Wikiversity talk:Dealing with Medical Advice

1st person → 3rd person
This proposed policy needs to be rewritten from 1st person into 3rd person. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

why? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 14:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because otherwise it's your opinion, and certainly not a proposed policy representing community consensus! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for community opinion on this proposal that I wrote. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it would be better to write a proposal in 3rd person (as are all approved policies). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should correct that - it looks like Be bold is in the second person - but certainly none of the approved policies are written in 1st person. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an approved policy. It is a policy proposal. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer a 3rd person usage since this makes it appear more "neutral". Would it bother you much, when it is changed to 3rd person ? Since the people giving feedback seem to prefer this. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 20:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not be offended by that and I will accept community consensus. However, I do feel that proposals should be written in the first person, items up for vote in the 3rd person and policy in 2nd or 3rd person. At least that's what I was taught. Example, A government puts a proposed bill up for public debate, "The government feels that..." - first person. After this the actual document is written in the third person. But I am always happy to go along with community consensus. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting on this proposal
User:Donek has requested voting on this proposal: Policies. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is something which "voting" determines. It is a legal issue for the Wikimedia Foundation. --McCormack 19:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information. How do I show this proposal to the powers that be? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * , Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that you bring in also the moral aspect here. There are many things in our society which are legally ok, but morally not ok. The question is: why is this being tolerated ? Seems moral issues have less value than other things by the majority ? Or people are just afraid or lazy doing something ? Do we have to repeat the same mistakes also here in the virtual world ?

I would like that people who are non-adults get the necessary info about internet usage by the person providing them access to the internet (e.g. their parents who also at least are morally obliged, the internet provider, the state, ...). Adults should know that not everything is true what is said or written. And that it is always best to get at least a "second opinion" about something. btw: do we have a learning resource about How to treat information (from the internet) ? And I think that many "outsiders" tend having against anytime-editable wiki pages that feeling that they are not trustworthy :-( Well, we just need to convince them of the truth.

So, about deleting: personally I don't like deleting pages so much without giving others reasonable time to also discuss this. So regarding this point I would be against the proposal - see Deletion policy for other info (another proposal).

In general by first shooting and then asking (as e.g. other Wikimedia projects do this so often) we probably awake negative associations on the contributor's side (btw: in case some didn't see it, before saving a page at the bottom is this line "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."). And perhaps she then leaves. Unfortunately detering someone can happen very fast, a page still can be deleted (and restored) anytime, but the person leaving the project probably won't come again so easy. Why don't we give contributors (like you and me) the chance to learn by a gentle way first ? That is why we have e.g. talk pages or email. If the person wasn't active for a long time here ? Well, try it anyway.

If a page is deleted, a person without deletion-rights may not be able to get the content again to change it. And needs to wait additional time until someone provides the data again when not saved locally. Why not putting a disclaimer on every page with medical content which appear as advice ? I saw on WP that it is possible to have pictures/text (e.g. disclaimer) move along when scrolling up/down.

About publicity: wasn't there a saying somthing like: even bad publicity is publicity ? How do news agencies make their money ? Don't they do things (sometimes) which is morally not ok ? And bad publicity may not be per se bad. There may come from that new input and then also changes. Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 20:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis. However, I want to address two. Firstly, the deletion I refer to is not a page deletion. It is deletion of the content with an explanation why on the main page. This information is easily retrievable by any user but out of reach of anyone who has never edited here. On the point of bad publicity = good publicity, I don't think we should advocate anyone coming to physical harm through bad medical advice as "good" anything. While I understand the dilemma between protecting editors rights and protecting the public, I must say that one clearly outweighs the other. If the school of medicine on this site is to teach medicine and medical ethics, it must teach ethically. Wouldn't you agree? Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * >It is deletion of the content with an explanation why on the main page.
 * How about including this in the page so it is not misunderstandable ?


 * Harm to a human obviously is more important. The question now is: how high is the risk for this to happen ? Should regarding a risk with value x (which might be even more reduced by some intelligent thinking of a reader) the life of immediate contributors here at WV be "endangered" ? What about the potential psychologial damages the detered user might get and then do damage (e.g. run out with a shotgun and kill others ? Someone working at a water supply station of a big city and infecting the water? What about a news speaker who falsely out of revenge tells a false story which causes wide panic in several big cities? ...). No, I am not trying to make this now into a low-level issue - though it probably sounds like that :-( Therefore the next idea:


 * It is good that you raised the issue and I - and surely the others also - want that you feel comfortable here - you are one of us now and don't leave. Unfortunately some things won't change immediately (you can see in the version history how much contributed so far and boxing through a policy might take long - see e.g. the other proposals). Besides contacting Wikimedia Foundation (see link above) - how about creating a learning resource to reach a change of mind in another way ? E.g. take some examples you find "bad" and try to rephrase them otherwise and explaining why this might be better. List the examples in that new learning project. Invite me and others from here then (ask on the talk page so we don't come with the excuse: didn't see this :-)) to try to find an optimal better version. Perhaps you can brainwash us a little with that ? Sometimes things change when seeing from another perspective and doing the "work" :-) Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 22:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. I will address any ambiguities that crop up in discussion, starting with the one you just raised. I do not wish to change things immediately. I wish to raise some items for discussion and hope that people can be constructive in their communications relating to the subject at hand. From my experience in the real world of health and safety and medico-legal issues, I am sure that when planning safeguards against legal action or personal harm, risk of harm and the probable intelligence of those at risk don't play a part in the plan; in fact the most important issue is the possibility of it happening. I am currently in the process of writing (on paper) a lot of content for the diabetes page (one of the pages that began this debate). I will work through the pages that are causing me concern and I will try to edit them into a more educational format. I will certainly draw the attention of all involved in this debate and present my analysis of my own work and invite the analysis of others. Then, I hope to carry on with the "work" that I was involved in before I was stalled by issues that are very important to me. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes and stress
Regarding this paragraph: ''I draw particular attention to Diabetes mellitus in which the editor addresses the reader in the second person and seems to offer medical advice. To draw a comparison I would ask people to read the page on stress and note that, although written in the same style and manner, it does not directly address the reader.''
 * I suggest that this paragraph be rewritten to take into account that:
 * the editor: there are multiple editors
 * The diabetes page has been changed since this proposal was written (e.g., it is no longer in 2nd person), plus the proposal author has indicated that he soon intends to significantly update the diabetes page. (a solution could be to link to a historical version)
 * The stress page, whilst an example of 3rd person writing, isn't a particularly good example at the moment, because of the need for cleanup/wikification. Does the medical school have something closer perhaps to a 'featured page' as a stronger example?
 * -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice:
 * 1) Done.
 * 2) The first sentence you refer to has been changed to the past tense. Could you make a link to the historical relevance of this sentence i.e. In the proposal, Diabetes mellitus links to the current page. Could you link it to the original version that drew the debate? I don't know how to do this but I will after it is done.
 * 3) I agree. This has been changed to abortion. The newly-updated Diabetes mellitus page will become the new comparison. It is nearly finished :).

At the bottom of the abortion page I have added help for anyone affected by the topic. I couldn't think of a good name so I chose "Patient help" but I don't think it's very good. Online help maybe. Can anyone think of a good one? I want to put things like this at the bottom of every page and a disclaimer at the top. Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 00:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Donek, I've made the DB link historical - it looks like the content in question on that page was added by an anonymous user in this edit which may also be a useful point of reference. So, I've removed the reference to editor/editors for that content altogether - I'm thinking here that it may be most useful/accurate to refer to the edits in question as opposed to the editor/editors per se. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea Donek (talk) - Go raibh mile maith agaibh 01:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)