one, so what would need changed? Btw, James, I don't know if you or a bot are adding the archive.org links but it is a complete waste of time to have an archive.org link to a database like MSH or NADAC. Neither work. The content of the page is not actually in the "page source" your browser gets, but is populated by running Javascript to request live data from the database when you view the page. So an archive.org version just shows the skeleton of the page, but no data at all. Same for NADAC. -- Colin°Talk 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich I think we only need the list of examples in 3A, B, C once rather than three times. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please can we return to the consensus RFC. Levivich's isn't going anywhere. -- Colin°Talk 15:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have also tried calling them, and that leads nowhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- mshpriceguide.org now redirects to what looks like a random URL with the message "Congratulations", although there is still a link from msh.org. Archive versions display the correct page but no data. Does the price guide still exist? Peter James (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, I apologize for assuming that "the RFC header" referred to something at the top of the RFC, rather than in the middle. Do you object to both links, or only to one of them?
- I still do not understand why you want me to bias the RFC in favor of my own side. I've been supporting the inclusion of a wide variety of financial information in medical articles for years – possibly more than anyone else in WPMED. Why shouldn't I include links to objective information produced by the "other side"? It's accurate and objective information that shows just how much has been done and how many articles could be affected by the outcome of the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I believe both should be removed. I don't think guessing at each others motivations is helpful since it is likely we would not agree and it will not move the coversation along anyway. I dispute your framing that removing Colin's links would bias the RFC as I believe adding one sides subpages to the RFC is the biasing factor. It seems you value the links and think they are important, which is a fair opinion, but not one that should be given pride of place in the RFC opening. You can of course add them to the discussion along with your findings that pertain to them.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, you haven't actually said there is anything wrong with the content of those pages, merely that they are biased because they were created by, as you put it, "one side". That's just a plain old personal attack. We don't allow that here. Comment on the content, not the contributor, as they say. It really doesn't help your case that the content of one of the links is 99% Doc James but somehow biased to "my side". Please stop personalising simple facts and automatic copy/paste of article text. Facts are facts and article text is article text. I appreciate you find those facts troublesome to "your side" but they are what they are. -- Colin°Talk 20:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Colin, what AlmostFrancis writes above isn't a personal attack. Saying he thinks that the subpages is biased is an opinion he's allowed to have. Francis: I am unclear why you think User:Colin/ExistingPrices, which shows 530 uses of drug price information on wiki with no commentary is biased or original research. It seems to me like a data set that RfC participants may use (or not) if they want to understand the scope of the issue. What am I missing? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, you haven't actually said there is anything wrong with the content of those pages, merely that they are biased because they were created by, as you put it, "one side". That's just a plain old personal attack. We don't allow that here. Comment on the content, not the contributor, as they say. It really doesn't help your case that the content of one of the links is 99% Doc James but somehow biased to "my side". Please stop personalising simple facts and automatic copy/paste of article text. Facts are facts and article text is article text. I appreciate you find those facts troublesome to "your side" but they are what they are. -- Colin°Talk 20:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. I believe both should be removed. I don't think guessing at each others motivations is helpful since it is likely we would not agree and it will not move the coversation along anyway. I dispute your framing that removing Colin's links would bias the RFC as I believe adding one sides subpages to the RFC is the biasing factor. It seems you value the links and think they are important, which is a fair opinion, but not one that should be given pride of place in the RFC opening. You can of course add them to the discussion along with your findings that pertain to them.AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I hate to correct you again so soon after the last time, but no there are two links to Colin's research in your RFC. If you keep going down you will see another one. I am surprised you missed it since you complained about me reverting that it was dubious and used it as a source for background text. Do you see it now? If it helps just search for "User:Colin/ExistingPrices". Do you not think that letting one side of a debate add links to their own subpages might just possibly prejudice the debate? AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that "Colin's original research links" in "the RFC header" means the "link" (singular) to User:Colin/MSHData, which contains a table with basic statistics about how many buyers and suppliers are available in each of the already-cited database entries on wiki. Policy geeks know that NOR only applies to the mainspace, of course, but if someone believes that a link to that information will somehow make their own position unpopular with others – well, I congratulate them on still being optimistic that anyone will even click on the link, but as far as I'm concerned, it could be moved to another section. It just made more sense to me to put that link, which is about the source, in the section about the source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- No apology necessary. This conversation has been bludgeoned to death and it is understandable to have missed input from others. I first recommend uniting and wordsmithing Levivich's option C and D. Their RFC is neutral and any input that involved parties wish to add can be done in the discussion where opinion and original research belongs. Otherwise stripping out the POV from WAID's could be done except they seem intent on keeping in the original research and their own opinions in the lead.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, have you proposed a revised version that addresses the problems you're seeing for consideration by others? If so I apologize for having missed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A problem with this so-called simple RFC is the Stranger Things factor. Anyone coming along to this will see a question like "Should articles state drug prices sourced to drug price databases such as the International Medical Products Price Guide" and immediately remember that they still have two episodes of series three of Stranger Things to watch. They have no idea what the International Medical Products Price Guide is, but the name sounds impressive so it's probably ok. Are any articles doing this at the moment, or is this a proposal to do something new? No idea. Not sure I care then. Should we source drug prices to drug price databases? Well duh, they are drug price databases. What's the issue with that? The question says "such as" but doesn't tell me what the others might be, or if they are different in some way I should care. The second question 3B immediately has me playing spot-the-difference then I notice "wholesale prices in the developing world". Ok, it's a database of wholesale prices in the developing world. What's the issue with that? And 3C has the same question but replaces "wholesale prices" with "any pricing information". But the examples are the same, all stating wholesale prices, so I'm not seeing what different "pricing information" there might be to consider, other than "wholesale prices". What's the issue with that? I'm being asked my opinion on something I don't currently have an opinion on, and don't really understand why I should care at this point. But look, someone whose name I recognise is saying that the Wikipedians who want to remove prices are helping Big Pharma suppress price information, which kills people. And Wikipedia is Not Censored. Ok I care about that, let's Stick it to The Man, yeah. "Support per ____" and fade in the Netflix logo and some 80s-style theme tune.
Compare this with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. Immediately we know there are articles with these prices. And I'm being asked "Do you think that this content complies with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, due weight, no original research, what Wikipedia is not, and how to write a lead section?" Right, I'm a Wikipedian. I can do this. This is something I actually know something about and care about. I'm gently introduced to the source being considered and offered a few examples so my brain doesn't overload. I can see that using this source isn't simple [we are here for months discussing this since it isn't simple]. I don't even, at this point, need to have an opinion about drug prices, just care about Wikipedia's core policies and values. Pass me a slice of pizza, this sounds worth discussing. Netflix can wait. -- Colin°Talk 20:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Saying that allowing one side of the debate to add their personal subpages to the opening statement of an RFC prejudices the debate is not a personal attack by any definition. If I got into your motivation for insisting on having your subpages in the opening statement, as opposed to adding them to the discussion when the RFC opens, then I maybe could be in danger of a personal attack but I have not mentioned motivation. You are of course entitled to your opinion on the abilities of your fellow editors but I do not share them and if anything feel that the simple RFC is far more likely to get third party feedback, whether I like the feedback or not.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- It of course goes without saying that if DocJames or anyone tries to add personal subpages of this RFC I would also consider it prejudicial.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I welcome a page from James-- or anyone-- showing price data from any drug article, used in compliance with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:LEAD or WP:WEIGHT, so that we can pick an example, any example, to use in evaluating the question at hand, which is WP:NOT. I have been asking for that example for about six weeks now. Please do put together that data page: I will be the first to advocate that it should be included in the RFC. Meanwhile, please stop the personal attacks. Data is data, regardless of where it resides on Wikipedia, and if anyone has something that contradicts that data, I've been asking to see it for six weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope it is not necessary to ask Barkeep49 to address the increasingly aggressive personalization, failure to AGF, et al evidenced on this page and elsewhere.We have a problem to solve; if you have data that would yield a useful example for the purposes of an RFC, please present it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)- Struck portion which belongs at User:Barkeep49's page rather than here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, I do not agree with your strategy for creating a neutral RFC so have no interest in finding an example that would fit your criteria. If during the RFC I think it would be advantageous to drill down into an example I would do it then and add it to the discussion where I believe it belongs. I have made no personal attacks that I know of and you have not added any diffs so I have no idea what you are talking about. You already asked Barkeep to address your complaints so its seems that ship has sailed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't take my silence as meaning nothing will happen. For now silence is my considering what my best approach is for the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am a little disappointed that you did not at least ask for diffs before threatening me, but I guess you will do as you see fit. I am surprised that the same conduct that saw Trypto retire has been allowed to continue and once again you are blaming the other party.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't blamed anyone and the lesson I took from Typto's departure, which still upsets me on multiple levels, is that I said too much too soon. But as this is all behavior stuff it doesn't belong here anyway so feel free to continue the discussion at a more appropriate venue. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am a little disappointed that you did not at least ask for diffs before threatening me, but I guess you will do as you see fit. I am surprised that the same conduct that saw Trypto retire has been allowed to continue and once again you are blaming the other party.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't take my silence as meaning nothing will happen. For now silence is my considering what my best approach is for the issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I welcome a page from James-- or anyone-- showing price data from any drug article, used in compliance with WP:V, WP:OR, WP:LEAD or WP:WEIGHT, so that we can pick an example, any example, to use in evaluating the question at hand, which is WP:NOT. I have been asking for that example for about six weeks now. Please do put together that data page: I will be the first to advocate that it should be included in the RFC. Meanwhile, please stop the personal attacks. Data is data, regardless of where it resides on Wikipedia, and if anyone has something that contradicts that data, I've been asking to see it for six weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) If it would help, we could move the two pages AlmostFrancis complains about into either project (sub page of WP MED) or Wikipedia (sup-page of this) namespaces. The information contained is not personal in any way, and claims they are biased are founded solely on personal attacks of the creator of the pages. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have explained multiple times what I believe should be done and I don't see any reason I should have to repeat myself forever. As Barkeep has decided to take your side again I don't see how my continued involvement will have any affect other than me getting sanctioned. When the RFC opens I will explain how this RFC was allowed to advance and how that means it should not be used to build any kind of fair consensus. What happens after that will be up to the community. AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, your complaint is about the creator of the pages and the location of them in userspace. You have not in fact raised any complaint about their content. I have offered to move them to another namespace if that helps. A complaint about the contributor rather than the content is not permitted on Wikipedia as Barkeep49 reminds us, and you are editing in this discussion and on the RFC when launched per discretionary sanctions. I think you would be sensible to rethink your threat to repeat these personal attacks at the RFC, and focus on whether the content of those pages is in any way disagreeable wrt neutrality and bias. That seems fair to me. -- Colin°Talk 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are continuing to bludgeon my contributions when I have already explained what my intentions are and my reasons. More diffless accusations of personal attacks. More threats from you, trying to control what input I will give to the RFC. Looking through your contribs anyone can see that complaints about contributors (DocJames) are permitted, at least complaints from you. It seems @Barkeep49: is content to let you say whatever you want since he only threatens when someone pushes back.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, continuing to call out editors here is not the way to get what you want. Bludgeon is a conduct issue not a content issue and so throwing that at Colin is not appropriate for this forum. Neither can Colin say you're doing a person attack when you're not - as I noted about 9 minutes before this and which you might not have seen before writing this. What you write above is 100% about conduct and does not help the conversation. For that you're welcome to come to my user talk page, to AN where there's a heading on this topic, or to AE to ask for specific remedies. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am not continuing this charade anymore as it seems obvious to me who has your sympathies and that further contributions will only lead to me being sanctioned. I will make my comments about the process and the building of this RFC when it goes live and the community can decide what is appropriate or not. AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, continuing to call out editors here is not the way to get what you want. Bludgeon is a conduct issue not a content issue and so throwing that at Colin is not appropriate for this forum. Neither can Colin say you're doing a person attack when you're not - as I noted about 9 minutes before this and which you might not have seen before writing this. What you write above is 100% about conduct and does not help the conversation. For that you're welcome to come to my user talk page, to AN where there's a heading on this topic, or to AE to ask for specific remedies. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know why you are continuing to bludgeon my contributions when I have already explained what my intentions are and my reasons. More diffless accusations of personal attacks. More threats from you, trying to control what input I will give to the RFC. Looking through your contribs anyone can see that complaints about contributors (DocJames) are permitted, at least complaints from you. It seems @Barkeep49: is content to let you say whatever you want since he only threatens when someone pushes back.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- AlmostFrancis, your complaint is about the creator of the pages and the location of them in userspace. You have not in fact raised any complaint about their content. I have offered to move them to another namespace if that helps. A complaint about the contributor rather than the content is not permitted on Wikipedia as Barkeep49 reminds us, and you are editing in this discussion and on the RFC when launched per discretionary sanctions. I think you would be sensible to rethink your threat to repeat these personal attacks at the RFC, and focus on whether the content of those pages is in any way disagreeable wrt neutrality and bias. That seems fair to me. -- Colin°Talk 10:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I note that Levivich created their replacement draft, because they felt WAID's was "too long and complicated" and that an RFC "does have to be digestible by dozens of editors who know nothing about this". Levivich wants to ask "should we use the source at all" rather than "how to use the source". But this does not get to the heart of the dispute. Nobody is saying the price guide must never be used at all (though it being a dead parrot suggests its further use is limited) and nobody is saying similar drug databases should never be used at all. I feel most of Levivich's many questions are in fact ones nobody is asking, and don't need asked. IMO the heart of the price problem isn't one of "should" but "can" and "when" and "how". Should is the weakest argument of all, and can be based on opinion and advocacy as we have seen. As I have said before, Wikipedia is full of trivia and editors will tend towards including data that somebody feels is important. If drug prices were stable, were international and were simple enough that there is one obvious treatment cost per drug, we may not be having this argument at all. The problem is practical. It is a can, when and how problem. All the questions in Levivich's ask should we do something, without getting the participants to wonder how. If we want "editors who know nothing about this" to engage we need to give them the background that WAID's does.
It is ironic that Levivich has previously stated they are aligned with WP:NOTPRICES in thinking drug prices should only be included when exceptional and yet their RFC is supported by two editors who appear to want drug prices universally. In contrast WhatamIdoing has for a long time wanted financial information in medical articles but clearly wants it done right, rather than any old way that might break policy. Rather than asking a polarising "should we do this ever" question, they way to find consensus is to agree to do it right, and on a case by case basis, doing it right might mean often avoiding one source that has limitations, or wording our articles to make those limitations clear. I urge Levivich to reconsider: your "simple RFC" will be hijacked with opinionated global price concern issues if it were to be launched, and you will not get anyone even considering the result you want. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Levivich's many questions are in fact ones nobody is asking
is a feature not a bug :-) I'm not sure what you mean byI urge Levivich to reconsider
. There isn't consensus for any of my drafts, so I don't see what there is to reconsider. I still think WAID's RfC fundamentally asks the wrong questions (and that was the reason for my proposing alternatives in the first place), and I still think that an RfC that solicits discussion, as opposed to an RfC that solicits a decision, will not bring us meaningfully closer to a decision. Most everyone here disagrees with me on this. The only way to find out is to run an RfC. And with all due respect, I just had this exact same conversation with WAID a few days ago, above in this very same thread, so I feel we're kind of running in circles here. My humble suggestion at this point is to move anything objectionable in WAID's RfC (the background, the links, whatever it may be) out of the RfC question and instead present that information in the first few !votes (which the editors here will undoubtedly be casting), if only so as to move the ball forward and get to a point where we launch an RfC that has consensus among editors here. I don't know whose "law" it is, but we are proving the law that as discussion continues, the probability that we lose editors to retirement or sanctions approaches 1. It's clear the cavalry is not coming, so let's address whatever issues are left with WAID's RfC and get on with it. – Levivich 19:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Polishing the draft
Draft RFC at: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices
I think we have reached a stage where we should now look to complete polishing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices ready for launch. The concerns raised above are:
- "Many of these are from 2014 or 2015 or are otherwise incorrect". It would be good if James remind us specifically what is wrong, misleading or biased about this statement.
- See #Mistakes for evidence that one in five of our drug prices using this source are plain wrong, and #Out of date for how 25% of prices are wrong by a factor of >2 after one year and 50% of prices are wrong by a factor of >2 after five years. Why should we suppress the basic information that these drug prices are five years old and cannot in fact be updated for 2019/20? -- Colin°Talk 19:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- A complaint that links to User:Colin/ExistingPrices and User:Colin/MSHData are biased, because I created them in userspace.
- I have offered if it helps they could be moved to Wikipedia or Project space. The first link doesn't contain any of my text at all: it is 99% Doc James and represents 530 article price texts. Surely we have no reasonable argument that including this information up-front will bias contributors to the RFC? The second link contains raw statistics about MSH data on 322 articles. If there's text that folk think is biased, please say why it is misleading or why it should be hidden from readers. -- Colin°Talk
- Is there anything else that must be changed or removed. If so, give a reasoned argument as to why this must be done. -- Colin°Talk 19:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It is becoming hard to figure out where to respond to what on this page. I hope someones will address my "Archiving" query at the bottom of the page.
Although it could be helpful to move the data into Wikipedia space from user space, until some indication of what the complaints about that data are provided, I am unsure a move is necessary or will be helpful.
Could someone please explain explicitly why we do not need to urgently (and independently of the overall pricing question) hold an RFC to answer the source--> text questions raised regarding more than 500 articles? [26] Can anyone offer an explicit example of something that is amiss in that data, or explain why we should not be concerned to get an answer from the community re the source--> text dilemma? IMO, this is an RFC that must be held, regardless of any other RFC we put forward. (The only way I can see that we avoid this RFC is if the questioned text is voluntarily withdrawn, which would seem to require removal by bot at this point, but I digress ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James: things are getting lost in the volume and multiple sections on this page. Could you please comment on my post above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Colin, I think that the idea of "Is this encyclopedic?" would probably end up in the WP:NOT-related section, but it could also fit into the subject-matter section or possibly the style section. I'm not convinced that further divisions are really warranted unless we get a huge number of comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin has commented on the draft RfC over at AN: Special:Diff/936639234 – Levivich 03:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have responded there. I think really it is up to anyone with issues with the draft to participate here and offer rational arguments why sections should be removed or changed. Merely saying they should be removed because at some point an editor has objected isn't imo fair -- there are important facts that we shouldn't allow parties to censor just because that helps their case. I would appreciate someone pinging doc james, and request his participation. -- Colin°Talk 09:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect I think there's a reason that the ANI consensus called for an uninvolved sysop to be on the one to launch the RfC. Rosguill, as an uninvolved sysop, could have chosen to launch the RfC. They did not choose to do so and instead offered specific feedback on how a neutral version could be formed. If involved editors want to reject the suggestion that's fine. That simply means there still won't be an uninvolved sysop willing to launch the RfC as neutral. If there is no more compromise to be had - because some things aren't worth compromising over - then so be it. Sometime in the next couple of days if there's not an RfC to be launched I will declare, in my assessment, that the ANI consensus is no longer active. Obviously some other sysop could express a willingness to enforce it, but I think that unlikely.But let's see if we can't get the RfC which is close to actually launch. Ros in you asessment is there a way to a neutral version of the two sections you've identified as troubling? For instance what if "What we've got on wiki" only had
"You can see several hundred examples of how drug prices are being presented"
or even just " What we've got on wiki? If one of both of these feels neutral enough to you, is there a version of In the real world that could also be made neutral? Or are you suggesting the only way for the RfC to be neutral is without these sections no matter their form? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)- Barkeep49 who is Ros? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I think I'm a bit confused as to what our goal is at this point. If we're trying to appease everyone in the discussion by avoiding having even a whiff of a leading question, then I think it's simple enough to remove those sections. If we can dismiss the (as far as I can tell, lone) complaint against these sections so far, then I agree that the RfC is probably good enough and we can move forward without revisions. I don't think there's a more neutral middle ground to be found here.
- FWIW, I wouldn't read anything into me not choosing to start the RfC unilaterally. I saw the AN post asking for an uninvolved admin to spend five minutes to assess the prompt's neutrality. It took me 20, and I'm apparently still not done, but I never even considered that I could or should start the RfC. signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying what your intent was here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- So are we still lacking an admin to start this, or is Rosguill's comment about "probably good enough" sufficient for Barkeep49 to launch it soon? -- Colin°Talk 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good question Colin. Rosguill in your opinion, is the RfC neutrally worded? If the answer is yes I am happy to launch. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, Colin, I think it's safest to remove the sections that I identified in the Background section. This will ensure that no one can complain that the RfC is presenting leading questions, and editors are free to raise the points currently included in those sections as part of the RfC discussion, so I don't really see what there is to lose. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well it is for WAID to decide. I feel that sections are being requested to be removed to appease rather than to weigh arguments and decide merit. I particularly see zero merit in removing the link to the 500+ existing drug prices. That seems quite an unreasonable request. I don't think our goal should be an RFC that is guaranteed to have no objections, that simply won't happen because at least one contributor has promised to complain. What we should seek is that nobody has a reasonable ground for complaint. -- Colin°Talk 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, who is doing the drafting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, Colin, I think it's safest to remove the sections that I identified in the Background section. This will ensure that no one can complain that the RfC is presenting leading questions, and editors are free to raise the points currently included in those sections as part of the RfC discussion, so I don't really see what there is to lose. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Good question Colin. Rosguill in your opinion, is the RfC neutrally worded? If the answer is yes I am happy to launch. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- So are we still lacking an admin to start this, or is Rosguill's comment about "probably good enough" sufficient for Barkeep49 to launch it soon? -- Colin°Talk 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying what your intent was here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- With all due respect I think there's a reason that the ANI consensus called for an uninvolved sysop to be on the one to launch the RfC. Rosguill, as an uninvolved sysop, could have chosen to launch the RfC. They did not choose to do so and instead offered specific feedback on how a neutral version could be formed. If involved editors want to reject the suggestion that's fine. That simply means there still won't be an uninvolved sysop willing to launch the RfC as neutral. If there is no more compromise to be had - because some things aren't worth compromising over - then so be it. Sometime in the next couple of days if there's not an RfC to be launched I will declare, in my assessment, that the ANI consensus is no longer active. Obviously some other sysop could express a willingness to enforce it, but I think that unlikely.But let's see if we can't get the RfC which is close to actually launch. Ros in you asessment is there a way to a neutral version of the two sections you've identified as troubling? For instance what if "What we've got on wiki" only had
Is this the right place to note some concerns I have about some of the phrasing in the proposed RfC question? If not, please feel free to move them to the appropriate place.
- In the real world
"and none are comprehensive"
. I find that an unsupported judgement. Databases generally have a fixed range of content, so whether or not they are comprehensive isn't an issue. They either contain reliable information or they don't. I worry that the phrase places the databases in an unduly negative light. - What we've got on wiki
"Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems"
, while true, it doesn't give the reader any context. From what I can see this refers to about a dozen editors over the space of several years. What about all the editors who are not concerned? don't they get a mention? What of those who think that having the latest prices available is as good as we can get on Wikipedia. Atre their views not pertinent to the background that frames the RfC? - Discussion (main question)
"standards"
: does Wikipedia have standards written down? I know we have policies, guidance, best practice, and advice, but I don't think we have written standards. I worry that the use of the word will create a non-neutral expectation that our guidance has to meet unrealistic standards. The whole point of supplementary guidance is that it caters for the exceptions to more general policy and guidelines. I worry that it leads the respondent to make a judgement appropriate only for general guidelines, not for subject-specific ones. "how to write a lead section"
: are we going to measure potential guidelines that will apply to the whole of a medical article against a guideline that is only concerned with the lead section? Or is this RfC intended only to apply to the issue of drug prices in the lead? In that case, surely the background should clarify that arguments against drug prices in the lead should not be predicated on information in the lead not appearing in the body, as that is already covered elsewhere? --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just to say, because I have looked into this area in particular and the comprehensiveness has been claimed to be unsupported, the claim "[Databases] either contain reliable information or they don't." is wrong and totally missing the point. Do a Ctrl-F on this page and Archive 12 for "no suppliers". Over a dozen mentions. See User:Colin/MSHData for data on this. This is a database with comprehensiveness problems. The raw data is reliable, but it may not be reliable as a source of International Reference Price for any given drug formulation... because Comprehensiveness. RexxS, there's a problem here that we have been discussing this for over a month and you raise concerns that have already been discussed, so do you really want us to repeat the same arguments? -- Colin°Talk 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- RexxS, I agree with you that databases generally have a fixed range of content, and that it is possible for a database to include everything it's meant to without including everything in the world. The point here is that no (existing) drug database is includes every drug, and most of them aren't even living up to their defined fixed range of content. So, for example, we have a database whose "fixed range of content" is all supplier and buyer prices in the developing world, in each year, and what find inside it for one drug is a single price, from a single supplier, sold within a single country. That's "not comprehensive", no matter what your definition of comprehensive is. And the reason to include this is that editors, including me, have assumed that more information existed than the facts demonstrated.
- As for databases containing "reliable information", the concern is less about the reputable databases and more about how that reliable information is being described on wiki. I can't imagine you accepting an entry in a diving database that says "standard aluminum 80-cubic-foot tank – 10-meter average depth – 12-meter maximum depth – moderate activity – experienced diver – Bay of Biscay – winter – 45 minutes" and thinking that someone should represent that in Wikipedia as "Scuba divers can stay underwater for about 45 minutes." In this case, editors have raised concerns about taking a database entry with a similarly specific set of information and writing that the single datapoint is the wholesale price for the entire developing world. The information can be reliable, but that doesn't mean that the source is reliable for the specific sentence that a Wikipedia editor writes.
- User:Rosguill, I apologize for the incorrect time estimate. I estimated five minutes based on the number of words and an average adult reading rate, but of course some text is faster or slower to read, and this is clearly slower. I really appreciate you saying how long it actually took you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- No Colin, I really don't want you to repeat the same arguments, as I didn't find them convincing the first time I read them. Your arguments are just as flawed now as they were a month ago. I merely want other editors – not just you, Colin – to note that I have concerns, as I stated in the opening of my post. I reject the remainder of the arguments you repeated here as nothing more than your opinion, and worth no more than anyone else's. If you'd like me to refute your post, line-by-line, I'm quite happy to do so, but I think it would kinder to all concerned if you simply desisted from repeating your arguments every time somebody else expresses a concern or opinion differing from yours. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Could you give details, please? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ronz: I was really only flagging up my personal concerns about the neutrality of certain words and phrases, as it seems the period to debate that has ended. I'd be willing to give details, of course, if you could indicate what sort of details you want. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Evidence please, especially of a comprehensive database, or simply databases better than the one used by the majority of articles. Addressing WhatamIdoing's concerns would be helpful. Or any evidence that we're not properly summarizing the majority-used sources and their usage. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I see. You insist on seeing evidence of my dissatisfaction with the statement "none are comprehensive". Shouldn't I be insisting on seeing evidence that the statement is true? Anyway, let's take the source used in the RFC, the International Medical Products Price Guide, which "
lists drug price information for WHO Essential Medicines
" according to the lead of our article. If you look at the list of essential medicines, do you see any missing from the price guide? If not, then the database covers its intended content comprehensively. I haven't found any missing, but of course, you might. Nevertheless, the concern I have is that comprehensiveness is irrelevant for a source. Either we accept the source as reliable or we don't. Being comprehensive has no bearing on that. Of course we could only use the database for drugs that it is deemed to have reliable information on, but again, comprehensiveness has no bearing on that. Apologies to all who've heard the argument before, but I was asked. Do you really want me to explain my other concerns in detail as well? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)- I don't think that we need to have this debate, which is about facts, right now.
- RexxS, the point about "comprehensive" is that there is no single database that includes prices for every single regulated pharmaceutical product in the world. As you said, each database has its scope, and that scope is less than every single regulated pharmaceutical product in the world. Also, empty records such as this one don't really count towards "comprehensiveness" for our purposes. IMPPG doesn't seem to have any prices at all for Bevacizumab. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, RexxS. Yes, explanations would be helpful if evidence can be provided.
- I don't believe reliability is an issue. Am I missing something, or does something need clarification? --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @WhatamIdoing: Indeed. I've been trying very hard not to have this debate, but others have insisted.
- Yes, of course, I don't suppose anybody ever expected to find a single database that includes prices for every single regulated pharmaceutical product in the world, so what is the point of putting that wording into the RfC, other than to cast an unwarranted negative light? I mean, is not being comprehensive really an issue? Surely we use a database as a source for the facts that it contains, not for facts that it doesn't contain. If IMPPG doesn't have any prices at all for Bevacizumab, then I would expect us not to use IMPPG as a source for prices in Bevacizumab. What is the problem that I'm not seeing? --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- RexxS, editors in the past, including me, have been overly optimistic about how much can be sourced (at this point in time. My optimism for the magical future is undimmed). I'd like editors to not repeat my mistakes, at least when that can be done in a few words (which I suppose also indicates that I don't really believe that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions deep in my heart).
- Is "comprehensiveness" your only outstanding concern in that section? Rosguill had suggested deleting it for fear that it might produce accusations of bias (although one editor has pretty much promised to declare the RFC biased anyway, so I doubt that this change would matter in the end). I'm not seriously attached to the paragraph, but pretty much every discussion for the last two months has ended up repeating some part of that, usually at very great length, and I do worry that editors might respond in good faith but without domain-specific knowledge, and then be embarrassed when someone points out that the price is different for regular vs extra-strength pills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Ronz: Okay, I've explained my concern about making an issue of comprehensiveness. I understand you don't believe reliability is an issue; I don't understand why you think comprehensiveness is. The database is only usable for the prices it contains, so how does comprehensiveness bear on the use of the database?
- Now, you want explanations with evidence for my other concerns.
"Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems"
. I contend that without context, it places the use of prices in an unwarranted negative light. Yes, some editors have raised concerns about some prices, but if you examine User:Colin/PriceEdits #Drugs, you'll see that the majority of prices have not had any concerns raised. Of those where concerns were raised, only one was a concern about outdated prices, although one other price was updated to a more up-to-date one. I'm concerned that the statement in the proposed RfC doesn't neutrally reflect the evidence.- Searching for "subject specific guideline" in Wikipedia space shows 750 results, so I contend that Wikipedia recognises that subject-specific guidance is a recognised topic. Looking at WP:RS, you find "medicine" mentioned six times, including the acknowledgement that WP:MEDRS gives guidance for biomedical claims. That is the justification for our insistence that biomedical claims are cited to MEDRS sources. Similarly, WP:MOS gives the link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. I think that is sufficient evidence that in the field of medicine, we recognise specific requirements that extend or differ from the general guidelines in the areas of sourcing and style. My concern with the question, therefore, is that it is bound to infer the answer "no", because it does not acknowledge that medical content may meet subject-specific guidelines without necessarily adhering to the same standards as the general guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I really, really don't want to rehash earlier debates among other editors. The existence of others with concerns about the neutrality of the RfC simply reinforces my own concerns. I don't want to be be seen as a "blocker" on the RfC, but I do want to make clear that I have genuine concerns. No doubt I'll be able to debate my concerns in the RfC itself. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh I see. You insist on seeing evidence of my dissatisfaction with the statement "none are comprehensive". Shouldn't I be insisting on seeing evidence that the statement is true? Anyway, let's take the source used in the RFC, the International Medical Products Price Guide, which "
- Evidence please, especially of a comprehensive database, or simply databases better than the one used by the majority of articles. Addressing WhatamIdoing's concerns would be helpful. Or any evidence that we're not properly summarizing the majority-used sources and their usage. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ronz: I was really only flagging up my personal concerns about the neutrality of certain words and phrases, as it seems the period to debate that has ended. I'd be willing to give details, of course, if you could indicate what sort of details you want. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS: Could you give details, please? --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- No Colin, I really don't want you to repeat the same arguments, as I didn't find them convincing the first time I read them. Your arguments are just as flawed now as they were a month ago. I merely want other editors – not just you, Colin – to note that I have concerns, as I stated in the opening of my post. I reject the remainder of the arguments you repeated here as nothing more than your opinion, and worth no more than anyone else's. If you'd like me to refute your post, line-by-line, I'm quite happy to do so, but I think it would kinder to all concerned if you simply desisted from repeating your arguments every time somebody else expresses a concern or opinion differing from yours. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Just to say, because I have looked into this area in particular and the comprehensiveness has been claimed to be unsupported, the claim "[Databases] either contain reliable information or they don't." is wrong and totally missing the point. Do a Ctrl-F on this page and Archive 12 for "no suppliers". Over a dozen mentions. See User:Colin/MSHData for data on this. This is a database with comprehensiveness problems. The raw data is reliable, but it may not be reliable as a source of International Reference Price for any given drug formulation... because Comprehensiveness. RexxS, there's a problem here that we have been discussing this for over a month and you raise concerns that have already been discussed, so do you really want us to repeat the same arguments? -- Colin°Talk 21:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that there have been at least 3 editors who have said a varient of "I don't want to block the RfC but have concerns" - Tryptofish, Levivich, and RexxS. The RfC has changed some since Trypto said that but I wonder about the value of launching an RfC where multiple good faith editors have stepped aside so that the RfC can be launched but will be returning to the discussion after it's launched. However, the goal here was to find consensus so to the extent that some editors are willing not to block the RfC that is consensus. I just feel it important to note.
So that just leaves neutality. Rosguill suggests removing the two sections and Colin suggests that's for WhatamIdoing to decide. WAID are you amenable to removing those two sections? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've trimmed some of the disputed language as an alternative to removing the sections entirely. I think the links should be retained if it's decided to remove the sections. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Barkeep49, I'm still hoping to figure out what the problem with the "real world" section is. Surely it's neutral to point out, as background information, that regular strength and extra strength don't cost the same, or that many prices are confidential. The editors expressing concern about it being non-neutral have been fairly vague about what, exactly, is non-neutral about it.
RexxS, being "outdated", if you apply MEDDATE's five-year standard, affects about a third of what's in articles and about 90% of what's cited to the MSH database. The category of "other problems" includes:
- placing detailed prices in the lead without any price content in the article (about 70% of the articles),
- using MSH records that have no supplier price (about a third of articles using MSH);
- using MSH records with fewer than three supplier prices (about two-thirds);
- inaccurately describing any single-country datapoint as being the price in the entire developing world;
- using buyer prices at all;
- choosing among multiple records with no source telling us which one to pick (probably around half);
- calculating monthly prices when the source gives per-pill prices (more than half of articles);
- calculating monthly prices using that particular formula (same);
- calculating the monthly price right down to the penny, and then saying "about" as if that covers differences of $10 or more;
- presenting prices from one year when the next/previous shows significant variation (about 20% of MSH-based statements); and
- including prices when we haven't cited sources with extensive discussion about the price (probably 95% of them).
So you're right when you say that "some editors have raised concerns about some prices" before this discussion started, but it would equally be true to say that some editors have raised concerns about nearly every drug price in the entire wiki during this discussion, and that some of these points are being raised by uninvolved, non-medical editors (example). Off hand, there are probably no small-molecule WHO essential drugs whose current price content (or at least some of it) doesn't fall afoul of at least one of those complaints in some fashion.
For the record, I don't agree with all of the concerns that have been raised. Even among concerns that feel valid to me, I believe that many can be fixed without removing all of the content about prices.
Also for the record, the list of concerns and the (very approximate) percentages given above are from my memory of previous discussions. I've probably forgotten some of the concerns. Some of the numbers I give might be wrong, and others apply only to relevant subsets (e.g., MSH-citing articles, or the most recent year's date in the MSH database). But I do not think it would be fair to describe the concerns as only applying to "some" of the prices. I wonder if, having seen these estimates of how many articles could be affected, you would still describe it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what else to try. I changed the sub-headings a bit. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think we are giving way way too much absolute power to one or two people's opinions for us to merely roll over and agree to censor entire factual sections of and statements in the RFC. Remember that Ros said "If we can dismiss the (as far as I can tell, lone) complaint against these sections so far, then I agree that the RfC is probably good enough and we can move forward without revisions". While there has been a further complaint about "comprehensiveness" this doesn't seem to have any merit, and the editor making that complaint does not seem to wish to hold up the RFC. The other editor who has made a complaint has promised to complain no matter what edits are made. We can't please everyone nor should we try to.
- Ronz made this edit to remove "and none are comprehensive" and "Editors have raised concerns about prices being outdated or having other problems, so we are looking for your advice on what should/shouldn't be included before we try to fix them." I don't think those trims were helpful, and think the "what about the editors/articles where no complaints" argument is fallacious. It isn't a symmetrical argument. Like saying "Well what about all the banks I didn't hold up?". There are issues with these drug prices and censoring that basic issue is not a step towards achieving consensus about this. Look, even if you ignore WP:V and WP:OR, and accept James's algorithm, about a fifth are just plain wrong, and about a half are now out-of-date by a price factor of 2 or more. The "there's absolutely nothing wrong here, move along now" position simply isn't tenable. I think the removed text should be restored and we get on with discussing and resolving the many issues with drug prices in good faith and with an aim to achieve a consensus rather than simply to win the status quo. That's my 2p, but I'm not blocking the launch if WAID agrees to those edits. -- Colin°Talk 09:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Rosguill's earlier comments about the RFC being "probably good enough", and since then, User:Ronz has tried to remove any word that anybody has specifically objected to. If nobody objects soon, then I'm comfortable launching it. User:Doc James, User:Colin, User:SandyGeorgia, User:RexxS, User:Barkeep, User:Rosguill: if you have any remaining significant problems – problems that you don't think an experienced editor can cope with, not just smaller differences of opinion about the ideal way to state something – then please squawk now. I'll leave a note at WT:RFC to ask the regulars there to take a look at it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I'm still a bit concerned that the "In the real world" and "what we have now" are leading questions in context. It's not that anything in there is inaccurate, but having participants read those paragraphs before engaging with arguments and voting is going to prime them to see the status quo pricing situation as problematic original research (an inverse paragraph priming in the other direction would instead include neutral information about how prices in articles can be useful to readers, or would stress how editors could work to make the most of the limited information available). I don't see why it's so critical to include that paragraph there, as I think that the examples of actual pricing information illustrate the status quo situation very well, and further points can be raised in discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)- Rosguill, please read the current version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Rosguill's earlier comments about the RFC being "probably good enough", and since then, User:Ronz has tried to remove any word that anybody has specifically objected to. If nobody objects soon, then I'm comfortable launching it. User:Doc James, User:Colin, User:SandyGeorgia, User:RexxS, User:Barkeep, User:Rosguill: if you have any remaining significant problems – problems that you don't think an experienced editor can cope with, not just smaller differences of opinion about the ideal way to state something – then please squawk now. I'll leave a note at WT:RFC to ask the regulars there to take a look at it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Colin, consider the first responders on the MEDLEAD RFC, and how that can sandbag the entire effort. I am still not at all happy with the segmentation of the RFC, as offering that many things to opine on could scare off editors just like one look at the GMO RFC format made me run the other direction. I much preferred the simpler organization back here, and the encouragement to each editor to decide what to opine on and how. I may have already said this a few times :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well consider what their complaints are. If someone objects to the RFC mentioning that the sources aren't all comprehensive, then that will just lead to a discussion on whether the source is comprehensive for all drugs-in-scope. If they complain the RFC suggest some "prices being outdated" we can have a discussion over whether 2014 and 2015 is "outdated" in 2020. If they complain about the RFC noting some prices are "having other problems" we can list a whole bunch of other problems. I'm really not seeing how complaining the RFC mentions something factual and pertinent is really helping anyone's case, but frankly they are welcome to waste bytes trying, and we can just steer the discussion back to policy and text and sources. Wrt sections, I think that subsections in the discussion is inevitable and I'd rather we encouraged sections based around policy and areas-of-concern rather than started naming sections after people for example. -- Colin°Talk 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience, naming sections after people tends to discourage interaction between respondents. Of course, there are downsides to the current version. For example, whatever suggested topic is first will seem more important to some users, but if you're going to have a list, something has to come first. (The order is the order that the policies and guidelines are listed in the RFC "question", with a little merging of related topics. The order in the question was taken from someone else's comments on this page.) The two advantages that I'm hoping to get from organizing comments by theme are: (1) it might be slightly more convenient for User:Ymblanter (who has volunteered to write a summary at the end), and (2) people who are talking about a particular subject might be interested in talking to other editors who have commented on the same subject. I'd love to see that kind of discussion. I don't think there's any perfect system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well consider what their complaints are. If someone objects to the RFC mentioning that the sources aren't all comprehensive, then that will just lead to a discussion on whether the source is comprehensive for all drugs-in-scope. If they complain the RFC suggest some "prices being outdated" we can have a discussion over whether 2014 and 2015 is "outdated" in 2020. If they complain about the RFC noting some prices are "having other problems" we can list a whole bunch of other problems. I'm really not seeing how complaining the RFC mentions something factual and pertinent is really helping anyone's case, but frankly they are welcome to waste bytes trying, and we can just steer the discussion back to policy and text and sources. Wrt sections, I think that subsections in the discussion is inevitable and I'd rather we encouraged sections based around policy and areas-of-concern rather than started naming sections after people for example. -- Colin°Talk 15:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Launch
It looks like this is truly set to go. I know SandyGeorgia has some concerns about the discussion sections. Sandy is this worth holding the launch of the RfC? I am tenatively planning on launching this in 4 hours (23:00 UTC). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Levivich wondering your thoughts on adding some more expensive ones aswell:
- Sofosbuvir "As of 2016 a 12-week course of treatment costs about US$84,000 in the United States, US$53,000 in the United Kingdom, US$45,000 in Canada, and about US$500 in India."[1]
- Onasemnogene abeparvovec "It carries a list price of US$2.125 million per treatment, making it the most expensive medication in the world as of 2019.[2]"
- Delamanid "As of 2016 the Stop TB Partnership had an agreement to get the medication for US$1,700 per six month for use in more than 100 countries."[3]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Adding these to which RfC draft/question? (Or all of them?) – Levivich 02:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: my though is to have one section of examples rather than three sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Oh, I meant those (3A, 3B, 3C) as alternative RfCs, not as three questions in one RfC–i.e., we'd only have ran one of those three, with one set of examples. Originally it was just 3A, but I added 3B and 3C in response to WAID's concerns above, and then 3D as an entirely different format. To answer your question, about adding these three examples to the others, I guess it would depend on what the question was. As I understood it, the issue in dispute, at least the one to be handled by an RfC, was just about how to use IMPPG as a source. There are a lot of other issues (and other sources) we could discuss about prices and pricing in general, and those three seem like good examples for that conversation (for some of the reasons pointed out below). – Levivich 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah okay User:Levivich. I am happy with either of the 4 suggestions. 3D gets to the specifics which may be useful. There are many potential ways to present pricing information and I personally am not particularly attached to any single one. 3C does the best with respect to a high level question IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Oh, I meant those (3A, 3B, 3C) as alternative RfCs, not as three questions in one RfC–i.e., we'd only have ran one of those three, with one set of examples. Originally it was just 3A, but I added 3B and 3C in response to WAID's concerns above, and then 3D as an entirely different format. To answer your question, about adding these three examples to the others, I guess it would depend on what the question was. As I understood it, the issue in dispute, at least the one to be handled by an RfC, was just about how to use IMPPG as a source. There are a lot of other issues (and other sources) we could discuss about prices and pricing in general, and those three seem like good examples for that conversation (for some of the reasons pointed out below). – Levivich 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Levivich: my though is to have one section of examples rather than three sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hill A, Simmons B, Gotham D, Fortunak J (January 2016). "Rapid reductions in prices for generic sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to treat hepatitis C". Journal of Virus Eradication. 2 (1): 28–31. PMC 4946692. PMID 27482432.
- ^ "$2.1m Novartis gene therapy to become world's most expensive drug". The Guardian. London. Reuters. 2019-05-25. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-05-25.
- ^ "Stop TB Partnership | "Stop TB Partnership's Global Drug Facility jumpstarts access to new drugs for MDR-TB with innovative public-private partnerships". www.stoptb.org. Archived from the original on 16 January 2017. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
- I'd like to have that conversation, but it doesn't fit any of the questions that Levivich has written. This is because none of those prices are cited to the IMPPG or any other drug database, and all of the questions are about IMPPG or drug databases.
- I think that the conversation about prices that are not sourced to drug databases needs to be held separately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, in fact an RFC on this doesn't need to happen at all, based on current evidence I've seen. Those are exactly the sort of drug-cost comments that are supported by policy and we generally get right. They are mentioned because they are exceptional and notable. Folk can argue about the merits per weight, reliability of source, etc, and no sign that is a problem with editors. The only concern with some of them is that some price changes may be dated and folk need to keep an eye on the article to ensure we are no longer saying the price is $XXX,XXX when it is now just $X,XXX. -- Colin°Talk 09:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree; these appear to be examples that are compliant with WP:NOTPRICE
, so are not in question.We need a database example that meets WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Strike, update; fail WP:V per Colin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC) - I agree as well. These are not examples of what is generally being disputed. They might be used as examples that are far better than those under dispute. If in later discussions we consider what is proper in article ledes, then we could bring these up again. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ronz, SandyGeorgia, Colin, WhatamIdoing, focus on the locus of the dispute is great. Apologies for asking this but how are the examples in 3A - 3C not being sourced to a drug database? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- With discussion in multiple sections now, and after six weeks at this (while trying to move on to regular editing), I may be losing the plot. I am looking at and responding to the samples just above, in this section, that are not to a database, rather are sourced in ways that appear to be in accordance with NOTPRICES. My concern with the (good) work done by Levivich continues to be that we are not giving enough information to draw in the reader, encourage them to participate, or understand what question is being asked, all of which WAID's draft does well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, 3A, 3B, and 3C in Levivich's draft are about sourcing content to drug price databases. Doc James' three suggested additions at the top of this section, however, are sourced to a journal article, a British newspaper, and a non-profit organization's website. It would not be logical to ask "Can we use drug price databases?" and then give an example of something that is sourced to The Guardian.
- IMO the locus of the immediate dispute is not "Can we include any prices at all?" or even "Can we use drug price databases at all?" The locus of the dispute is much closer to "Can editors pick any record they want in a drug price database, and generalize the contents to a statement about the entire developing world?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the locus for which the first RfC is intended to gather more viewpoints, then perhaps the main question in your proposed draft could focus more attention on this aspect of the issue? isaacl (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- isaacl, have a look at #Questions not Opinions. There are lots of questions people might ask themselves when looking at the source, the text and the half-a-dozen polices and guidelines linked at question at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. The one WAID mentions is closed to #3 in my list and is certainly a very important one about whether the source supports the "in the developing world" claim in the text. However, that is also a question unique to one database and one world area, and doesn't help when we consider US, UK or other regions. Another important question is the degree to which original research is permitted to calculate a daily dose or treatment cost, especially when the source (nor other similar databases) does not say what strength of tablets to pick, how many to take a day and how long to take them for. Or whether picking one pill or one vial or one tube of cream, out of multiple options, is acceptable and representative. And so on. There are lots of questions and I think the beauty of WAIDs RFC is it allows editors to think about however many they want. They can concentrate on WP:V or WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOT or WP:LEAD. As soon as we ask a specific question and just that question, then it isn't so powerful, and I don't think a "should" question is as helpful. Compare to 3D "Should articles state any pricing information cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide". That invites a yes/no response, or some vague "Yes, sometimes or "No, only sometimes", and isn't actually being contested by anybody in the dispute. It leads away from looking for policy answers and rather more towards some advocacy answer and wishful optimism. -- Colin°Talk 21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that concentrating on a specific point of contention makes the discussion less powerful. Generally a better discussion ensues from focusing on one thing at a time, with more in-depth follow-up occurring. It's not like there's only one opportunity to gather information, so it isn't necessary to take comments on everything at once. I appreciate, though, that it's been difficult to try to reach a consensus on a specific focus. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- isaacl, yes there are positives to being focused. But there are degrees of being focused. At the outer extreme, there's the "Medication prices can be included when appropriate sources are avaliable" question that James offered a while back, which considers only the big "should we do this" but not "can we do this while following policy as Wikipedians" and leaves out the question of what sources are appropriate and when and what kind of statements we can make from them. At the other end of specific we could get a question about whether and when records in a database can be considered representative of the developing world. And that's a good question to discuss but only one of many and very specific to one database. If we agree, for example, that the median supplier price of a record with three or more suppliers is representative of the developing world, that doesn't permit all the other crimes against policy and guideline with that database, or other databases. It is perhaps too small a step, though one that needs to be taken.
- We had a discussion before about whether to resolve all this in one go, or to have followup RFC(s). Tryptofish was very keen to do it in one go. WAID's RFC explicitly says this will not necessarily be resolved in one go. I think it is too hard to resolve in one go, because there are more than enough possible questions to discuss about this one source, without also considering problems with NADAC, BNF, Drugs.com, etc. And it would be tedious to have an each RFC for all these. I wonder, though, if there is a way to structure discussion in the RFC so we have sections that look at different aspects. Perhaps sections for each policy? What do you think? -- Colin°Talk 09:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that different editors want to look at different questions, and so that's how the current draft RfC has ended up how it is. I have similiar concerns as Tryptofish regarding the quality of feedback that may be received (though I don't share the worry about having just one RfC) and it's unfortunate the editor is no longer participating. I understand, though, that others are not as worried about the quality of feedback. If the key participants can agree upon the critical issues to discuss and they can be put into separate sections, great! isaacl (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've thought about pre-structuring response sections, by way of sorting it. I'll set up a section and ping you in the edit summary (so you'll know when it's done), so you can see what one approach would look like. (Feel free to revert it after you've read it, if you don't think it will work well.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I am concerned that we avoid anything looking like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. When that RFC came up, I took one look, and ran the other direction. I never participated. With too many options, people won't engage. (Obviously, I went too far the other direction with the singular "is it in sync" question at the MEDLEAD RFC.) The lengthy GMO RFC is what leads me to believe that the approach you took is best-- in between the two extremes, and written in a way that it draws the reader in and encourages participation rather than voting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- In that vein, I think we are moving backwards here. The reader is now presented with too many options, and a lengthy TOC before they are drawn into your effective writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer the revised section headings by Ronz. The previous ones seemed to imply that commenters should comment only in one section. I would omit the sentence starting with "You can put all of your ideas in one section..." I think it makes more sense to have people separate their comments on different areas into different sections.
- I'm not exactly sure what SandyGeorgia is referring to by "..presented with too many options, and lengthy TOC". However as I discussed before, if it were solely up to me, I'd move the "In the real world" section up and expand it a little to lay out the specific key issues that Colin and WhatamIdoing described. I'd probably trim the discussion around each example. For the section headings for the comments, I would select headings that target the key issues, like geographic scope and timeliness of the data, and let commenters discuss how the different Wikipedia principles should be weighed against each other in context of an issue. For instance, how should the encyclopedic value of having some information be balanced against the age of the data, and how many geographic regions does it cover?
- Nonetheless, I appreciate that my opinion is just one person's, and a lot of work has gone into building a consensus for the current draft. If consensus holds for the present format (or a slightly tweaked version), that's great! I don't feel the RfC should be held up if most people are happy with the current one. isaacl (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- The 23 separate proposals at the GMO RFC look like an anti-pattern.
- User:Isaacl, the reason that I took the "mostly about" and "comment anywhere" approach is that I can foresee someone trying to be "helpful" by re-factoring other people's comments (e.g., splitting off a sentence or paragraph that is on a different subject). That would be a bad outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- I too like the change Ronz made. Brevity is good. In that vein, I'd drop the whole "We're going to try to.. in separate sections" bit. People will see the sections, and the "other" bit, and work it out for themselves and and nobody reads the instructions anyway. I'd drop the leading "The thing I really like" and "The problem I see" and just leave space for comments. It would be good to wikilink policy pages for convenience (and specifically WP:NOTPRICES which may even merit being quote boxed). I think section headings should drop the "Comments about" prefix, as the whole thing is in a discussion section. I agree that having lots of options is really bad per the GMO one and because options force people to pick one and vote. These section headings aren't options and I think the discussion will need some structure lest it just be a sprawling mess. For example, the question of when/whether the source becomes representative of developing world is "statistics" and less about any wiki policy, but the question about pricing "per dose" when the source doesn't mention which strength and how many tablets to take each morning and night, is WP:V mixed with WP:OR.
- WAID, one concern about these prices is whether the way they are stated can have no meaning for the reader. A price "per treatment" has a clear meaning, and a price "per month" (for a drug you take long-term, which again, our source doesn't say) has a meaning. But a price "per dose" or "per xx tablet" or "per vial" ... I can't really see how the reader can extract meaning from that unless we state that you take two 50mg tablets three times a day for 7 days, or that the vial is 10ml and a shot is 7ml, etc. And our MEDMOS policy has always been to avoid giving dose information. Perhaps that's MoS but it is also "is this encyclopaedic" -- a fact that one can't use meaningfully. Not sure where that goes. -- Colin°Talk 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a mess. If I am understanding correctly, we are now discussing WAID's proposed RFC in Levivich's draft section, so who knows where we stand and who's on first. I could have it completely wrong; if we are in fact still discussing Levivich's drafts, could someone clue me in? It is time to archive off everything here, and start over, ala cot-cob per Barkeep49. THIS is the version I support; no convoluted TOC, no overwhelming the reader, simple but not over-simplified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note the table of contents can be suppressed, if desired, in any version. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree that it is confused mess. I tried to restart discussion of the WAID draft at #Polishing the draft. Perhaps we can continue this there. -- Colin°Talk 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is a mess. If I am understanding correctly, we are now discussing WAID's proposed RFC in Levivich's draft section, so who knows where we stand and who's on first. I could have it completely wrong; if we are in fact still discussing Levivich's drafts, could someone clue me in? It is time to archive off everything here, and start over, ala cot-cob per Barkeep49. THIS is the version I support; no convoluted TOC, no overwhelming the reader, simple but not over-simplified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, I am concerned that we avoid anything looking like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms. When that RFC came up, I took one look, and ran the other direction. I never participated. With too many options, people won't engage. (Obviously, I went too far the other direction with the singular "is it in sync" question at the MEDLEAD RFC.) The lengthy GMO RFC is what leads me to believe that the approach you took is best-- in between the two extremes, and written in a way that it draws the reader in and encourages participation rather than voting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've thought about pre-structuring response sections, by way of sorting it. I'll set up a section and ping you in the edit summary (so you'll know when it's done), so you can see what one approach would look like. (Feel free to revert it after you've read it, if you don't think it will work well.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate that different editors want to look at different questions, and so that's how the current draft RfC has ended up how it is. I have similiar concerns as Tryptofish regarding the quality of feedback that may be received (though I don't share the worry about having just one RfC) and it's unfortunate the editor is no longer participating. I understand, though, that others are not as worried about the quality of feedback. If the key participants can agree upon the critical issues to discuss and they can be put into separate sections, great! isaacl (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree that concentrating on a specific point of contention makes the discussion less powerful. Generally a better discussion ensues from focusing on one thing at a time, with more in-depth follow-up occurring. It's not like there's only one opportunity to gather information, so it isn't necessary to take comments on everything at once. I appreciate, though, that it's been difficult to try to reach a consensus on a specific focus. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- isaacl, have a look at #Questions not Opinions. There are lots of questions people might ask themselves when looking at the source, the text and the half-a-dozen polices and guidelines linked at question at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices. The one WAID mentions is closed to #3 in my list and is certainly a very important one about whether the source supports the "in the developing world" claim in the text. However, that is also a question unique to one database and one world area, and doesn't help when we consider US, UK or other regions. Another important question is the degree to which original research is permitted to calculate a daily dose or treatment cost, especially when the source (nor other similar databases) does not say what strength of tablets to pick, how many to take a day and how long to take them for. Or whether picking one pill or one vial or one tube of cream, out of multiple options, is acceptable and representative. And so on. There are lots of questions and I think the beauty of WAIDs RFC is it allows editors to think about however many they want. They can concentrate on WP:V or WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT or WP:NOT or WP:LEAD. As soon as we ask a specific question and just that question, then it isn't so powerful, and I don't think a "should" question is as helpful. Compare to 3D "Should articles state any pricing information cited to the International Medical Products Price Guide". That invites a yes/no response, or some vague "Yes, sometimes or "No, only sometimes", and isn't actually being contested by anybody in the dispute. It leads away from looking for policy answers and rather more towards some advocacy answer and wishful optimism. -- Colin°Talk 21:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- If that's the locus for which the first RfC is intended to gather more viewpoints, then perhaps the main question in your proposed draft could focus more attention on this aspect of the issue? isaacl (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- With discussion in multiple sections now, and after six weeks at this (while trying to move on to regular editing), I may be losing the plot. I am looking at and responding to the samples just above, in this section, that are not to a database, rather are sourced in ways that appear to be in accordance with NOTPRICES. My concern with the (good) work done by Levivich continues to be that we are not giving enough information to draw in the reader, encourage them to participate, or understand what question is being asked, all of which WAID's draft does well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ronz, SandyGeorgia, Colin, WhatamIdoing, focus on the locus of the dispute is great. Apologies for asking this but how are the examples in 3A - 3C not being sourced to a drug database? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree; these appear to be examples that are compliant with WP:NOTPRICE
Actually, James the first example, which was added to the article by you, has a problem. The source says "The cost of a 12-week course of sofosbuvir is as high as US$84,000 in the US". Our article might also say "as high as" rather than "about", because they mean different things. The date of the US price is "accessed Dec 2015" so that price isn't "as of 2016". "As-of" date inflation is the norm for drug prices, and I don't know why. The paper says "Branded sofosbuvir is available at a suggested price of US$900/12-week course in 101 named low-income countries" but the $900 figure isn't in the article sentence. The prices for UK, Canada and India claim to be sourced to this article, but are not. So of the first four drug prices you suggest could be included in an RFC, three of them are simply unsourced, and a chance to include the price for 101 low-income countries is not taken. --- Colin°Talk 09:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Defined daily dose (DDD)
There has been a fair bit of discussion on whether or not DDD is appropriate for rough estimates of medication prices. We have a number of sources which support this use. Specifically the government of Canada says the DDD can be used to provide "a rough idea of the daily cost of utilizing a drug in a specific formulation" and "provides a rough idea of the cost differential between the two formulations of the same drug". We are using it for the first purpose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, I think our priority right now should be to launch an RFC. There's a whole section at WHO on DDD and specifically on its use and abuse. It very much argues against the use we are doing, and why their sole focus on DDD is for utilisation. And yes at a crude population level, it could give a rough idea of the cost of utilising that drug in a specific formulation. That's up to researchers to judge if it meets their needs, not Wikipedians. What it doesn't represent, is the dose that an individual patient might take and thus cost them per day or month. Repeatedly MSH and WHO have to remind us it is not a therapeutic dose nor does it represent average prescribed doses (which themselves vary from country to country and year to year) . Wrt your second example, yes WHO give that as an example of how it could be used to compare the cost of e.g. 5mg tablet vs 10mg/5ml syrup. But, if you think about it for a moment, all you are doing with that is agreeing on an arbitrary dose to compare two formulations: the actual dose need not be representative of any therapeutic value. It's just a number.
- Furthermore, there are no sources saying what indication the DDD was calculated for or what choice they made if their own source lacked a clear "maintenance dose" value (they sometimes pick initial and sometimes max). When we have a drug for multiple conditions (epilepsy, neuropathic pain, mental health disorders), the DDD is totally useless because the cost to treat really depends on what indication you are treating, and you don't know that. DDD is a red herring. Our only source that offers it (MSH) warns about its careful use and does not themselves use it to give a cost-per-day, which should be a clear warning sign that this is inappropriate original research. The other sources (Drugs.com, BNF, NADAC) do not give a DDD or indeed any one dose, so any attempt to use them to give a cost per day/month/treatment is both original research and synthesis of sources. -- Colin°Talk 11:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This source converts the MSH data into price per year with "Carvedilol is listed on the Management Sciences for Health International Drug Price Indicator Guide with average price per tablet of $0.20 or $144 per year for twice daily treatment"[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, it is so "rough" because it is for population studies. The kind where someone says we might spend £1.5 million on a drug, but it probably doesn't change the point if the actual cost is £1 million or £2 million. Wikipedia is giving a price in dollars and cents for one patient, and then waving the word "approximately" about as if that absolves all sins. As for the paper from 2011, it is wonderful what Google can turn up. I tried to find the record they quote. Carvedilol in 2011 gives three doses. The 6.25mg tablet has a median (only) supplier price of 0.0414. At the DDD of 37.5, is six a day x 365 = $90. The 12.5mg tablet has no suppliers and a median buyer price of 0.1669. That's three a day x 365 = $182. The 25mg tablet has no suppliers and a median buyer price of 0.2041 which is pretty close to the "average price per tablet of $0.20" they mention. But wait, 25mg doesn't go into 37.5mg, and they mention "twice daily treatment" so I guess they mean 50mg per day. That price is twice a day x 365 which is $149. Not quite the $144 they give but close.
- What does this tell us? The paper mentions "per tablet... twice daily" and yet there is no tablet dose that is 18.75mg. This is because DDD is not actually a therapeutic dose that any patient might take. Their maths mostly work at 50mg. Looking at Drugs.com we see the 6.25, 12.5 and 25mg tablets "twice a day" being the initial and then tritrated "if tolerated" up to the maximum, but lots of other dose options too. That really isn't the paper to convince anyone that DDD is a useful measure, when they don't use the DDD of 37.5mg but instead 50mg. Further, we see that if we did try to use the DDD, we get yearly prices of $90, $149 and $182 depending on which tablet size we chose. All three tablet sizes make sense for individual patients and indications and stages of treatment. This is why we don't allow original research: the numbers are effectively random. -- Colin°Talk 13:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The argument here is similar to saying, "doses of medications are random". Please note they are not. There are well accepted dosage ranges. Do we need a RfC to ask "are dosages of medications random" as that is the argument you are making? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying that original research produces random numbers. The source gives three pill sizes and none of them are 37.5mg or 18.75mg. You say we should use DDD and then you cite a paper that looked at the DDD of 37.5mg and went ??? that's not gonna work and picked 50mg instead. Decisions decisions decisions and each time a different result. If the researchers had searched in 2010 rather than 2011, they'd only have the 6.25mg tablet, and nobody is taking six a day unless they have no other choice. -- Colin°Talk 13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- The argument here is similar to saying, "doses of medications are random". Please note they are not. There are well accepted dosage ranges. Do we need a RfC to ask "are dosages of medications random" as that is the argument you are making? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
On the big picture, we have (mis)spent a lot of bandwidth on this talk page trying to sort out the various problems (SYNTH, NOR, WEIGHT) in price text in our drug articles. We went down that path when we (I?) were (was?) seeking one good example of drug pricing information from these databases that did not have SYNTH problems, and did not find one. We can save a good deal of time by having you actively engaged in those discussion, James, and I'm not sure forbidding pings will help us move forward. Do you read all posts here, or do we have to ping you to each post? I ask because I really hate this pingie-thingie myself; when I come to a page I participate in and follow, I pull up a diff of everything since I last read, and the extra pings are just an irritation. Do we need to ping you, and if we are trying to sort out the price data in our drug articles, how can we assure you see the discussions if Colin is forbidden from pinging you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I guess the question is do we have a fundamental disagreement? Do you believe it is possible to provide a rough estimate of the cost of a medication in LMIC or other region of the world? This can be broken down into two parts:
- 1) Do you believe it is possible to provide a typical dosage range for a medication in adults used for a specific purpose?
- 2) Do you believe it is possible to provide a rough price for an amount of medication in LMIC?
- The popular press manages to determine the cost for a course of treatment "Sovaldi treatment cost $1,000 a pill, or $84,000 over 12 weeks." The Guardian managed to determine the typical dose, the typical duration of treatment, and the rough cost per dose than do the math. [29]. What you call SYNTH and NOR is simple WP:CALC. WEIGHT is clear per sources such as Doctors Without Borders.[30]
- The next question than becomes one of knowledge parity. The popular press generally just writes for wealthy people in the developed world. Do those in LMIC deserve to have pricing information for medications they may care about? My position is yes, and we have excellent sources such as MSH that provides these details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am thinking these could be two useful questions for the RfC. User:WhatamIdoing User:Tryptofish wondering your thoughts? If either of these are false than we would all agree that it is impossible to list a price for a medication for an area.
- Other questions could be is multiplying a dosage range for a purpose by the rough cost estimate by a time period WP:CALC or WP:SYNTH and are prices of medications WP:DUE.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, these aren't yes/no questions that apply in all cases. We can find drugs with one standard dose and we can find drugs with many suppliers in the MSH. But in the general case, no you can't. There are multiple indications, multiple dose ranges, multiple patient ages, weights and liver function and existing medications.
- What matters isn't so much right now these abstract questions, which are complicated to answer, but actual sources and actual texts in actual articles, which despite months of discussion have not changed. If you believe these things are possible, and possible generally for most drugs (over 500 have these prices), then argue the case when the RFC is posted. There is a reason why WHO/HAI have only 14 core global medicines and survey at most 50 (at specific strengths and formulations for specific indications and patient age and specific treatment duration or daily dose). The MSH database is way too sparse to be a reliable source for 500+ medicines. It is officially not a reliable source for international reference price if there are not many suppliers. That's WHO/HAI official policy. Which trumps any Wikipedian opinion. -- Colin°Talk 13:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, it is helpful to have you fully engaged in understanding that these are complex questions even for those of us who understand the sources and understand SYNTH. The problems we have now in more than 500 articles go way beyond what an average reader, or even RFC respondent, can understand. Diverting energy now towards addressing those problems is a distraction from the RFC. But, we must continue to make sure you are fully engaged with us in sorting out these problems. We have this split now between the sample price discussion above of chlorthalidone, and this section; let's continue here. Do you now see that what we have presented to our readers for chlorthalidone, in the lead of an article, is neither useful nor accurate nor in accordance with NOR ? Sorting out that we have a big problem in 500+ articles is a very different matter than deciding via RFC whether drug prices from databases should even be in our articles at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- After our discussion what I see is that what we have in our article on chlorthalidone is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the price per month of the medication in question. Looking at the references yes 12.5 mg can be used, 25 mg can be used, and 50 mg can be used. Could the price range from 6.75 to 27 USD? Sure. I prescribe medications that range in price from pennies to 10,000s per dose (a million fold difference). A 2 or 4 fold difference fits well within the range of "about".
- Additionally I believe our readers are smart enough to realize this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, it is helpful to have you fully engaged in understanding that these are complex questions even for those of us who understand the sources and understand SYNTH. The problems we have now in more than 500 articles go way beyond what an average reader, or even RFC respondent, can understand. Diverting energy now towards addressing those problems is a distraction from the RFC. But, we must continue to make sure you are fully engaged with us in sorting out these problems. We have this split now between the sample price discussion above of chlorthalidone, and this section; let's continue here. Do you now see that what we have presented to our readers for chlorthalidone, in the lead of an article, is neither useful nor accurate nor in accordance with NOR ? Sorting out that we have a big problem in 500+ articles is a very different matter than deciding via RFC whether drug prices from databases should even be in our articles at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I chose chlorthalidone as a starting example because it is the one of the simplest I have seen in these discussions; the text we have presented on other drugs has far bigger problems. It is your opinion that our readers can sort it out. It is my opinion (and others) that what we have here is a problem not only of LEAD, NOTPRICE and WEIGHT, but a problem of SYNTH. Do you see why we need a separate RFC on that matter before we move on to the wider RFC? How can we ask Wikipedia editors whether price information should be included, when we do not even have price information that we all agree conforms with other policy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- James, mathematically, you cannot say "the wholesale cost is about US$13.50 a month" if you feel the price is only accurate to within 2x or 4x approximation and you don't care if 12.5mg, 25mg or 50mg tablets are used. Our readers trust what we write and really no amount of "about" or "approximately" covers us if we give a price to four significant figures. It is one thing if our sources use that language, but it isn't a sticking plaster for dodgy maths. They may look at treatment X and treatment Y and conclude that treatment Y is 2x or 4x more expensive than X whereas in fact the difference in price is down to the random chance of original research. Btw, at Carvedilol we give a "wholesale cost per dose". What does "per dose" mean? The dictionary tells me it is how much you take at one moment of time. So a DDD of 50mg but taken twice a day would produce a 25mg dose, but in a once a day sustained-release tablet would produce a 50mg dose. I don't think there's any consensus that we should provide prices in dollars and pence and then excuse our original research random results by saying the prices are only meant to be accurate to two orders of magnitude and our readers are bright enough to know that. But you can try that claim at the RFC. -- Colin°Talk 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- On all of this about the "rough estimate": Editors who are responding the RFC are welcome to express opinions about whether the example sentences would be clearer if they included words like "rough estimate". Editors might advise us, for example, that the current examples aren't great, but that if we added words like 'Using the defined daily dose to create a rough estimate of costs' to the start of the sentence, they'd be satisfied. Or they might tell us to use fewer significant figures, so that "about $13.50" becomes "on the order of $10". Or they might say not to combine the DDD with the MSH's price per pill with the Canadian source about using the DDD this way, and tell us to just use the price per pill. They might even tell us to omit the dollars-and-cents and instead search for a source that would let us write "generally considered inexpensive". They might tell us all sorts of things. But again, all this is "answering the question", and the goal on this page today is only to write the question. Answer the question next week, please, and on the other page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Generally there is one main indication and regardless typically most if not all indications generally use similar doses. Most medication have a fairly narrow dosage range. Some of the sellers offer the medication in more than LMIC 100 countries. Qualifiers applies to all evidence within medicine and most of the time we have no idea how the qualifies affect claims of benefit as they have just not been studied. But these still not prevent use from providing an overview. Yah sure MSH is not as good when there are fewer supplies. Same as a meta analysis is not as accurate when their are fewer RCTs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- When our math is doubly wrong (12.5 vs 25 mg for chlorthalidone), we cannot say we are within a "fairly narrow dose range", and that is only one very simple example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying we don't have sources to back up the information we are giving our readers without using SYNTH, and our personal opinions, what we have experienced or seen as physicians or people interpreting for physicians, should not be coming in to play at all. We do not have sources that back up the information we have presented unless we do synthesis. And we do not have sources that, according to DUE WEIGHT, tell us what to present in the example of chlorthalidone. The problems in other articles are worse. This is probably why we should be respecting WP:NOTPRICE and not presenting these prices at all based on database sources, but that is my opinion. What would be helpful to see is whether you have any example, for any drug, that discusses drug cost in a way that does not breach, IMO, WP:SYNTH. Then we could more accurately discuss WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- What I am saying is we do have sources that provided accepted ranges for medications plus we have sources for DDD. It is thus a simple WP:CALC to convert price per dose to price per day for a typical dose or dose range which is more useful than just the price per amount by itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying we don't have sources to back up the information we are giving our readers without using SYNTH, and our personal opinions, what we have experienced or seen as physicians or people interpreting for physicians, should not be coming in to play at all. We do not have sources that back up the information we have presented unless we do synthesis. And we do not have sources that, according to DUE WEIGHT, tell us what to present in the example of chlorthalidone. The problems in other articles are worse. This is probably why we should be respecting WP:NOTPRICE and not presenting these prices at all based on database sources, but that is my opinion. What would be helpful to see is whether you have any example, for any drug, that discusses drug cost in a way that does not breach, IMO, WP:SYNTH. Then we could more accurately discuss WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- So do you see that we have a policy disagreement as to whether this is simple math without synthesis that needs to be put forward in an RFC, because we got ZERO feedback on the matter when we posted a question to the NOR noticeboard? And that we need to sort that out before we can solve the bigger question? We have not, throughout these discussions, seen one straightforward example of drug price information from the sources used in over 500 articles that we can all agree does not involve SYNTH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- We have "As of 2016 a 12-week course of treatment costs about US$84,000 in the United States, US$53,000 in the United Kingdom, US$45,000 in Canada, and about US$500 in India.Hill A, Simmons B, Gotham D, Fortunak J (January 2016). "Rapid reductions in prices for generic sofosbuvir and daclatasvir to treat hepatitis C". Journal of Virus Eradication. 2 (1): 28–31. PMC 4946692. PMID 27482432." Not sure if you consider this SYNTH aswell.
- But yes lets put the SYNTH versus CALC discussion to a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- it isn't a simple calculation to convert. Firstly the sources don't give a price per "dose" either. They give a price for one tablet size or another. Even if we thought DDD was acceptable (which WHO, who invented it, don't) it doesn't necessarily divide into specific tablet sizes (see above for 37.5 DDD) so no there is not a straightforward calculation. The drug may be once a day or twice a day or some other option, and this may depend on what kind of tablet you take. These are all things a doctor will decide at prescription time. The most you can do, James, is convert a price per day to a price per month, assuming it is obvious the indication requires long-term treatment, of course. -- Colin°Talk 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- So do you see that we have a policy disagreement as to whether this is simple math without synthesis that needs to be put forward in an RFC, because we got ZERO feedback on the matter when we posted a question to the NOR noticeboard? And that we need to sort that out before we can solve the bigger question? We have not, throughout these discussions, seen one straightforward example of drug price information from the sources used in over 500 articles that we can all agree does not involve SYNTH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Nil Einne (above, collapsed) has a point. Most of this involves one party making a claim and then another party disagreeing. We can do that in the RFC. I think this should wait till the RFC, when other voices can chip in with support or rejection and hopefully a consensus form. There's zero evidence this discussion is heading towards any consensus, that's why we are having the RFC, to get other voices. -- Colin°Talk 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- RfC are we allowed to multiple the "typical dosage range per day of a medication in adults as used for a specific purpose" by the "price per dose" to get the cost per day for a specific purpose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Example article text + source please, which gives either of those things, singular. -- Colin°Talk 15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- We probably don't have an example of an existing article that talks about "typical dosage range per day of a medication in adults as used for a specific purpose" because MEDMOS has said "Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals" for years and years and years, and the appetite in the community for putting easily vandalized dosage numbers into articles has basically been zero. Let's please not try to change that rule today. (I'm willing to talk about that later, and I even have some ideas about how to manage vandalism, but whether that information is encyclopedic is a discussion for another time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:Doc James, my thoughts on your second suggested question ("Do you believe it is possible to provide a rough price for an amount of medication in LMIC?") is that the question is too general for other editors to grapple with. I can tell you my own answer (i.e., I believe it's possible to do this at the wholesale but not retail level, for some but not all drugs, and that most articles could be improved), and I believe that at this point, my answer has more factual and policy basis than the beliefs of >99% of Wikipedians, no matter what their beliefs are. But I don't think that asking about uninvolved, non-expert editors' beliefs helps those editors help us. The current RFC draft is essentially three worked examples of how the most common source has been used. We're inviting editors to look at that and tell us how much better we can make it. That's more likely to produce informed comments than merely asking editors what they believe ought to be possible hypothetically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- We probably don't have an example of an existing article that talks about "typical dosage range per day of a medication in adults as used for a specific purpose" because MEDMOS has said "Do not include dose or titration information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, necessary for the discussion in the article, or when listing equivalent doses between different pharmaceuticals" for years and years and years, and the appetite in the community for putting easily vandalized dosage numbers into articles has basically been zero. Let's please not try to change that rule today. (I'm willing to talk about that later, and I even have some ideas about how to manage vandalism, but whether that information is encyclopedic is a discussion for another time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Example article text + source please, which gives either of those things, singular. -- Colin°Talk 15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Reboot
Allright, we are spinning our wheels. (Not complaining, since this is much better than the alternative, which was silence.) Let's start over.
James, on this page we have been discussing a SYNTH problem. You believe this is simple math, others do not. You believe using other sources supports the math you are using to add text cited only to a database. Let Colin pick a typical example, and you write text that incorporates all of those other sources you are using to support your math, and shows how you have used them. Then we can talk SYNTH vs. CALC. And from there may emerge an example to be used for an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I dont' want to be accused of cherry picking. James cites Carvedilol above. Try that. -- Colin°Talk 15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure lets. "In the United States, the wholesale cost per dose is less than 0.05 USD as of 2018."NADAC as of 2018-12-19". Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Retrieved 22 December 2018."
Per the reference all doses at that point in time were less than 0.05 USD per tablet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your source does not say what string you searched with. If I search with "Carvedilol" I get prices less than $0.05 per tablet, though the source does not say if one "tablet" equals one "dose", nor that I need to take that twice a day (so costing me twice as much). If I search with "Carvedilol ER" I get prices of $6.44, $6.61, $7.08 and $6.57 for each 10, 20, 40 and 80mg extended release tablet. Again the source does not say that I only take that once a day. See also Drugs.com Carvedilol Dosage and Carvedilol Prices. So 5 cents or 7 dollars? -- Colin°Talk 16:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, the first example missed by a factor of 100. (Imagine our readers trying to sort that ?!?!?!) James got to choose that example, now Colin gets to choose one. Next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask all involved (Sandy, Colin, James) how this is helping us move forward with the RfC? If you all agree it is helpful I don't want to stand in its way and I'm glad for James' involvement as well but this seems to be continuing the conversation that has been ongoing for as long as this dispute. If it's not helpful maybe it's best put aside for now. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 My reasoning: there is resistance on this page to launching WAID's RFC, and I am working to build understanding that there is a logical reason why we need that RFC before a broader one. Realizing the possibility that James was not following all of the discussion here earlier (possibly because of disallowed pings), I tried to start over and go through an example with him. We can probably close this off now; I hope we can see that the first (WAID) RFC is not without merit, and there really is a need to consult the community on how to use these sources, since we got no response from the NOR noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree per comment I made above, though this has at least provided an excellent example of when I say many of the prices are incorrect, we aren't just talking rounding errors from choosing a 30-day month! "Some of our article prices are incorrect by a factor of 100". Original research -> random numbers. Anyway, back to the RFC. -- Colin°Talk 18:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, to be honest, what's the most frustrating here is that a fait accompli was apparently rewarded. Generally speaking, when it becomes apparent that a large-scale change was not clearly supported by consensus, especially when it was also against policy, it should be reversed, not maintained, during the discussion on it. WP:NOPRICES is currently policy. If we want to have an RfC on whether it should or shouldn't be, we should have that, at WT:NOT (not here). Policy can change. But until and unless it does, the status quo ante should have been restored, and that was that prices are almost never included. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, I hear you. When I first started trying to mediate this, I thought similarly and looked for the status quo version to roll this back to you. However, I have become convinced through education by those with institutional memory and lots of reading that this dispute goes back years and, at various times, there has been more support for including pricing information. Knowing that an RfC has been promised it's possible that some number of those who are in favor have not participated, especially as this page grew and grew and grew in length. I don't think anyone, on any side of this disagrees that WP:NOT plays an important role in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- This part of this question has been under discussion in various ways, off and on, since at least 2014. The practical options are:
- leaving it alone, because the difference between having this content in articles for 59 months or for 61 months is basically a rounding error, or
- blanking a few lines from more than 500 articles (and re-blanking it again in some cases, because not everyone will notice edit summaries, etc., and assume it was an accident or otherwise not warranted), and then maybe needing to restore all of those a month or two later.
- I prefer not to blow up people's watchlists over this. Let's do it right, once, when we have a solid agreement on what "doing it right" looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- This part of this question has been under discussion in various ways, off and on, since at least 2014. The practical options are:
- Seraphimblade, I hear you. When I first started trying to mediate this, I thought similarly and looked for the status quo version to roll this back to you. However, I have become convinced through education by those with institutional memory and lots of reading that this dispute goes back years and, at various times, there has been more support for including pricing information. Knowing that an RfC has been promised it's possible that some number of those who are in favor have not participated, especially as this page grew and grew and grew in length. I don't think anyone, on any side of this disagrees that WP:NOT plays an important role in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: and my concern was, in what order do we approach these issues (NOT, DUE, LEAD, WEIGHT) when it became apparent we didn't even have a policy-compliant (NOR) example to put forward (in the opinion of those who believe the samples are not CALC, rather OR). If we put forward a RFC just to determine if the community supports pricing in articles, and find out that the community does support drug prices in articles, does that endorse these databases being used? We have to get this question addressed first. Also, when I was digging around to sort all of this out, it was quite disconcerting to find that we had redirects away from NOT (WP:PRICE, WP:PRICES, that earlier pointed to NOTPRICE)) to an essay, and the first line of that essay stated that Wikipedia had no policy on prices. That misleading info stood for four years (I corrected it last week). So how do we know how much of the community was misinformed by a changed redirect that pointed at faulty info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, well, the junk essay was certainly a problem, saying "There's no policy on prices" when, well, there was one. I'm generally in favor of giving wide latitude on essays, but that stops at blatant factual inaccuracies, and "There is no policy on prices" is factually false when, well, there most certainly is one. But I think that's a bit backwards. If the determination is that we shouldn't include prices at all, the question of sources for them becomes entirely moot. It's only if we determine they should be that we even have to care about how to source them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Even the strictest reading of WP:NOT indicates that Wikipedia should include at least some prices. Therefore the question is always "when and how?" rather than "always or never?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, sure. In exceptional cases, we should include prices. I don't think anyone would argue that, for example, I Am Rich should not include pricing information; that's why it's notable. There was another example I can't recall right to hand of a single treatment that costs over $2 million, and that price has similarly been extensively covered in reliable sources. We should include that there. In the Shkreli incident, price was the main issue, extensively discussed by reliable sources, and so the article must include information about it. But for general articles about products, drugs or otherwise, where the price is mentioned but not especially significant? That's exactly what NOPRICES is meant to exclude. In exceptional cases, we include prices. But most of the immediate cases aren't exceptional, and we don't include them routinely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- And if other editors agree with you that, e.g., the price of WHO Essential Medicines (whose "essentialness" is partly a factor of their low cost) aren't "exceptional", then eventually we would remove those prices. In between now and then, it's IMO better to leave well enough alone than to guess that your view is the one that the RFC(s) will eventually produce. Wikipedia:There is no deadline for this, and even if there were, the deadline would not be "1497 days after the date was added to diazepam". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Well, sure. In exceptional cases, we should include prices. I don't think anyone would argue that, for example, I Am Rich should not include pricing information; that's why it's notable. There was another example I can't recall right to hand of a single treatment that costs over $2 million, and that price has similarly been extensively covered in reliable sources. We should include that there. In the Shkreli incident, price was the main issue, extensively discussed by reliable sources, and so the article must include information about it. But for general articles about products, drugs or otherwise, where the price is mentioned but not especially significant? That's exactly what NOPRICES is meant to exclude. In exceptional cases, we include prices. But most of the immediate cases aren't exceptional, and we don't include them routinely. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: Here is what editors possibly saw for years. Yes, in which order to approach this is a dilemma. There was a point that I thought we just needed to go back to ANI, present the data developed by Colin showing how many editors have tried to remove this data over the years, and look for a new directive. That decision is above my paygrade. So, in which order do we proceed now? It is my opinion that WAID has a well-crafted RFC, while the alternative needs considerable work towards refinement, and the experience of WAID to turn it into something less confusing. But yes, there is a risk we are approaching this in the wrong order. I dunno; I am hoping Barkeep has an approach to AN that will help sort all of the different factors, but including that we don't know how many editors were misled for four years. Add to that the OTHERCRAPEXISTS meme that even FAs have prices (some of which are compliant with NOTPRICE, and some of which shouldn't even be FAs, I say with former FAC delegate hat on), and we have lots to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Even the strictest reading of WP:NOT indicates that Wikipedia should include at least some prices. Therefore the question is always "when and how?" rather than "always or never?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) SandyGeorgia, well, the junk essay was certainly a problem, saying "There's no policy on prices" when, well, there was one. I'm generally in favor of giving wide latitude on essays, but that stops at blatant factual inaccuracies, and "There is no policy on prices" is factually false when, well, there most certainly is one. But I think that's a bit backwards. If the determination is that we shouldn't include prices at all, the question of sources for them becomes entirely moot. It's only if we determine they should be that we even have to care about how to source them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: and my concern was, in what order do we approach these issues (NOT, DUE, LEAD, WEIGHT) when it became apparent we didn't even have a policy-compliant (NOR) example to put forward (in the opinion of those who believe the samples are not CALC, rather OR). If we put forward a RFC just to determine if the community supports pricing in articles, and find out that the community does support drug prices in articles, does that endorse these databases being used? We have to get this question addressed first. Also, when I was digging around to sort all of this out, it was quite disconcerting to find that we had redirects away from NOT (WP:PRICE, WP:PRICES, that earlier pointed to NOTPRICE)) to an essay, and the first line of that essay stated that Wikipedia had no policy on prices. That misleading info stood for four years (I corrected it last week). So how do we know how much of the community was misinformed by a changed redirect that pointed at faulty info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at the Administrative Noticeboard
I have notified several individual editors but also noting here that I have posted at the Administrative Noticeboard. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
RfC about the ordering of sections within Diseases or disorders or syndromes
To my thinking, Diagnosis is intimately linked with Signs/symptoms/Characteristics/Presentation and should follow it (hence proposal is to move it up two slots to follow that section. I have come to this way of thinking when writing leads that the information flows more naturally that way. This also allows for (possibly) less duplication as similar material is adjacent in the article. I can't see that there was much discussion about the original order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- For those unaware, this stems from editwarring at Schizophrenia, where Cas had re-ordered the narrative of the article, and Doc James re-instated his preferred, set order. This re-ordering of content in the body and lead of articles according to a personal preference has been occurring for years, although I am mostly aware of the damage that results to Featured articles, when the narrative is forced to fit a certain order not prescribed by any guideline, and certainly not by policy. I am unclear why we are !voting in a community-wide RFC on an issue that surfaced only hours ago, and has not even been discussed by the principals. In fact, it's apparent that the first respondents are not even sure what they are !voting for. Casliber I suggest you withdraw the RFC tag, so that you can re-submit a properly positioned RFC after Doc James has explained his rationale for edit warring, and discussed the specifics of the flow of the narrative at Schizophrenia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Should the Diagnosis section be moved up two slots in the suggested list?
- Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose --QuackGuru (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that needs to stop right here, right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Support Little pob (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)- Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that needs to stop right here, right now. See discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support We have discussed this extensively and have a consensus recommendation backed by many discussions and people over the years. It is a great default which we should not have to debate on each of 10,000+ medical articles. We have a norm and an orthodoxy, and anyone who wants an extraordinary exception should explain what is different about any outlier cases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: can you please link to where the order was set or discussed? I didn't see any discussion as such in the archives (though admittedly I didn't look exhaustively). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The suggested section headings were in the original draft posted by User:Stevenfruitsmaak. I have worked on these sections at various points in the past. There weren't extensive discussions when I was working on it, and there have been few since then. As an example, Doc James re-wrote part of it in March 2017 (e.g., removing ==Management== from the suggested list, even though that's been widely used for chronic conditions and is still correctly used in articles such as Pregnancy), and there were no discussions about those changes. In fact, from February through May 2017 (two full months either side of those changes), there was only one non-bot edit to this talk page, and it wasn't about that. We have spent more time talking about how closely articles should follow that order than about what, exactly, the order should be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- We have a consensus guideline that does not mandate any set order; it recommends headings. Please engage the facts with discussion, not !voting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: can you please link to where the order was set or discussed? I didn't see any discussion as such in the archives (though admittedly I didn't look exhaustively). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, there is no justifiable reason (at this point) to fiddle with MEDMOS. What is needed at this point is for editors to recognize that a guideline is only a suggestion, and different articles will require different structures. If we have a broader discussion, where it is determined that multiple articles would benefit from changing the suggested (not mandated) order, then we might consider changing it. At this point, we are not there. Conducting an RFC less than 12 hours after a dispute on one article is not going to lend a good resolution. The suggested order does not work at Tourette syndrome, where putting Characteristics before Classification lends a better flow to the narrative. Different topics may have a different order, and MEDMOS only supplies suggestions. What to do at individual articles, like Schizophrenia, should be developed by consensus building at article talk, and not with drive-by !voting from editors who may not even understand the topic in depth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I beg to differ as whatever the order (even if not proscriptive), there needs to be a default. Having no suggested order at all is problematic and having a suboptimal one we keep having to justify changing (as we are doing) is also problematic and wasteful of time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I accept that the "suggested" order may be a default for some articles. We don't know what "some" means here, though. Also, I am hesitant to alter the suggested order now, without having thoroughly looked at a number of articles to make sure we won't disrupt the narrative when someone goes around automatically changing the structure of every article to conform to a new suggestion. We have a suggested order that has been applied as if it were a mandated order. We need to a) get back to understanding it is a suggestion, b) allow for variances by topic, and c) carefully analyze how your proposal will affect other articles. And, even doing all that, we need to stop having people going around altering the structure of articles to suit a personal preference. While I support the order you installed at schizophrenia, I oppose fiddling with MEDMOS until we've looked more carefully. MEDMOS does NOT prevent you from rearranging the narrative at schizophrenia, and I trust you on that. And your changes were edit warred away, which is a separate problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- For example, Casliber, I'd ask you to consider how long it is going to take me to have a careful look at all the FAs I watchlist to see how this will impact the narrative. Discussing before an RFC is a good thing. But do what you need to do at schizophrenia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I accept that the "suggested" order may be a default for some articles. We don't know what "some" means here, though. Also, I am hesitant to alter the suggested order now, without having thoroughly looked at a number of articles to make sure we won't disrupt the narrative when someone goes around automatically changing the structure of every article to conform to a new suggestion. We have a suggested order that has been applied as if it were a mandated order. We need to a) get back to understanding it is a suggestion, b) allow for variances by topic, and c) carefully analyze how your proposal will affect other articles. And, even doing all that, we need to stop having people going around altering the structure of articles to suit a personal preference. While I support the order you installed at schizophrenia, I oppose fiddling with MEDMOS until we've looked more carefully. MEDMOS does NOT prevent you from rearranging the narrative at schizophrenia, and I trust you on that. And your changes were edit warred away, which is a separate problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I beg to differ as whatever the order (even if not proscriptive), there needs to be a default. Having no suggested order at all is problematic and having a suboptimal one we keep having to justify changing (as we are doing) is also problematic and wasteful of time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Bludgeoning is not a substitute for discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Johnuniq could you possibly "bludgeon" just a small bit ... that is, give us something to work with in terms of moving this discussion forward? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sureWe have nearly 10,000 articles on medical conditions. The question is who would do the switch over / write the bot to do the switch over? And is all this effort worth the justification? Not so sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)- Doc James did you read the entire discussion here? The section we are posting in says suggested list (of headings). Neither this list of headings, nor a forced order of those suggestion sections in articles, is required. Consensus is determined at each topic depending on how the narrative flows best for that topic. No one would "write a bot to switch over", and no editor should be making bot-like edits to enforce a suggested guideline as if it were Wikipedia policy. We should be seeing red flags going off all over the place when bot-like edits are disrupting the order of carefully crafted narrative that flows naturally by section according to the topic. It is hard to understand why some editors would even do this without first obtaining consensus, and even harder to understand why we would suggest that a bot could do that. A bot cannot read the narrative to see if reordering sections affects the flow of the narative. Wikipedia articles are not NIH factsheets, and shouldn't read like them. Further, bots are only approved for non-controversial edits, and for a bot or a real person to be making these bot-like edits is controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nope nope nope. Whether all the articles need to match is a totally different RFC for a totally different day. Or month. Doc James, please don't worry about implementation details at this stage. If you think that the proposed order is even slightly better for readers than the current order, then you should support it. If you think that a different order would be even better, then you should propose your improvement. The exact process for implementing it can be sorted out after we've decided whether any change needs to be made. There's no point in lining up volunteers to make the change if we conclude that it's a bad idea, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Doc James did you read the entire discussion here? The section we are posting in says suggested list (of headings). Neither this list of headings, nor a forced order of those suggestion sections in articles, is required. Consensus is determined at each topic depending on how the narrative flows best for that topic. No one would "write a bot to switch over", and no editor should be making bot-like edits to enforce a suggested guideline as if it were Wikipedia policy. We should be seeing red flags going off all over the place when bot-like edits are disrupting the order of carefully crafted narrative that flows naturally by section according to the topic. It is hard to understand why some editors would even do this without first obtaining consensus, and even harder to understand why we would suggest that a bot could do that. A bot cannot read the narrative to see if reordering sections affects the flow of the narative. Wikipedia articles are not NIH factsheets, and shouldn't read like them. Further, bots are only approved for non-controversial edits, and for a bot or a real person to be making these bot-like edits is controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Imo, the general public seeking information asks themselves; what am I feeling, what am I seeing, do i have any of the risk factors, does this make sense for me; then progresses to how a diagnosis is made by their HCP. E.g. oral cancer signs, symptoms, and causes are all information someone will need to assess the disorder. Also, I think diagnosis needs to immediately precede treatment because of flow. This is especially true where treatment is dependent on diagnostic classification and staging. I don't know if this order works for every article (and I don't think it's unreasonable for editors of a specific page to come to consensus on something different) but as a guideline I think it should stand as-is. Ian Furst (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Diagnosis can be done in two ways I can think of. Clinically by looking at signs and symptoms in a patient in front of you, or in a lab by looking for either the infectious agent, or antibody response, or the genetic fault, or some other marker, or screening or chance discovery in someone who may be symptomless (not just newborns but also cancer). Diagnosis can be a relatively unimportant feature of a disease or a critical one. So it may be necessary to discuss the cause (infections agent, genetic fault) and mechanisms (which lead to screening marker, say) before one can explain how a diagnosis is achieved (if one bothers at all -- think common cold, or tummy bug). The fact that the suggested section orders (and their inclusion/absence/naming) do not work for all disease/disorders is very much an integral part of the advice at MEDMOS and always has been. -- Colin°Talk 10:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We should retain the flexibility of the current guidelines. In my field, a diagnosis of gastroenteritis is made based on signs and symptoms. There are several causes of gastroenteritis, bacterial, viral and parasitic for example. The initial diagnosis can be confirmed in the laboratory by identifying the causal agent. (If the illness is severe enough to warrant further investigation). So, Colin is correct in saying that (in this example) we need to tell the reader what the causes are before we can explain the methods we use in the lab to confirm our suspicions. Graham Beards (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Deviation should be acceptable depending on the condition being discussed, but Diagnosis very often requires concepts from "Causes" and "Mechanism"/"Pathophysiology" to make any sense; it is not always possible for these concepts to be developed in the introduction. For instance, the diagnosis of hypothyroidism depends on blood tests for TSH and thyroxine, and the mechanism for the elevated TSH in primary hypothyroidism and its uselessness in secondary or central hypothyroidism won't make sense without the "Mechanism" section. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about the best order
Discuss other alternatives or elaborate on this option here - more specifically if anyone can come up with an exampled of a medical syndrome where Diagnosis is not intimately linked with Signs/symptoms/Characteristics/Presentation. I'm all ears. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- well this isn't a syndrome, but a more general example of medical sections for a condition per NIH US Department of Health and Human Services NIH/GARD Neurofibromatosis-1
- ...….... 1.lede(summary)
- 2.Symptoms
- 3.Cause
- 4.Inheritance
- 5.Diagnosis
- 6.Treatment
- 7.Prognosis
- --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I'm no expert on general medicine, but in the field of hyperbaric medicine, nitrogen narcosis is diagnosed by response to treatment (i.e. ascending), and a diagnosis of decompression sickness is only confirmed when the symptoms respond to treatment (i.e. recompression), so it's probably a bit more complicated than a standard "symptoms – diagnosis" link. Nevertheless, you make a good point and I wouldn't object to altering the order in our guidance to bring diagnosis just after symptoms if it seems that it would be beneficial in the majority of cases. Anyway, I believe we should treat this as "soft guidance", the sort of advice that is helpful in many cases, but is accepted as non-prescriptive whenever a good reason presents to deviate from it. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cas Liber, you can't use signs, symptoms, characteristics, and presentation to diagnose famously asymptomatic diseases, like garden-variety Hypertension. It usually works in your specialty; it doesn't work for everything.
- (I've no objection to re-ordering the suggested list.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not so sure it doesn't work for hypertension - the lack of symptoms and signs can be mentioned closely together, streamline and then other investigations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I might start the Hypertension article with a section on ==Screening== (which it's missing). But that's only one article. Think about all the things that get diagnosed through primarily screening of aymptomatic. All of the Newborn screening tests are predicated on the notion that you'll hopefully catch these diseases before (often irreversible) signs and symptoms appear. It's not necessarily wrong to start Phenylketonuria with a section on symptoms, but that diagnosis is not intimately linked with the symptoms, and it would be just as good to start that article (which currently has no ==Diagnosis== section) with a section on newborn ==Screening==, and I might put ==Symptoms== after ==Management==, because you will hopefully see no symptoms if you can get the management worked out. Symptoms just aren't important for diagnosing most PKU babies, so why would we lead with them? "Here's all the scary things that hypothetically could have happened to your baby, except they won't, because the diagnosis came first?" That's not the narrative order I'd expect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've looked at Tourette syndrome, and I think the introduction of possible genetic relationships/subsets between TS, OCD and ADHD is helpful to have before discussing the importance during diagnosis of looking for comorbid conditions. I don't have time today to look beyond that. So, in the case of TS, the order that we now have works, except that I moved Classification after Characteristics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I might start the Hypertension article with a section on ==Screening== (which it's missing). But that's only one article. Think about all the things that get diagnosed through primarily screening of aymptomatic. All of the Newborn screening tests are predicated on the notion that you'll hopefully catch these diseases before (often irreversible) signs and symptoms appear. It's not necessarily wrong to start Phenylketonuria with a section on symptoms, but that diagnosis is not intimately linked with the symptoms, and it would be just as good to start that article (which currently has no ==Diagnosis== section) with a section on newborn ==Screening==, and I might put ==Symptoms== after ==Management==, because you will hopefully see no symptoms if you can get the management worked out. Symptoms just aren't important for diagnosing most PKU babies, so why would we lead with them? "Here's all the scary things that hypothetically could have happened to your baby, except they won't, because the diagnosis came first?" That's not the narrative order I'd expect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, not so sure it doesn't work for hypertension - the lack of symptoms and signs can be mentioned closely together, streamline and then other investigations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I'm no expert on general medicine, but in the field of hyperbaric medicine, nitrogen narcosis is diagnosed by response to treatment (i.e. ascending), and a diagnosis of decompression sickness is only confirmed when the symptoms respond to treatment (i.e. recompression), so it's probably a bit more complicated than a standard "symptoms – diagnosis" link. Nevertheless, you make a good point and I wouldn't object to altering the order in our guidance to bring diagnosis just after symptoms if it seems that it would be beneficial in the majority of cases. Anyway, I believe we should treat this as "soft guidance", the sort of advice that is helpful in many cases, but is accepted as non-prescriptive whenever a good reason presents to deviate from it. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ozzie's suggestion that we look at an NIH publication points out quite well one of the underlying tensions in all differences at WPMED. Some editors want to enforce guidelines as if they were policy, which yields leads of Featured articles that read like an NIH factsheet, aimed at 12-year olds. Others believe that a reader looking for that can go to NIH, and that Wikipedia should not be duplicating NIH facthsheets. Further, Wikipedia Featured articles are not intended to nor should they read like an NIH factsheet. This underlying tension has resulted in no Featured articles being produced in the health/medicine realm for five years, where there was once substantial participation in and growth of medical FAs. In this dispute, we see that bubbling over, with Cas (a prolific FA writer) attempting to install what he views as a logical flow to a featured article on a topic in which he is an expert, while another editor is allowed to editwar away those changes, before even discussing. When this trend of enforcing guideline as if it were policy started about five years ago, some Featured article writers gave up, because it is not possible to comply with policy and WP:WIAFA, while also attempting to satisfy a local guideline that has been enforced as policy. There is no reason for a Featured article lead to read like an NIH facthsheet (which by the way, for Tourette syndrome was wrong for years if not decades). Deciding what the guideline should say is one thing. The alienation of topic experts is yet another. Deciding if some editors are enforcing guidelines as policy is another. Learning how to discuss, listen, and build consensus should replace factionalized !voting that has occurred throughout WPMED for many years now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Two problems
- Problem #1 is Cas's RFC question. Problem #1 says that the suggested order currently runs (in part) "Symptoms, Cause, Mechanism, Diagnosis" and he thinks that it should run "Symptoms, Diagnosis, Cause, Mechanism" (or some other system that put the symptoms and diagnosis together).
- Problem #2 is SandyGeorgia's concern. Problem #2 says that the long-standing text in MEDMOS is being ignored. That text says, "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article." (emphasis added).
Notice that it's possible to "support" changing the suggested order and "oppose" enforcing the suggested order on all articles, and to "oppose" changing the suggested order and "support" enforcing the old order everywhere, and all the other possible combinations. If you are going to "vote" (which you probably shouldn't be doing...), then please be clear what you're voting on. The RFC question is about what order the suggestions should be in. The RFC question is not about whether that suggested order should be enforced strictly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The original format (with separate numbered sections to make vote-counting easier) is something that's discouraged by Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. I've re-arranged it to the usual chronological order, and since folks are having such trouble figuring out what the actual question is, I've put that question right in the section heading. In particular, User:Blueraspberry may have voted "Support" on something he either opposes or has no opinion on, because his (nicely explained) comment has next to nothing to do with the question at hand. On the other hand, Ozzie10aaaa and QuackGuru dumped unexplained votes on the page, so nobody has any idea whether they were voting against Cas's proposal to improve the order, or if they are instead disagreeing with SandyGeorgia's view that they shouldn't force every single article into exactly the same order and don't actually care whether the recommended order has the diagnosis before or after the mechanism section.
- I encourage everyone (including Cas Liber and Little pob) to read that question, decide if you have an opinion on that question, and make sure that your "vote" is accurately represented. And maybe you should even take a moment to explain why you think that a suggested order of "Symptoms, Cause, Mechanism, Diagnosis" is better or worse than an equally suggested order of "Symptoms, Diagnosis, Cause, Mechanism". That's what we really need from you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The third problem is launching an RFC before we have even taken the time to analyze the structures of different articles. The RFC should be withdrawn until we've done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cas looked over some articles before starting this RFC. It might not be as detailed an analysis as you would have preferred, but it's probably more than most people do when making similar proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Casliber if I could see such an analysis, I might change my stance on suggested order. But it is much more important that we reinforce that a guideline is a suggestion; that is, neither of these suggested orders work for Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cas looked over some articles before starting this RFC. It might not be as detailed an analysis as you would have preferred, but it's probably more than most people do when making similar proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The third problem is launching an RFC before we have even taken the time to analyze the structures of different articles. The RFC should be withdrawn until we've done that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Malformed RFC, polling is not a substitute for discussion
WP:MEDSECTION says:
The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition. Do not discourage potential readers by placing a highly technical section near the start of your article.
Casliber you have started an RFC predicated on the notion that a set of order of section is mandated by MEDMOS, when no such beast exists. Further, there has been no discussion, even with the usual "Me, too" !voters lining up (without discussion), of whether one order even works at all. Please stop voting and start discussing, with specifics for articles. This is not a popularity contest; polling is not a substitute for discussion. MEDSECTION is quite clear that we have recommended headings; extension of guidelines to apply them as if they were policy, without discussion of specifics as they relate to the narrative of specific articles, is not going to be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry claims:
... we should not have to debate on each of 10,000+ medical articles. We have a norm and an orthodoxy, and anyone who wants an extraordinary exception should explain what is different about any outlier cases
. We do not have an "established norm and orthodoxy", we have recommended headings that have been enforced by fiat. What would be disruptive would be for every article to explain why its particular narrative differs from a set order. At Tourette syndrome, constraining "Classification" to come before "Characteristics", for example, makes it very difficult to talk about tics before they are even defined. There is not a set order that works for every topic. There is a suggested order that may work for many topics. Our "readers" do not go article to article to see what we put where: a typical reader most likely goes to a medical topic of interest to them, and expects to find a narrative in that article that works for that condition to make their reading work in a logical order. What works for one article may not work for another; that is why guidelines are guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)- Came back to change !vote after realising that §Diseases or disorders or syndromes actually deals with separate a type of article to §Drugs, treatments, and devices or §Signs or symptoms etc – rather than separate sections within the same article (self-facepalm). And also noting that the suggested order for §Diseases or disorders or syndromes is largely reflected by the likes of Patient UK and Ozzie's given example. Have struck instead. Little pob (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Little pob, that's how/why discussion works ;) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am awake with coffee. Right then, the question is Is this list proscriptive? As Doc James thinks it is by this comment. As does Ozzie10aaaa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. That's a separate question. It is perhaps a more fundamental question, but please finish up this RFC and get the answer you wanted. Right now, it's completely uncertain whether the people dropping votes on this page had any idea what they were voting on. I've clarified that (I hope), but let's not even attempt to change the actual RFC question at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am awake with coffee. Right then, the question is Is this list proscriptive? As Doc James thinks it is by this comment. As does Ozzie10aaaa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Little pob, that's how/why discussion works ;) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Came back to change !vote after realising that §Diseases or disorders or syndromes actually deals with separate a type of article to §Drugs, treatments, and devices or §Signs or symptoms etc – rather than separate sections within the same article (self-facepalm). And also noting that the suggested order for §Diseases or disorders or syndromes is largely reflected by the likes of Patient UK and Ozzie's given example. Have struck instead. Little pob (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The list has never been prescriptive and above I give a good reason why sometimes you want Cause and Mechanism first in order to be able to explain the Diagnosis, and sometimes you don't and sometimes Diagnosis is rarely done in any formal sense. When I and Steven and Sandy and others worked on this list, before many here had even joined the project, I compiled a list of section orders in Featured Articles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Quick lists. There was no consistency. And we realised there was good reason to present topics within an article in a subject-appropriate way rather than requiring consistency. So the guideline was written very much saying these were suggestions to consider and "the spectrum of medical conditions is huge, including infectious and genetic diseases, chronic and acute illness, the life-threatening and the inconvenient". Indeed the guideline has always warned editors to first seek consensus for change prior to doing so on an existing article. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Polling to change a guideline to stop an edit war reminds me of a tale of a little old lady who swallowed a fly. There are other forums to deal with edit wars.
Wrt formality of structure. It may not be obvious but many websites today are not written as articles with a title, section headings and footer. They are combined by software from database records, and formatted and laid out by website designers, not authors. Indeed a resource like the BNF which have book and website formats, are generated from the same source data. If Drugs.com wants to move prices out of the main monograph page into a sub-page (which I suspect they did in the past) then that is done with a few clicks and settings in some template and the website reformats itself instantly without a single author getting out their keyboard. The layout and structure of a book is very much more apparent than a hyperlinked webpage. Indeed when BNF changed the format of their book some pharmacists were very upset because they had memorised the structure. Nobody learns Wikipedia off by heart in order to pass their registration exams. It is used ad hoc and there is no harm in our articles being ad hoc. -- Colin°Talk 11:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)