Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Endoxifen / Forefront

A magazine called Forefront is listed on Quackwatch. A magazine named Forefront is cited on Endoxifen. Is is the same? Because the one cited is published by the Mayo Clinic, which doesn't strike me as a quack organization. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Who knows? There are a lot of magazines with that name.[2][3][4][5] WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is basically popular press. So a low quality source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability of medical school Deans

I have opened discussion as to whether a medical school Dean of a major academic institution should be considered notable, here.--2604:2000:E010:1100:8069:D17F:7325:3D9 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

commented[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Red meat allergy & tick bites

Could someone look at the GA tick and see whether the NPR reference supporting red meat allergy associated with tick bites is adequate? I don't think it is, and removed the material accordingly, but was just reverted. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Commins, Scott P.; Platts-Mills, Thomas A. E. (2013). "Tick bites and red meat allergy". Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 13 (4): 354–359. doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283624560. ISSN 1473-6322. PMC 4235259. PMID 23743512.Review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Full text for that 'review' is available at PMC 4235259. It's not a meta-analysis nor a systematic nor literature review – more of an unstructured survey – but I would think good enough to support a claim that the link between tick bites and the allergy is being studied. The NPR news report is a typical piece of journalism based on a conversation with a medical researcher (the author of the actual article cited above). It's completely anecdotal reporting and utterly worthless to support any biomedical claim. You were right to remove it, but should have raised your concerns at the Talk:Tick page when reverted, so that editors here had somewhere to voice their opinions. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This sounds antithetical to Wikipedia purpose and policy. Wikipedia is not a science journal. It is an encyclopedia. There was nothing wrong with NPR's reporting or the citation to it. The NPR coverage bolsters the topic's status as WP:NOTABLE (unlike primary research or even meta-analysis or literature review). Their standards are to check multiple sources and fact-check scrupulously. The "conversation with a medical researcher" that you sneer about happened precisely because the researcher had published work on the topic. Just because they do not mention their other sources does not thereby mean that they simply stumbled onto a doctor who had something to say, and ran with it. Obviously technical literature can, and should, be used to refute claims from mainstream journalism, but it is decidedly not Wikipedia policy to remove material with WP:RELIABLE sourcing that accords with the science, even if that material is not from "the literature". Strebe (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have now raised it at the talk page, mentioning this discussion and the "review". Espresso Addict (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use Scare quotes around the word review. A Narrative review is a legitimate type of review article, and for some types of statements, it is the best type of review article. This particular review might be more precisely described as a "review plus research" (which is typical for rare conditions), but it's still a review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's the fact that the review is someone reviewing his own research that bothers me. I would prefer some confirmation that someone other than Commins & Platt-Mills is of the opinion that tick bites are the cause. Also I don't consider the Current Opinion series particularly reliable. (I've just looked at the one in my subject area to find that the supposed editor-in-chief has been deceased for a year...) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You can easily find confirmation that someone other than the authors of that particular paper believe that Alpha-gal allergy is caused by tick bites in the Wikipedia article on that specific allergy. Or in multiple articles on PubMed during the last decade. Or in the news section of your favorite web search engine. If your real concern is that you haven't heard about this before and it sounds weird – well, it might be weird, but this actually is accepted knowledge now. I don't think you need to worry about the facts in this case. If you want a source that is better than what's actually required, then obviously you are welcome to decide which of those sources meets your personal standards best, and to add it. It is tolerably rare for editors to object when others decide to replace a "good enough" source with a "best possible" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem in this case is in judging a source that 'reviews' its authors' own research as "good enough". It's not good enough for me, and we should be using better sources than that on principle. --RexxS (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am puzzled that so much technical academic criticism (is this a good enough type of review, do I approve of this journal series, not a meta-analysis) has got in the way of doing a simple Google search "red meat allergies tick" to find numerous quality sources on this fascinating subject. It is a topic I have encountered already in multiple places, not least my newspaper. It is really not cool, when one is ignorant of a subject, to revert (and dismiss "on principle") solely on technical grounds. I am, for example, quite confused how a "meta-analysis" could be an appropriate review for this topic. Is someone going to perform a randomised control trial to see if certain tick bites gives someone a persistent allergic response to red meat? And then someone else collect such unethical trials together to judge them mathematically? WP:MED has got itself a reputation as editors who use MEDRS as a cudgel and delete content from articles they watchlist, rather than learn about subjects and improve the content. A reader expecting to find Wikipedia as a source of information on this allergic response, will currently be rather disappointed if they start at Tick. I see Tick-borne disease only has a wikilink and zero information (mind you, it treats Typhus in a similarly inadequate manner). These days, I typically find other websites are a more comprehensive source of medical information than Wikipedia. Perhaps we have reached a point where editors are removing more information wrt health and medicine, than is being added? It would be encouraging to see those who removed or dismissed this tick allergy fact now go and do some research on the topic and improve the article. -- Colin°^Talk 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd read as many of the sources as some of those who efforts you're decrying, you'd have spotted that a meta-analysis can be performed by examining the correlations by location between the reports of persistent allergic responses to red meat and the incidence of types of tick. It's quite possible to do analyses of data collected in the field instead of in the lab, as long as you understand the possibility of confounding factors. As well as Google searches, we have PubMed and Trip Database searches to find sources on a topic, so the problem is not in the finding, but in the filtering to arrive at the best sources. I see you're still peddling your meme about how WPMED removes our valuable medical content. You know that nobody takes that seriously? Medical content on Wikipedia is universally acknowledged as being consistently among the most reliable content in the encyclopedia, but it didn't get that well-deserved reputation by allowing vested interests and POV-pushers to pollute our medical articles from the sort of lousy sources that you're so worried about being excluded. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interesting in fighting over who is the most learned editor here, or discussing some theoretical approach that does not in fact work for this rather occasional response to tick bites. It isn't the geolocation that is helpful: the ticks are widespread. The fact remains that this edit removed "valuable medical content" citing MEDRS, and rather than invest time to do a basic search to confirm the claim is in-fact established and widely recognised, you have spent your energy enlightening the world about how much you know about identifying reliable sources, while simultaneously enlightening the world about how little you know about red meat allergy due to tick bite. Which, you know, is the encyclopaedic bit after all. I'm not campaigning for "lousy sources", I'm campaigning for editors to be a lot less reverty and hostile to other editors, to find ways of fixing and improving content, rather than spending their evenings reverting everything on their watchlist that wasn't added by a fellow true believer or otherwise perfect in every way already.

If you read what I said, I didn't mention whether Wiki was reliable for medical facts. I mentioned that is simply does not contain anything like as much information as can be found elsewhere, reliably and better written, and far better illustrated, for many medical facts that I've wanted to lookup recently. RexxS, if you view the world as full of "vested interests and POV-pushers" rather than well-meaning good faith editors, then you just go around reverting information and making the encyclopaedia worse. You say "the problem is not in the finding, but in the filtering to arrive at the best sources". No, the problem is the not bothering to research at all, just reverting. I'm not anti-MEDRS at all (having created the page), and it is all well and good knowing how to find the best sources. If one only uses that knowledge to remove content that doesn't meet your standards, and if you require (in others) standards that are either not appropriate to the field, the subject or the claim, then Wiki will not grow. In fact, I wonder if for medical content, it is now shrinking. -- Colin°^Talk 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, this isn't really about the best possible source (which isn't actually required by MEDRS, remember?). This is about someone removing basic and easily verifiable information about a known allergy. The initial reaction isn't necessarily a bad one, but it's time to move past that point.

The statement in question is basically "tick bites have caused some [NB: not necessarily all] red meat allergies". Sure, the NPR news story isn't a great source for that, and I'd never recommend it. But the cited news story, and even the article that the news story can be connected to, isn't the only possible source for that statement. I dumped links to a handful of more suitable review articles on Talk:Tick. None of the ones I suggested happen to be written by the researcher that NPR interviewed, by the way. If anyone actually cared about having a better source in the article, then he could probably copy several of those PMIDs into the article and be done. Instead, the response here, to being handed a stack of review articles that are not written by Commins, has been to complain that nobody's found any sources from anyone except Commins. That sounds pretty strange, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone here wiki-old enough to remember TGN1412 (aka Theralizumab) and the PAREXEL#TGN1412 clinical trial. As news broke and information came out, Wikipedia quickly became the go-to place for facts about this drug trial. The "wiki=quick" part of our name meant we could show off how up-to-date Wikipedia could be. Don't know what a cytokine storm is? We have the info. The pages PAREXEL and TGN1412 were created on the 15th March 2006, the day the news broke, and quickly expanded by dozens of editors (I made a few minor edits). Today, Theralizumab article is probably the first place anyone starts when researching such events. We were fascinated by the information and wanted to share that with others.

The red-meat allergy from tick bites story is also a fascinating one of immunology detective work, coupled with the "good fortune" that the researcher got bitten by a tick and so developed a response. The article Alpha-gal allergy currently cites a lot of newspapers. That's probably fine for the history and background info but less so for the medical claims. We get odd reverts like this where "some types of lean meat" is removed as unsourced, but also edits to the info box are also removed, but there's no indication the previous information in that box was sourced or correct. The info box currently does not match the article body. Currently the article claims venison is safe to eat, but the source given for that whole sentence doesn't confirm that. So that's potentially dangerous information. It would be really great if editors with journal access could improve this article and its sources. Not just by removing whole chunks. -- Colin°^Talk 11:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Video Wiki

Video about acute vision loss.

We have a new project called Video Wiki which allows:

1. The easy creation of videos from scripts from Wikipedia and images / short videos from Commons
2. Script can have inline references
3. The script text ends up in the captions of the video with references. These captions can be turned on and off
4. At the end of the video it automatically adds
   1. i) the license for the text (CC BY SA license)
   2. ii) attribution of those who have edited the scripts
   3. iii) all the metadata for the references supporting the scripts
5. The final video on commons lists the files that the video is derived from
6. Attribution for the images is automatically added at the bottom of each image

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have a relatively easy way to create videos that are simple to update and can be fully referenced. Looking at starting a movement wide RfC about there potential usage within Wikipedia. Wondering if people have comments / thoughts?

Still work to do to improve and increase the functionality of the underlying software that generates these. For example we are working to tighten up the reference section of the video. And improve flexibility around attribution of the text component. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks promising. The voice speed at 1x is a bit fast for me, and at 0.5x is much too slow. I suggest another option at about 0.8x to 0.9x for people who have a slight hearing disability. Also, overlaying text of subtitles need better contrast (black holes). Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rogueassasin123 what options do we have for speed? I am thinking User:Pbsouthwood that it might be best to improve the player to give more options.

Also Pb not sure what you mean by black holes? We had a request previously to use the same font as WP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pbsouthwood: Thanks for the feedback. Interesting. We can keep a slider from 0,5x - 2x speed. That way you can adjust your speed to your liking. Yes, we can definitely work on improving the contrast :) User:Doc James: If I am not wrong, Pb was referring the subtitles contrast in the "Black Hole" article on VideoWiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratik.pks (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Peter's point about contrast is a little subtler than that. The white subtitles and their associated dark grey background actually have some transparency set. That is useful so that the video beneath them is still discernible. Unfortunately, if there is too much transparency, the video itself starts to interfere with the legibility of the text in the subtitles. It's a difficult balance to get right – and the optimal setting may vary from person-to-person – but the present setting is just a little too transparent for me to be comfortable with when trying to read rapidly. If I were deaf, I think I'd have difficulty taking in all that's happening, and I think you may need to slow it down by 10% or so by default, as the video player settings are often fiddly to sort out. Perhaps you might want to do some usability testing if we can find some volunteers with specific impairments. It's certainly worth asking Graham87 if he can get reasonable value out them. I'll ping Sitush and hope he doesn't mind me asking him how he finds the videos. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:RexxS Thanks for bring out the nuances . would love to hear Graham and Sitush's comments. A comprehensive usability testing definitely needs to be done to find an appropriate transparency settings. --Pratik.pks (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: As a totally blind person, I wouldn't get any use of all out of something like these videos. All blind people I know prefer to use screen readers to have fine-grained control over reading text. The few who would use something like that would find services like Pediaphon much more suitable. Graham87 15:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The pinned video here re: acute vision loss is useless to me. I can't keep track of the subtitles and what is going on in the video itself, and if I concentrate on the subs then the video squiggling away in the background of my focus is a massive distraction. It's a bit difficult to explain why subs on a TV programme are rarely (in my experience) as much of a problem but it is some form of information overload, and I've got a quick brain. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

My comment was referring to the black hole video. Sorry, I thought it would be sufficiently obvious, but as is often the case things are more obvious after they have been pointed out. I have no idea about how these videos are assembled, but would it be possible to add the subtitles below the video? then they can be black on white which is best option for most people. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Slider from 0.5 to 2x should cover most people's needs. Certainly exceeds my requirements. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In the UK, subs tend to be on a black background, not white. Not sure that slowing it down would make any difference - the two I have looked at (acute vision and Kerala) are simply trying to do too much and yet, conversely, are so "potted" as to be almost pointless. Just looks like more dumbing down to me, as with infoboxes. - Sitush (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• support looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you please point us to instructions on how to update the video narrative and the visuals that are in the video? The script is editable, but changing the script does not seem to automatically update the video. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Same old problem, and I hope they aren't shoved into articles en masse as happened before. I do not support this venture, for all the same old reasons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like considerable effort has been made to fix some of the issues we've had with videos in the past. I asked this question so we can assess whether all the critical issues have been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Clayoquot User:SandyGeorgia: It tackles all the issues raised previously :) If you change the script - you will have to click on the "update icon" on the VideoWiki editor and the visual narrative will get immediately updated. Further, if you want to change the visual content - you can click on the "Edit icon" on the VideoWiki editor and simply drag and drop content from the search bar (which pulls content from Wikimedia Commons). The biggest "innovation" of VideoWiki software is that it breaks down a Video into "slides". This "modular approach" allows a video file to be edited wiki style, i.e., anyone can edit any part of the video if they feel that the slide is not appropriate. Further, the Drag and Drop UI is made to be simple to democratize video editing as now, even non-professional editors can edit a VideoWiki Article. You can see the instructions/demo of all the major features of VideoWiki at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Video . Let me know if you have any further questions, I will be happy to clarifyPratik.pks (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User_talk:Clayoquot changes to the script do not immediately and automatically propagate at this point in time. Whether or not they should and how much can be discussed. But basically with respect to updating once a new stable version of the script is avaliable.

One goes here https://videowiki.wmflabs.org/en/videowiki/Wikipedia:MEDSKL/Acute_vision_loss?wikiSource=https://enbaike.710302.xyz and than hits the "update article" button. Should likely say "update video".

One then needs to move the new version to Commons before it can be placed on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think turning WP articles into Powerpoint presentations on rocket fuel is particularly helpful. It seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sitush: I think you are confusing the editing interface (which looks like a PPT because we break down a video into "slides") with the final WebM video file that gets uploaded to Wikipedia/Commons. The "Acute Visual Loss" video above is based on a "video" uploaded by MEDSKL. The MEDSKL video was run though VideoWiki so that now the video can be editable and updatable wiki style.Pratik.pks (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

very well explained--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand. There was no confusion on my part. Call it stop-motion if you like but the fact still remains that I think the entire concept is a solution looking for a problem. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Pratik.pks and Doc James. I haven't taken the time to try actually editing a video, so I will take your word for it that it can be done. It looks like my major objections to the Osmosis videos have been addressed, at least in principle. As with the Osmosis videos, I'm still unconvinced that these cartoon/Powerpoint videos are useful to the general reader, or that they're what readers have in mind when they ask for more video content. Both Osmosis and MEDSKL aim their videos at medical students for whom a key goal is to memorize information. I can imagine how cartoon/Powerpoint videos might be a useful supplement to textbooks if you're trying to memorize stuff and your brain is tired of reading. Wikipedia readers are generally looking to learn but not to memorize - Wikipedia is a reference work, not an exam prep tool. My editorial sense is that these videos should be placed in the Further Reading or External Links section of articles, as most readers won't care for them. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback User_talk:Clayoquot. - Regards, Pratik.pks (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube has 100s of videos that get many 10s of thousands of views that are based on Wikipedia.[7]

The Osmosis videos receive 10s of millions of views and they have nearly a million subscribers on Youtube.

I obviously disagree with the claim that people do not want short summary videos within Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those are low viewing figures by YouTube standards, where people tend to be click-happy/low attention span anyway in my experience. Is there way to see how many viewers actually watch an entire video? I have a strong suspicion that, more generally, advertisers on YT are being duped by the numbers also! I looked at a couple, for research purposes regarding this thread, and they're just as useless to me as the one pinned above.

You're welcome to disagree. Clearly, you think dumbing-down has a useful encyclopaedic purpose. I don't. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sitush – You're being unreasonable. 10 million views are under no circumstance "low figures". That something is "not the most popular thing ever" is not the same as it being "irrelevant and useless". Conspiracy theories about youtube view counts don't really belong here either.

As much as people are willing to read entire articles on Wikpedia, summaries serve a useful purpose. Especially so when we know that most articles are not read beyond the lede. That you do not care much for videos because they only cover the basics of a topic is not an argument against their inclusion. For all it's worth, it's simply WP:POINTY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't want to rehash the entire debate on videos that we had here last year, but any valid criticism needs to focus on objective quality and usefulness for the general public, not personal preference and whether one personally finds them useful. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I was referring to the ones based on Wikipedia, not the Osmosis stuff. Nothing to do with I Don't Like It - there is currently a discussion somewhere on WP about just how easy it is to manipulate views. I can't possibly comment on stuff that hasn't been based on WP articles, and as for my specific circumstances, well, of course I will think they're useless - I've already explained why. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like you may do work for the WMF. Now, on those grounds, yes, I don't like it. I can't remember the last time WMF did something major that was a hobbyhorse project of a few developers and didn't meet serious pushback. If this is going to be used beyond the MED project, it needs a site-wide RfC. And bypassing it by dumping stuff at Commons and then adding it back here will not do. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rude, that is some far-fetched conspiracy theory stuff. I don't work for the WMF, no. And if you dislike things from the WMF on a matter of principle, I think it best to ignore your rejection of this on principle too. No one is bypassing anyone, this discussion is fully public and nothing "has been dumped on commons". Commons accepts this content, we're discussing whether it should be used on Wikipedia. It blows my mind that the presence of a public discussion is somehow evidence of "trying to sneak things in the backdoor". You're free to object, I'm just suggesting we should ignore such conspiratorial statements. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who introduced the idea of conspiracies, not me. You had also obviously not read what I had said previously in this thread, nor seemingly what others have said about how this stuff will work. I am telling you that it will not work for most people who need subtitles. Here's an experiment for you: go to a video about something topic that is reasonably complex and new to you, turn off your sound and try following both the video and the subtitles. I've got a lot of experience in testing and providing feedback for this sort of stuff over the years, including for UK broadcasters and university researchers. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This strikes me as an issue that needs to be overcome, not as an argument against video.

To be concrete: Do you believe these issues are inherent to the video-format, or can they be solved?

And if they can be solved, why are we focusing on youtube-views and advertising money? Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't focussing on YT videos - Doc raised that point and I just responded to it.

I doubt that the problems can be solved. As I said above, it is an information overload issue. There is a reason why I have been used for as a sort of guinea pig etc over the years: as someone who has never heard anything under 110db yet can speak "normally" and has an outstanding vocabulary etc, I'm a very useful tool. And the reason I can do that is because I am exceptionally bright (Cambridge double-first, never went to a lecture, just read it up) and overcome the communication difficulties that stymie most people who are born deaf (although the phone and radio are no-go areas). If it is overloading me, it will overload most other people with moderate to severe deafness, let alone profound. In an increasingly aging society, there are proportionately more people falling into those categories.

Similar problems arise with some television broadcast material. It becomes extreme when the subtitles seem to bear no relationship to the visuals, in which situation one has to have an eye on the text and another on the action. A common example for that is live sports, where the lag between action and text can be massive. Just try what I suggested, please. As I said on your talk page, medics are among the worst people I know when it comes to appreciating the issues, even those who specialise in ENT. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Many people want video, not all people. We are talking about adding other ways to learn to Wikipedia. If people do not like specific ways they can ignore them.

User:Sitush what do you think of Khan academy's videos? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence supports your "many people" claim but YouTube views doesn't necessarily do it and WMF research tends to be flawed because they are seeking a certain outcome.

I've just looked at this Khan video. A completely random pick. Presentation of the subtitles in terms of colour and positioning was fine but I'm guessing there is something wrong there somewhere because the speed was so slow that there must be massive pauses in the voicing or bits of what were said are not being transcribed. The *content* was a waste of, ahem, space: the animations added nothing (even writing out the words explosion, infinite etc) and, despite the speed, were also distracting at times. I could have read and understood the equivalent in a fraction of the time it took to watch. A single illustration might help some people but scribbling away on a virtual blackboard is only likely to be useful for the sort of person who would prefer Simple Wikipedia.

Anther issue with videos is inaccessibility to people with relatively poor internet connections (we're not all in the US, UK etc). In addition, we have getting on for 6 million articles here, of which I would estimate at least 5 million don't really do their job: adding yet another stream of maintenance isn't massively helpful when we have so much to maintain already. I'd be concerned about vandalism, too, because changes won't be so obvious unless someone watches a video right through as a monitoring exercise (even without history, text vandalism is usually obvious to spot). - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For someone of such outstanding intellect and such a proclivity for words as yourself – it may be useful to understand that one does not always belong to the target audience. Content does not need to be accessible to everyone for it to be useful for someone. As I understand it, the videos are automatically transcribed, which voids your concern that vandalism would be worse than anywhere else. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now you have gone from mildly attacking me as some sort of conspiracist to being outright sarcastic and patronising. I do understand different needs and that is why I mentioned Simple Wikipedia; it is also why I've worked a lot as a volunteer over the years with kids who have often severe learning disabilities. I happen to believe that content should be accessible to all who form our target audience (which is not primary school children) but thanks for confirming your bias and good luck to your patients - they'll likely need it. You seem to be actually proposing that we go out of our way to make it inaccessible to a sizeable and growing cohort: it is not necessary, at least in the examples I've seen it doesn't actually make it more accessible to the rest, and so don't do it. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:Sitush 1. Doc James many people want video "claim" is actually backed by evidence. Please refer to the Community Consultation [[8]]in 2015 which found rich content such as video was the second highest request by our readers. Further, Visual content such as video was also listed as one of our knowledge gaps in a Feb 13th, 2019 report by the WMF. You seem to believe that WMF Research is biased because they have certain outcomes/agendas. I cannot help you with that belief. 2. This project is not some project by the WMF but started by an individual (me) who is not anywhere related to WMF. Therefore, no ploy of WMF going on here. 3. There is no bypassing happening. A site wide RfC will be conducted. The awareness of the Rfc that will be implemented shortly is being circulated in mailing lists and wiki facebook pages. 4. To the opposite, VideoWiki makes Wikipedia more accessible. In India, approx. 25% (330 Million people) do not know how to read or comprehend text and therefore cannot access Wikipedia. Also an amazing stat is that post 2016, due to the entry of Reliance Jio, the 4G internet cost is the lowest in the world and India has the highest data consumption per user. Every month 10 Million internet users are being added. These "new internet users" are now connected to the internet but their primary consumption is videos in their own native languages. So making neutral and reliable information available in video format, especially in native languages will actually increase the reach of Wikipedia.

I am well aware of the situation in India, thank you. Subtitles will not help the illiterate. Nor would the Khan video make much difference, or the charts in the Kerala one I mentioned above, or many of the squiggles in the Acute Vision one. Oh, and every project WMF has ever undertaken in India that involved this project has caused more problems than it has fixed, notably the Sue Gardner exercise. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

While this is an interesting project, it is a long, very long, way from being suitable for incorporation into Wikipedia articles (even assuming the community wants such videos, which is currently a no). I see the Medium article opens with "Imagine seeing Usain Bolt’s world-record breaking 100 meters race rather than just reading about it. Imagine watching the beautiful Aurora lights while learning about them." The Aurora article already has four videos so I don't have to imagine. And the race video is hindered by valuable broadcasting rights by the organisations, but even assuming you got a volunteer to record the race and they were legally allowed to release the video, incorporating the race video into the article is trivial and does not require this technology. What instead we have got is

Imagine listening to a tediously over-long text-to-speech summary of a Wikipedia article while watching a series of PowerPoint slides where someone has just discovered all the transition special effects and is keen to use every one of them.

I looked at the Kerela and United Kingdom videos. Nearly lost the will to live. There is a reason why we like to listen to David Attenborough tell us about Galapagos tortoise mating rituals, and not some text-to-speech engine. Why people will pay to subscribe to Audible rather than Kindle's text-to-speech. Producing engaging audio-video is hard and requires some talent. I know many of the editors here are barely literate and wouldn't know how to write an engaging article if paid to do so (inserting random factoids and playing whack-a-mole with alt-med folk seems to be more of the game here) but at least I have the ability to skim over your tediously dull writing and still draw out some useful information. Auto-video is a linear game with no skim option -- if you bore me I click away and will not get to hear your concluding words.

The "Hand writes on a whiteboard" style is not what is currently possible by editors here. I assume there is some proprietary commercial software that makes generating these easy (in combination with a talented graphic design artist). I think it is false to post that as an example of what can be done. It is also an academic style, as someone notes above, designed to help students memorise key facts for an exam. It is also inherently one-language. The other kind is a series of PowerPoint slides with transitions. A PowerPoint slide presentation is not going to get a million hits on YouTube or keep the attention of Millenials.

Above it claims that licence and attribution is automatically included in the video. I did not see that in the two I watched. Also I can see no way of locating earlier versions and seeing a history. How does one watchlist a video or its segments and manage edits? How is vandalism to be handled?

I don't think you appreciate the reliance on Commons is a problem. Commons is not Wikipedia. The Commons policy on overwriting files is that it is generally not allowed except for the most incontestable edit/improvement. Any edit that might be controversial must be uploaded as a different filename. Commons admins will not step in and resolve your edit wars. Nor will Wikipedia admins be welcome to come over to Commons to resolve your edit wars. Commons is designed as a repository for finished works, not a graveyard for old versions of clips. I'm not clear how you plan to handle attribution if a video clip is altered to replace one work with another: on Commons, the file description page and the media itself have independent histories.

There are many more issues. But I continue to be perplexed that this is falsely promoted with a professionally made video and which has been inserted into Acute visual loss despite overwhelming Community opposition to adding such videos into articles. I would strongly encourage Doc James to remove the video and others like it from Wikipedia articles. You can demonstrate examples using a project page. In the past Doc James engaged in mass edits silently pushing hundreds of videos, edit warring with other editors to keep them, and bullying subject experts on Wikipedia and on Commons, so he should really consider himself de facto topic banned from repeating this. Why is this being pushed at WP:MED? This is a matter for the whole Wiki community. Discussion belongs in a wider forum, with an example video created 100% by regular Wikipedian editors rather than some third-party doctor-training outfit. Go push the United Kingdom video instead.

I think before this goes any further, you need to demonstrate that such videos really can be edited by anyone, can be easily monitored for changes/vandalism, don't spark fiery edit wars, and trivially handle the legal requirements for attribution, history and licencing. And you really need to demonstrate they add value. Text-to-speech + PowerPoint is not adding value. You need to think about what sorts of articles this would work for. I really really don't think Rotavirus is improved by someone creating a summary, generating audio via text-to-speech, and producing a PowerPoint of various virus microscope pictures that are already in the article. I think, to be honest, this is just introducing all sorts of community and cross-project problems that add no value.

You will have to get Commons involvement too, and I really don't think they will be happy about it. Commons is not a "collaborative editing project", just a repository. Bring your "collaborative editing" issues to Commons and they will quickly tell you where you can stick them.

WP:NOTYOUTUBE Wikipedia already welcomes short videos that enhance, rather than replace or summarise articles. There is no community consensus that this approach is workable, appropriate or enhances Wikipedia.

People have always been happy to read illustrated articles. These days, our articles can also be illustrated with short video clips. Compared to other information sites, Wikipedia is text heavy and has no good way to format text and graphics in a way approaching desktop publishing standards. I'd rather Wikipedia moved towards a more professional presentation format like the best websites. There are AFAIK no websites that take their content, and provide a summary of that content read by a text-to-speech engine combined with lame PowerPoints. Our strengths are in collaboratively writing text and sourcing (and making) engaging illustrations. A WikiYouTube is a separate project and should stay separate. -- Colin°^Talk 13:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Colin – Don't make it out that you know exactly what the community wants — and don't link to WP:NOTYOUTUBE like it's somehow authoritative. You wrote that. There are WP:NO ORACLES. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Em Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC was a huge oppose-fest, despite attempts to bamboozle with a never-ending addition of "ok, how about this one" variants. NOTYOUTUBE accurately describes the problems that videos have for Wikipedia and Commons. -- Colin°^Talk 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The RfC was closed by User:Fish and karate as "moot", without any finding as to whether there was consensus on any of the many aspects of the questions being discussed. Perhaps Fish + Karate could give us a more detailed analysis of what themes he sees in that discussion? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It was "moot" because James had already removed all 300 videos "Based on the feedback here and elsewhere". It was one of the worse presented and handled RFCs I have seen in a long while, with no less than 7 options eventually proposed. When you offer to duplicate Wikipedia articles with a video created by a private company and only offer to "collaborate with Osmosis to fix significant issues when present" [along with evidence presented by others that they have little incentive to fix issues], you have a "non-starter" with the wider Wikipedia community. It is most frustrating that WP:MED does not appear to have learned any lessons from this. Read the first two paragraphs of WP:ABOUT. It does not say "Wikipedia is a hosting platform for medical training videos created and maintained by private companies". -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Previous video projects were very cool. This is next generation technology. I see this as part of the future trend of increasing automating the production of Wikipedia content with Wikidata and other large and high quality information sources. My read on wiki community culture is that similar to Wikidata, most people will accept it, many will be enthusiastic about it, and a few will oppose it. Obviously the project is not technologically mature and I am sure that Google / Apple / big tech has their own editable video projects, but I think that it is great for the Wikimedia community to be first in this space with an experiment and to demonstrate leadership in community oriented technology. I do not buy into fears that the presence of this technology displaces other Wikimedia community engagement or other content. There is an audience and userbase for projects like this and another demographic for the established way of doing things. The future of wiki is to have 10x more editors, and experiments like this look to the future majority. I am sympathetic to any potential harms that could come from this project or increased engagement with video content. I appreciate that this project has seriously considered and addressed past complaints about video projects with an unprecedented and previously unimaginable leap in technology to advance human-editable video. There is always room for criticism but overall, the effort put into this and the thoughtfulness of the community engagement merits only praise. I sincerely appreciate all past, present, and future criticism which maintains a spirit of positivity and sets reasonable conditions for low-risk experimentation and new product development in the Wikimedia platforms. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

While this is an interesting effort to ameliorate one of the problems listed at WP:NOTYOUTUBE, it doesn't solve the fundamentals. I'm not sure whether Bluerasberry is "supporting" the use of this "not technologically mature" project on WP right now, or just supporting the direction for some purpose on WikiMedia projects. The most basic problem is that creating engaging audiovideo is hard work and requires talent, both of which are currently lacking at WP:MED/Wikipedia. Folk here know how to read a review, take some facts and crudely rewrite them to avoid plagiarism, and insert them into medical articles. A very few know how to write an interesting article that someone might want to read from start to finish. I know of nobody on WP:MED who is a talented educational video producer. That talent could arise perhaps, but so far it is lacking.

Creating video is really, really hard. This effort does not aid that. We've been falsely shown a professionally created video, but in fact the user examples are more like powerpoint slides. Recording engaging audio is also hard and also largely impossible to collaborate on since we all have different voices. This project does away with the problem of recording audio but instead replaces it with a robot voice. Ok, every editor sounds the same, but they all now sound awful.

Let's compare The medskl video with the VideoWiki version.

• The medskl video is aimed at medical students. It begins with saying "Here are four conditions that you cannot afford to miss". The "you" being a future doctor, not a patient or interested reader. The narrator and video is synced so that the words and writing appear at the same time. The narrator emphasises the words "must" and "cannot". The medskl video narrator pauses before and after introducing the title of each of the four causes. This lets the viewer absorb the switch to a sub-topic.
• The VideoWiki video borrows the video but the audio is computer generated. The spoken words do not include the text being written at the start, leading to confusion. The spoken words are utterly passive and robotic, so there is no sense of seriousness or urgency. The VideoWiki narrator crams in a few sentences on each cause and does not pause at any point. It is tiring to listen to this constant stream of monotonal narration. When symptoms are listed, the natural gaps are missing that help reduce ambiguous meaning.

In the original video the narrator says "The eye pressure will be very high -- in the 40s, 50s, or even 60 millimetres of mercury." It shows a graphic of "55mmHG". The videowiki video says "The eye pressure will be very high typically greater than 40 mmHg" with the same graphic. Let's say as editors we think the range of values was better but actually, as a hypothetical but typical example of fixes we may make, we want to use millibars rather than mmHg. So the graphic should show 73mb and the narration say "in the 50s, 60s or even as high as 80 millibars". On Wikipedia, I just click edit, type my new text over the old text and press Publish changes. On VideoWiki, well I have a problem. I don't have access to the computer animation software that generated that video. Also, it's a webm file, which is also not the software that most video packages use (because we insist on patent free formats rather than mp4 or webp). The original video is webp. So I'm pretty stuck changing the graphic text. And if I change the audio, well that's re-created nicely (if roboticly) but now the video segment isn't long enough to sync with the narration. Oh, how do I slow down that bit of the graphics?

Now as a viewer of this video I read about the eye pressure and want to verify that the values are reliably sourced. On Wikipedia I can click on the little [5] and then follow the link to the source article. Two clicks. On the video, well I see a list of references at the end, but I can't interact with them so they aren't much use.

Now let's say I produce a short video on the ketogenic diet. I go away on my summer holidays and come back to see someone has made lots of edits. One person has reordered the flow ["per MED:MEDVIDMOS"]. Another has inserted some promotional images about weight loss books ["added useful info"]. Another has fixed a mistake where "fat" and "calories" were swapped on screen ["fixed mistake"]. Another has introduced video pauses at the end of each section rather than at the beginning ["per VIDMOS"]. How do I compare the videos to see what changes were made? On Wikipedia I can select the article before I went on holiday and the article after I came back and view the diffs. For video, I can't. I have to sit through all 2 minutes of it, taking notes. I fail to discover that the reordering lost one sentence. I try to revert the re-ordering and the book promotion but keep the mistake-fix but find I have to then redo the pause front/back change myself again. By the time I have done this, I get an edit conflict because someone has added another slide in the middle about testing with "ketostiks". At this point, I lose the will to live and just want to delete this POS from Wikipedia and Commons. I find the admins on Commons won't let me remove it, despite the promotional book advertising, despite the terrible flow, and despite ketostix being spelt wrongly, because it has potential educational use (someone could extract the good frames, I suppose) and because it is "in-use" on WP:MED's talk page.

This project needs to be discussed with both Wiki and Commons users, and not just among the folk here who are openly hostile to any criticism and appear to want medical content to be written by external educators that than "anyone". I fear that Doc James is going to dump a bunch of medskl videos with robo narration onto medical articles, and claim that "anyone can edit them". They still can't. -- Colin°^Talk 16:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to understand how the software works... But whatever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Specifics please, or this is just "Blah blah fake news" trumpism. Which bits are wrong? And I've raised a number of serious objections, none of which you choose to tackle. -- Colin°^Talk 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This for example is incorrect "I have to sit through all 2 minutes of it, taking notes. I fail to discover that the reordering lost one sentence." The video is based on the script. You can just look at the script as you would looking at mediawiki text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Doc James ok, one example of changes can be detected by watchlisting the script. Which I as original creator will have done. But I guess all the WP:MED members will have to remember to watchlist scripts as well as articles now, and every time someone vandalises the script, you've got the export & update on Commons cycle. And Commons will not like that. I can't emphasise this enough. Commons has really really few admins. The overwrite policy is designed to prevent edit wars on media by blocking all parties for doing it. No 3RR rule. You cannot overwrite a file with a controversial change -- the mere fact it is being challenged makes it controversial. So once somebody uploads a video to Commons with some incorrect material, alongside other correct material, the video as a whole is deemed "of potential educational use" and you will not be able to overwrite that, or have it deleted. It is a whole different mindset to content: Commons hosts finished media works and users largely do not collaborate on the material, whereas Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress, with all the collaboration issues. If someone vandalises any of the video segments in my work, I can only detect that by watchlisting, on Commons, all the segments. I have to log on to Commons to see that watchlist. You've just made it impossible for editors on Wikipedia to easily monitor articles for vandalism and other unwelcome edits, because those vandals will transfer their energies to Commons. Media files on Commons tend to have one watchlister: the person who uploaded it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin: Thank you for your feedback :) Some of the points you raised such as the maturity of the project w.r.t the ability to go back to revision history, talk pages, ability to handle vandalism etc, (features of a wiki) are absolutely right. We are working on these features and I would love to have your feedback when we are done with that features. I must also point out that you have assumed bad faith while critically evaluating this topic. The intent of the "MEDSKL", a professionally made video, is not deceive anyone. To the contrary, this actually shows the an existing professionally made video which were previously considered uneditable can be brought into the collaborative editing domain. You do not need a doodle animation software to make such changes. You can use the most basic animation to edit that slide and insert the range you required. I would be happy to show you the changed slide which does not have any doodle but still maintains the flow of the article. We are working on a video which is not a "professional video". I think that will be a better demonstration. :)There are multiple points in your argument which you assumed VideoWiki to be such as creation of long videos based on entire Wikipedia articles, etc. However, I won't blame you as the present user interface doesn't clearly show the intent. Oh btw, I am a big fan of your essay WP:NOTYOUTUBE. I would love to keep you on the loop and get your constant feedback until you are satisfied that VideoWiki fulfills the criteria laid down on your essay WP:NOTYOUTUBEPratik.pks (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Pratik.pks, I just don't accept that "'MEDSKL', a professionally made video...actually shows an existing professionally made video which were previously considered uneditable can be brought into the collaborative editing domain." This project can neither make video nor can it permit such video to be collaboratively edited. On the visual side, it is a slide-show, albeit one where some of the slides could be brief video segments, but remains reliant on material being generated outside of the tool and uploaded to Commons. You have achieved a tool to read out wiki text and associate that with certain slides. Further down, User:Doc James writes "We are already working on a tool to cut and trim video for commons" but "cut and trim" is not the same as "anyone can collaboratively create and edit video online". Cut and trim are the video equivalent of a crop tool for images: the most basic possible edits, but not capable of modifying the actual video information or inserting new information. Indeed the wiki interface already allows someone to insert a cropped image onto Wikipedia with some markup. It is not impossible to imagine the wiki interface permitting the insertion of a video clip with markup to specify start and stop frames. Even assuming that a project achieved a goal of creating doodle vidoes collaboratively online, there is currently no research or consensus that Wikipedians and readers want Wikipedia articles to be summarised in video form, and that if they did, they would want that hosted on Wikipedia. For example, we have WikiVoyage, which takes a different approach to topics for which we also have encyclopaedic articles. -- Colin°^Talk 10:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Doodle videos

The doodle video above is created by professional software. There are various kinds such as Animaker, Renderforest, Doodly, and VideoScribe. They vary in cost (more are subscription) and with higher cost you get more style options, more clip art, more royalty-free music. It is the clip art that really adds value as otherwise you'll have to pay for an artist. But even then, there are bound to be things you just have to draw yourself. All this is done in a propriety format file designed to be used on a single PC or Mac. They aren't collaborative tools. They aren't free. The media isn't freely licensed. Oh.... let's consider that a second. Take RenderForest terms.

"Renderforest users are allowed to use these footages without any restriction for as long as they are incorporated into videos created by our users through our video templates."

"We also get content from third party creators. All the supplying individuals or companies have the right to their content, and you should not download, modify, reproduce, edit or enhance any of that content without getting permission from the creator or supplier"

Other licence terms on these products may demand giving a total usage licence for your video to the product developer. Typically the third-party media these tools contain is only licensed for use within videos created by the tools. Thus the resulting video cannot be given a free licence as we know it on Wikipedia. User:Doc James have osmosis and medskl confirmed that the clip art they use is created by them alone and does not build upon third-party "royalty-free" clip art supplied with their software? If not, they may all need to be deleted. Do you know what software was used for these videos?

If doodle videos are considered acceptable (and they are becoming a little old already) then this project first needs to develop an online doodle-video editing platform. And encourage users to supply clip art in a format suitable for being "drawn". Without that, the claim that we can edit these videos just like wiki is false. Wiki means quick. -- Colin°^Talk 17:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes Osmosis creates all the images inhouse. Will verify with medskl that they do aswell.

One can use still images aswell. Not requirement for them to be moving. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

James, a series of powerpoint slides with transition effects is not what users asked for when they wanted more multimedia. They did want to see Usain Bolt win his 100m race, to see the Queen crowned, to watch Michael Portillo lose his seat as an MP, etc. If you just have still images and text-to-speech, well there isn't really any need for it at all. We've already had a comment above from a blind user that these videos are useless to him -- he already has text-to-speech. You are dishonestly promoting these medskl videos as though they are editable, when users cannot create, edit and collaborate on doodle videos. Do you have plans to introduce more to Wikipedia? This is just Osmosis all over again, but with added dishonesty. Look, I know the developer of this project has worked really hard and come up with work-arounds for some problems, but this is no more than a prototype of something that will need years more development. Please do not rush this. If WMF are serious about wiki-video then you need more than this Heath-Robinson solution. It needs to quick and it needs to have solutions for all the user-interaction, history, attribution, diff, bot-edit, edit-war, vandalism, and other issues that mature Wikipedia has already addressed. -- Colin°^Talk 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear I do not speak for the the WMF and this is not a WMF project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

On the "multimedia" point: I don't think we really know what the participants wanted. A picture with a caption is technically "multimedia", as it combines text and the image. But did people just want more pictures? Maybe, but I don't know. Probably at least some of them want top-quality videos. Maybe they want more animated gifs. Maybe they wanted interactive timelines in history articles, or succession boxes and genealogy charts. Or maybe calculators in articles (imagine reading about the Body mass index, and then calculating your own without leaving the article). Maybe some of them really did want slidedecks with synthesized voiceovers. We don't really know what they had in mind, including whether they wanted any of that for the subject areas that we spend the most time in.

The other thing I'd like to say is this: We've been here before, with the 2010 c:Commons:Sequencer. It might be good to figure out why the previous round of slidedeck-to-video work didn't get adopted by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Would love to see us have "calculators" within articles aswell. I guess the way that question could be phrased is "would you want Khan academy style videos within Wikipedia". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't just a question for our readers/viewers, but one for the community who develop and maintain the articles. Readers may want the moon on a string, but without a community to create and maintain them, it stops becoming a Wikipedia community project, and we end up just being a hosting platform for third-party content. And it isn't just "style" (doodle videos) but "approach" that is important, as I explain in the "Medical Student Videos" section below: videos created to help medical students cram for exams do not take the same approach to the subjects as one would when writing encyclopaedic content for a general reader.

I would love if our articles and short video clips of the royal weddings, moon landings, Olympic victories, etc. That's video "of" our article subjects, not video "about" our article subjects. See Full circle ringing for a (not great) video clip I took myself -- we didn't have any video of English bell ringing. It really is not an answered question that Wikipedia is a place or should be a place where users get videos "about" subjects. It may well be that such videos belong on a sister project. It may be, for the foreseeable future, that the production costs of creating great videos "about" subjects, and the inability for just anyone to collaborate on making them, mean that good ones require funding, either through YouTube adverts, Patreon support, or subscriptions.

And I agree that calculators and other interactive elements are lacking. Check out DoF Simulator, which even uses (and attributes) background images from Commons. -- Colin°^Talk 11:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Redundant anyway

As an experiment, I asked Google Assistant, Bixby and Alexa "What is the ketogenic diet". All three replied "According to Wikipedia..." and then read out the first two or three sentences of the lead. Alexa displayed the lead image of the article as a background. This 10s or so of robot speech is really as much as most people will put up with. It provides just enough information that users will get the idea of what it is. The user can then follow search results and links on their phone or computer to learn more details. Or ask their assistant another question. This AI approach is the future. We have enough headache keeping existing Wikipedia articles accurate and free of vandalism and promotion and bad info, without having a deliberate fork where two articles and multiple video/image files must be monitored for such. The beauty of having someone else do this work, and automate it, is that we only have to ensure our first few lead sentences are great, and the world has access to brief information about almost any topic. For free.

The wikivideo examples I've watched are more like when you ask that awkward uncle a question, and he goes on and on at length and great detail despite your eyes glazing over and the desperate "rescue me" signals you are giving off to everyone else. I see the VideoWiki default is to turn whole articles into videos. These article-videos must go on for hours. Lord give me strength. -- Colin°^Talk 20:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Doc James and Pratik.pks, when readers say they want more video, they mean they want additional information in video form: for example, in Bergen-Belsen, a video of its liberation. They're unlikely to listen to a Wikipedia article read out by a bot-generated voice. There are similar videos on YouTube where text-to-speech bots read out news items, so you think you're clicking on a video about X but really it's a bot telling you that videos about X exist. Is there a plan to include advertising? Pratik, you mentioned advertising in July 2017 in your Medium article, in response to the question "How will VideoWiki's integrity be maintained?":

At VideoWiki, you can never edit the text of an article. It is automatically fetched and updated from Wikipedia. This system allows us to maintain our integrity as we have no control over the narrative of any article.

For Eg: If Amazon Inc becomes the largest company to advertise on VideoWiki, and they want the “Amazon” article to be a little more favorable towards them — We cannot collude with them, since we do not control what text can be written about an article.

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:SlimVirgin: As you mentioned, that post was in 2017 (a past life) where VideoWiki was completely different and used to search non-free images from Bing, supported mp4 file format, was a for-profit, and had no relations to the wiki community apart from the fact that the text was based on wiki.

No, there won't be any advertising and VideoWiki has come a long way in the past 2 years. The code base of VideoWiki has been open-sourced and we follow similar open principles of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Pratik.pks (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Pratik, thanks for the explanation. Who would be the main users of this, in your view? When we read text, we can skim over it quickly and check out things that grab our attention. There's no way to do that with a video. You're a captive audience. In addition, the voice isn't that easy to listen to. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@User:SlimVirgin: Target Audience: Users who have different learning needs. Text is an important way of capturing and imparting information. No doubt about that. In EN WP, the use of 2 min short summary videos would be to target users who are visual learners and want a concise overview of a Wikipedia article instead of reading the entire article in length. The target audience expands when we build VideoWiki for other languages. The goal is to solve the problem of unequal access to Knowledge, especially in developing economies such as India. In India, 1 out every 4 Indians (approx 330 Million Indians) cannot read or comprehend text, therefore are left out Wikipedia, an amazing wealth of knowledge. By making neutral and reliable videos available in local native languages, VideoWiki's goal is to improve access to Wikipedia. (2) Being concentrating on short 2 min videos, the probem of digesting information quickly would hopefully not be a major issue. (3) Yes, you are right. We are working on having the ability to add custom human voice before exporting a video :) Regards, Pratik.pks (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This "visual learner" thing has been mentioned before concerning providing videos that replace rather than enhance the article text. You might want to do some research to learn that it is bunk. We all like to have a learning experience that combines our senses. But this video-wiki does not itself create the visual content. For that you either need still images, filmed video clips or computer generated video such as doodle videos. So this project does not solve the fundamental problem that we do not have the visual content to make engaging videos, and nor can users collaborate on such content online onwiki. Nobody in this discussion has offered an appealing visual educational experience created by a Wikipedian. That is a necessary first step before we can even begin to consider how Wikipedians might collaborate to continually improve such a video.

Secondly, we all appreciate a well narrated documentary: the film makers choose well known actors and presenters with excellent reading voices that are skilled at presenting material in a clear and engaging way. It is that skill that makes for good education, that makes for a great teacher. A TED lecture or Youtube video is popular because the presenter has skill at getting their message across. A robotic narrator has none of these features. I appreciate the specific concern about illiteracy and how generated text-to-speech might help there, but that's a specific audience. Your video-wiki UI requires reading skills to navigate it -- it is not a interactively verbal interface like Alexa. I think therefore a "spoken Wikipedia" might be an area where companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon could build on their AI. And those platforms also allow third-parties to develop features that build on the AI. Rather than just getting 10sec of the first few lines of Wikipedia, you could respond "tell me more" and it would complete the lead. You could potentially interact on a whole article.

Your comment about adding a custom human voice just brings us back to the osmosis videos again. The narrator then becomes the bottleneck, the obstacle, towards publishing a modified version. At least with the robot voice, the narration can be quickly redone.

Without quick collaborative changes to all aspects of these videos, you do not have "wiki". You have something based on a wiki, using parts of a wiki, but it isn't a wiki.

Finally, consider that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that shouldn't work but does. How you could let just anyone edit an article on angina or London and hope that it might be worth reading and not full of garbage? It works because we have a quick way for volunteers to review changes and undo or modify them. It works because we have a direct way to associate a segment of text with a source. Both readers and editors can verify that text-source, query it, challenge it, change it. If you lose all these features that lets Wikipedia be built by college kids and mums and dads, rather than just by professors and consultants, then it won't work. The best Youtube educational videos are a joy to watch and listen to. They have an engaging narrator (usually on-screen at times), professional graphics, access to current and archive photos and video material, and flow together in a well timed manner. We find them valuable if we believe the outfit that created them is trustworthy and authoritative. On wikipedia, the editors are not trustworthy or authoritative. This is why I am deeply sceptical that you will find a way to build and grow audio-visual works in a wiki manner. The internet has room for different educational formats. Wikipedia, as a textbased encyclopaedia enhanced with short audio, short video and still images, collaborated on by just anyone, is a format that works. Other formats will require other author platforms. Wikipedia is not Youtube. -- Colin°^Talk 15:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Colin Don't link to WP:NOTYOUTUBE pretending it is consensus.
You wrote that essay – It is an extreme interpretation i.e. your minority opinion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 17:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

CFCF, that's twice you've said that. I get the message you hate it. There's no need to get all bold letters about it. I have nowhere claimed it is policy or community consensus, though there are a number of significant individuals who have posted support on its talk page. There are lots of essays that are linked to with UPPERCASE shortcuts, some of which are very famous and oft-cited. None of them are policy or guideline. I suggest you "deal with it" rather than getting upset each time I link. As for it being an "extreme interpretation", I have to laugh. The RFC represents an overwhelming consensus against such videos. You might want to read some of the oppose comments, some of which were by significant (past) members of WP:MED and long established editors. I don't agree that it is a "minority opinion" and you don't actually have any evidence that Wikipedia community would like non-editable videos to summarise our articles [they said no last time]. Nor any evidence that Wikipedia community would like to see animated PowerPoint slides while listening to three minutes of robotic voice read out a fork-summary of an article. I mean, has nobody even stopped to think that you are already overwhelmed fighting nonsense on Wikipedia articles, without having to watchlist the transcript fork-summary article too, as well as watchlist all the Commons video-clips and images in case someone overwrites them with anti-vaccine woo, etc. I know many WP:MED editors like to spend their evenings going through their watchlists reverting anything that isn't 100% in agreement with their beliefs, but you try doing that on Commons and you'll be blocked. Fighting over media on Commons is just not allowed. Full stop. Summary videos takes material (editable text with source citations) that we have a well developed project that permits editors to collaborate on it and improve it, and pushes it onto a project (Commons) that only wants to host finished stable educational resources and share them among projects. I continue to fail to see why WP:MED keeps getting involved in this nonsense, other that that Doc James is involved, and likely has cooked up some secretive deal with yet another medical-student training company for them to get free exposure on Wikipedia.

At the top of this section it says "Basically we have a relatively easy way to create videos that are simple to update and can be fully referenced. Looking at starting a movement wide RfC about there potential usage within Wikipedia." It gives as an example a professionally created video where the professional narration has been replaced by text-to-speech derived from an article-fork-summary-page. This is utterly dishonest. Wikivideo has not created a "relatively easy way to create videos". It has made a relatively easy way to make animated powerpoints sourced from Commons images, and provide robotic narration. The two are not the same. Additionally, Doc James proposes an RFC (draft here) so clearly there's a momentum on his part to push this soon.

I find it concerning that Pratik.pks is not a Wikipedian (nor a Commoner). I think User:Rogueassasin123 is the same account, they also claim to have created VideoWiki and got the grant for VideoWiki. It seems that Rogueassasin123 has got themselves blocked on Commons for "Abusing multiple accounts". I suspect most of that was misunderstanding rather than wilful socking, but the lack of knowledge about proper attribution and licensing and sourcing when creating derivative works is concerning. We all have to learn and start from ignorance and making mistakes, but I'm really worried that this is being developed by someone who really does not understand Wikipedia or Commons, and they sorely need some mentoring. It is worth noting that the developers of Wikipedia were themselves editors. While it is fine for a newbie to create a prototype and get a grant for it, it really really isn't on for this to be pushed onto Wikipedia in this way. It has to come from the community.

A further concern I have is that there are now multiple article-summary forks in Wikipedia:VideoWiki sub pages (see Wikipedia:VideoWiki/). Three of them (VideoWiki/Katherine Maher, VideoWiki/Barack Obama and VideoWiki/Mark Zuckerberg are WP:BLP figures for whom having a fork page is extremely concerning. -- Colin°^Talk 18:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"The RFC represents an overwhelming consensus against such videos."

No it does not. It represents a majority consensus against the specific Osmosis videos. This is exactly what I'm reacting to, because you're being very disingenuous here! The RfC neither concluded with consensus against video, nor was whatever consensus there was "overwhelming". You're making it out that consensus is for your opinion, when consensus was that the Osmosis videos had quality control and usability issues and were not suitable for Wikipedia. It set no precedent that videos that adressed the issues could not be used in the future. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just going to add my two cents here:

I think this tool may have utility but it would be very limited because it is a way to create poor, robotized adaptations of Wikipedia articles. Adapting one media to another and doing it well usually takes careful effort. For example: usually for a novel to be adapted to a film, the script isn't just the same words in the novel with the cast's names added over the lines they deliver. The writer decides what portions of the novel may need to be cut, changed, moved et cetera because the audience is quite different - you expect that a film will be 90 minutes, that you will watch it all the way through, possibly with other people around you and bu contrast with a novel you read it on your own, and can put a bookmark in it when you want a break. Most novels take several hours to read, and films are usually done in under two hours. There are many differences between these two media. I make this comparison because the audience for the videos that DocJames proposes will likely be getting unneeded layers of information in a style that may be confusing or overwhelming -- This tool involves creating ways to translate the text content of Wikipedia into a video, not supplying appropriate video content that can better inform the reader of the text they are already reading, like the photography used in Wikipedia already does. When I read: "The easy creation of videos from scripts from Wikipedia and images / short videos from Commons" I think this is WAY, WAY too broad. Just because it's easy to make does not make it easy to watch or listen to. It also doesn't make it useful. I could use this tool to easily make a video about the US Civil War, it doesn't make it like the Ken Burns documentary. My point is that it's not enough to have a primitive tool that can actually generate a derivative adaptation. You need a philosophy behind that tool. We could use the 5 pillars and all the editorial philosophy that’s already there for text and imagery but apply it to video, and use that philosophy to develop the needed tools. Every type of article (biographies, locations, history, etc) could have it’s own slightly different editorial philosophy developed. For example, I took a look for a film that might help illustrate what I think and here is one that kind of does it:

'Choosing a Classroom Film' from 1963: [1]

The film above is a professionally-produced educational film about educational films, how they are designed and how to choose them for a classroom. It's an advertisement too, because they had films to sell, but it illustrates pretty well how there is careful thinking behind how a topic is adapted for a screen. Wikipedians are in the same field of work. We pick and choose how an educational topic is to be covered. Illustrative, educational videos or audio could in theory be embedded in every appropriate Wikipedia article (and paragraph of each article) to better augment the text that our users read. This is not so in most cases. The reasons are complicated -- the process of converting and uploading video and audio to Wikimedia Commons is non-intuitive, complicated and ordinary video formats are usually proprietary. Despite the cumbersome processes to get video onto Wikimedia projects, many Wikimedians are adding video to Commons. Partly because of the formatting and conversion issues, there are unfortunately no easy ways to trim sections out of videos or to cut copyrighted sections, giving the average Wikipedia reader sometimes inappropriate video content (too long, includes corporate or government logos, et cetera), or Wikipedians deciding not to use the video in the article because it’s inappropriate. Wikipedians would be great at flagging and removing bits and pieces of copyrighted material from videos.

There is no way to edit video for Wikimedia online (collaboratively or otherwise). Users have to download a video to their own machines, convert everything themselves, edit on their own machine, re-convert and then upload themselves. If another user takes exception to the video, they cannot tweak the video, they can only remove it.

I would much prefer to have basic trim features for video and audio. I will say that the aspect of this tool that is INCREDIBLE is the credits generation:

• Script can have inline references
• The script text ends up in the captions of the video with references. These captions can be turned on and off
• At the end of the video it automatically adds
• i) the license for the text (CC BY SA license)
• ii) attribution of those who have edited the scripts
• iii) all the metadata for the references supporting the scripts
• The final video on commons lists the files that the video is derived from
• Attribution for the images is automatically added at the bottom of each image

This should be a tool on it's own, because it could save an enormous amount of work for anyone using Wikimedia Commons content to make a video on their own machine or collaboratively at some point in the future. The uses are obvious!

So to sum up my thoughts: This is a poorly-planned, well-intended tool with some useful aspects that should be forked into their own tool or another better-planned tool.

(One note, if it means anything: I have been a video producer for the Wikimedia Foundation for several years and am currently an independent video producer who still contracts with the WMF occasionally, because of this I have spent much time thinking about how video can be used for/with/within Wikimedia.)

Victor Grigas (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, the idea is not to use the Wikipedia article as a script but to write a seperate script specifically for the video. We are already working on a tool to cut and trim video for commons. Agree that such a tool is definitely needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Medical Student Videos

We have seen before, with Osmosis, an attempt to insert videos into Wikipedia that are simply modified medical-student teaching videos. Above is a similar example from MEDSKL, which is also used to teach medical students, and where the company intends to take a fee for students to be tested on the material. Doc James has neither confirmed nor denied any intention to add further MEDSKL videos to Wikipedia articles. It would be useful if he explained the collaboration with MEDSKL and its intentions.

WP:MEDMOS has always warned about "Writing for the wrong audience". This is particularly a danger for our professional medical editors, but also for anyone reading medical literature designed for professionals, and then translating that into an article for the general reader. In the book "The Gene: An Intimate History", the author notes that for a long time, medical researchers would label genes according to the disease that was caused when it was faulty. So we have BRCA1 (Breast cancer type 1 susceptibility protein), CFTR (Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator), TSC2 (Tuberous Sclerosis Complex 2), etc. But this is a backward way of thinking about our genes, which do useful things like repair damage or control cell growth. It is like saying that the liver is the thing that gets cirrhosis, the heart is the thing that gets heart attacks and the brain the thing that makes us forget things. So, your point of view is very important when writing an encyclopaedic article for the general reader. The classroom video above explains a similar idea.

The point of view of a medic is where they are presented by a patient who is unwell and wants a diagnosis and treatment. The point of view of the person with symptoms is to discover possible causes themselves, to know when they should see an expert, to know what things to test/try at home, to have reassurance that it is ok or that urgent treatment is needed, etc, etc. There's a whole lot that happens before that person reaches the doc. And the point of view of the general reader is just to learn interesting stuff in a hyperlinked encyclopaedia. They may have been reading a biography, then glaucoma, then acute visual loss, then slit lamp, and so on. They likely want to flit from one topic to another and only read in depth the parts that fascinate them. The general reader will want to know about normal eye pressure or how the retina normally works: the human body is not just a collection of diseased parts.

The Acute visual loss article was created based on the MEDSKL video, which it now contains. The text assumes the reader is a medic presented with a patient who has acute visual loss. It gives examples of four possible conditions and explains why each "should be considered if". The choice of these four conditions appears to be quite arbitrary. Other articles on the subject give more (MSD Manuals, Medscape and FP Notebook). One suspects the presentation of these four was based round a number of new facts that a student might easily remember (similar to the "three point sermon" idea for preachers), and can later be tested on: "Name one common cause of acute visual loss". All four are just listed and very briefly described in isolation, like a short listicle. Instead, a more comprehensive approach (taken by the above linked articles) would be to distinguish conditions by "Is there pain or not?" and "Does it affect one eye or both?" and "Is it transient or persistent?" and "What predisposing factors might the person have?" If one were to read the literature on the topic before writing the article, one might create quite a different article with perhaps a dozen possible causes of acute visual loss and a clear structure round the presentation of the various kinds.

We aren't here to teach students facts that they will later be examined on. We're here to write fascinating articles on lots of interesting subjects, and for each article to participate in being only part of the experience of using a hyperlinked encyclopaedia. We might hold the reader's attention for seconds or for half an hour. They may read bits of the lead and one body section. Unlike a real classroom, we can't insist on their attention for minutes of linear information presentation, and there are no penalties if they click away to something else.

I don't think it is appropriate to take material designed for teaching, and designed for a specific tiny subset of subject specialists, and prominently offer that as though it is a summary of the article topic. If the material meets our WP:EL policy, then of course we can link to it off-wiki. The material may be useful in a different wiki project outside of Wikipedia. If, at some point in the future, the wider Wikipedia community, thinks having article-summary videos is a good thing, they should be collaboratively created and maintained by Wikipedians for the general reader. -- Colin°^Talk 12:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Measles Vaccine Suggestion

Measles vaccination

I noticed a suggested edit at Talk:Measles vaccine#Early Vaccination that could use some input. Thanks! JenOttawa (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

though there are competing guidelines, WHO is the better reference...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Trichology

Should trichology be added to WikiProject Medicine as suggested by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan Ringsell (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

you seem to be engaged in an edit war--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not in the current state of the article. It is presently no more than an advert for The Institute of Trichologists and The International Association of Trichologists.

Well, it was until I just stubified it. Let's see how long before the SPAs restore the ads. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi protected Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How to add citations to medical condition infobox

Hi all, would anyone be able to direct me on how to add citations to an infobox? I'm looking to do so for the L1 syndrome page. I don't see the "cite" button -- I am new to Wikipedia so any help would be greatly appreciated. Shaquille Oatmeal (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDHOW explains. You likely need to use the old editor. But the ref autofill function has been down for two days. Raised the issue Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Shaquille Oatmeal, if you post a URL for the source you want to cite, then one of us can generate the code for you. Then you would only have to paste it into the article (inside the template). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Syndromes affecting the heart

Is this a list worth keeping? Natureium (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

yes, just needs some referencing[9]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MitoQ

Can someone with medical expertise please review the new article MitoQ? The article creator says one their user page that they are paid by MitoQ Limited for their contributions to Wikipedia. It looks like mostly product promotion to me. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the article has been speedy deleted in the past as unambiguous advertising, but I don't know how much the current version resembles the deleted version. Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of recent edits to Salicylate sensitivity

I'm concerned about the recent edits that Science person guy 1 (talk · contribs · count) made to the Salicylate sensitivity article. I reverted the first two edits (Special:Diff/888495585, Special:Diff/888496045), because they removed content sourced to academic journals while citing The Samter's Society, which is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. The third edit (Special:Diff/888496642) cited an editorial published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology while removing the same content as the first two edits.

If you are familiar with the subject matter, can you please offer your opinion on whether these edits are appropriate? Thanks for your help. — Newslinger talk 15:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The cited source {{failed verification}}. For example, it does not mention COX-1 (it does mention COX2). I've reverted and given the new editor a link to a primary source that provides clinical evidence of benefit. That said, if anyone wants to update the article (which it needs), I'd suggest reading these two review articles:

• Rodríguez-Jiménez, José Carlos; Moreno-Paz, Fernanda Judith; Terán, Luis Manuel; Guaní-Guerra, Eduardo (February 2018). "Aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease: Current topics and trends". Respiratory Medicine. 135: 62–75. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2018.01.002. ISSN 1532-3064. PMID 29414455.
• Skypala, Isabel J.; Williams, M.; Reeves, L.; Meyer, R.; Venter, C. (2015). "Sensitivity to food additives, vaso-active amines and salicylates: a review of the evidence". Clinical and Translational Allergy. 5: 34. doi:10.1186/s13601-015-0078-3. ISSN 2045-7022. PMC 4604636. PMID 26468368.

The combination of these two is likely to give the article the best notion of current scientific views. User:Science person guy 1, I think you have a lot of potential as a good editor, and I'd be happy to see you read these articles and try to represent their conclusions in that article. At a glance, they seem to fall into the "maybe a little helpful, for some people" range. It is certainly no panacea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this matter, WhatamIdoing, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia so far, Science person guy 1. I'm sorry if I was too hasty in reverting the first two edits, Science person guy 1, and I hope that you continue to work on the Salicylate sensitivity article (as its factual accuracy has been disputed since June 2017). In the future, please note that Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for medical content are more strict than the guidelines for other topics, and that all information in Wikipedia articles needs to be verifiable with reliable sources. If you need further help, WhatamIdoing and the rest of the folks at WikiProject Medicine will be glad to assist with articles on medical topics, and you're also welcome to ask me general editing questions on my talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear aspirin desensitization is NOT for salicylate allergy! Listing it as a treatment is mischaracterizing its actual use for NSAID allergy. Additionally - aspirin desensitization (or other NSAIDs for that matter - ketorolac + lysine aspirin) is almost always a 1-2 day procedure, performed in an outpatient setting. The amount of research that is publically available is staggering - 6 day procedures virtually don't exist anymore. It is not indicated for salicylate allergy which is hardly recognized in actual circles of allergists as it not quantifiable and not mediated through the immune system! Please STOP listing this as a treatment. thanks - Science person guy 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science person guy 1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks for letting us know. In the future, the best way to give an explanation while removing content from articles is to post a comment on the talk page of the article. For example, adding your above explanation to Talk:Salicylate sensitivity would help other editors understand why aspirin desensitization should not be listed under the "Treatment" section. — Newslinger talk 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

​ Will do - thank you for this clarification!

Imperial College Medical Students Editing

Hi, just an FYI, currently an event is occurring at Imperial Medical College improving the articles Covert medication and Right ventricular hypertrophy, supervised by lecturers at the university IC ssaleh, Dr sunflowers, two librarians (Librarianrebecca and Hammersfan) and Battleofalma. Battleofalma (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Maxillary crest

 Note: For those interested. (For reasons of transparency, please comment there. Thanks in advance.)--Hildeoc (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine[10])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Chondroplasty

 Note: For those interested. (For reasons of transparency, please comment there. Thanks in advance.)--Hildeoc (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC

more opinions please--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Busby

If anyone is interested in taking a look, there's stuff about pills against radiation etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

article[11] could use some trimming...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

New ROGD Page Claims to Describe Medical Condition but Lacks Adequate Sources

A page on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria has been created and it would seem to contradict our guidelines. Although it claims to describe a new syndrome, there are no sources that fit Wikipedia:MEDRS guideline such as clinical studies let alone reviews. The only journal that is cited, PLOSone recently published a correction[12] noting the lack of any direct clinical data to substantiate the condition. I don't think it's a good look for WP to publish medical sounding articles with inadequate references.Freepsbane (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Right now it's a page with a purported medical condition named suspiciously similar to a well known condition, with no references save for a handful of nonscientific culture war centered sites like National Review. This isn't a good look when our usual medical articles avoid citing culture war cruft and stick to reviews and journals.Freepsbane (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Likely should be merged to Gender dysphoria Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. The 'story' goes something like this:

• Generally agreed-upon facts: There are 42 million teenagers in the US. A surprisingly large percentage of them are affected by depression and/or anxiety. A small percentage of them identify as trans. A small number of the parents whose children who both identify as (mostly) female-to-male transsexuals and who also have known mental health disorders believe that their children only have inadequately treated depression or anxiety, and aren't actually trans.
• Activist response: Anyone who says he's transsexual really is transsexual, without exception. We've seen this reluctance over and over for decades. Every single one of those parents is wrong, and they should all believe in and support their child's need to transition.
• Parent response: A teenager who can be wrong about whether killing herself will make her happier is a teenager who can be wrong about whether living as a boy will make her happier. Depression is a liar. Since her depression already lied to her about whether weighing 75 pounds would make her happy, then there is no fundamental biological reason why her depression couldn't tell her that living as a boy will make her happy.

The page is at AFD. The main question seems to be how/where Wikipedia should include information about this idea: in a biography about the author, in an article about the idea, in a page about the controversy, in a section of an existing article, etc. It is not clear to me what the sources support (i.e., an entire article vs a mention in another), especially since the paper that started the controversy was just corrected yesterday (affirming all the original factual findings, but explaining it better). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Also it is very important to note the paper's findings were not affirmed, the original conclusion and discussion were publicly condemned by PLOS and replaced with one that states most of the polling results(technically valid) are likely just a result of parent conflict, and that ROGD has "not been clinically validated" Rewritten paper, and editor's letters can be found here. [13] Sure the polling is valid but the editor and reviewers say the original paper overreached in using as evidence in favor of one unproven hypothesis, and so they changed the conclusion to hedge much more on what the poll responses mean.Freepsbane (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately your claims fall into the subject of original research. Before you tar anyone skeptical as "activists" know that the revised PLOSone paper says there is no clinical evidence to validate the existence of ROGD and PLOS's editor agrees[14]. Are Littman's revised paper and PLOS's editors now "Activists" by your book? That is an odd way to define indeed. What I can say is there is zero clinical data currently supporting the ROGD page, and the ROGD page claims to be a medical page. The current situation is untennable acording to WP:MEDRES. I'm sure you agree asking for improved sources or changing what can't be sourced is just the rigor we usually use in project med, not "activism".Freepsbane (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Freepsbane: Original research applies to articles, not to discussion on talk pages. You've also refactored another editor's talk page contribution, which is considered incredibly rude. It's not clever and it's not funny. You need to revert that. You've now made 28 posts since yesterday on this topic here and at the AfD. I'm generally sympathetic to your view, but I'm becoming increasingly put off by your continual badgering of anybody whose view doesn't coincide exactly with yours. I think it's time you gave it a rest. --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Have it your way, but if someone claims there are generally accepted facts but produces no evidence, then what should we think? I’m not badgering I’m lobbying that we use the accepted guidelines. If people don’t like an under sourced article being critiqued then the solution is very simple: improve the sources and not only does critique become imposssible but the article quality is improved dramatically. We can’t have terribly sourced articles that claim to be medical giving medical advice without so much as a single supporting study.Freepsbane (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You politely tell them that you aren't going to be convinced by an assertion that's not backed up in some way. Ask if their view is based on some sources that they could share with you. If they are looking to change your mind or find some common ground, they'll be glad to share their sources.

Half-a-dozen replies to others on a single AfD is lobbying; 28 replies is badgering. You don't have to take my word for it, but I assure you that beating the same drum that many times won't improve your chances of getting others to agree with you. And that's precisely what you need here if you want your view to prevail.

(talk) 02:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Everybody is fine with seeing a well-reasoned critique of an under sourced article – the first time. By the tenth time, they will be alienated. For what it's worth, I absolutely agree that we can't have articles on medical conditions (even postulated ones) without the good quality sources that MEDRS requires. But have you heard the expression "preaching to the choir"? --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And you assume bad faith, the reason I have 28 replies is because I post content in multiple parts. You might edit everything on word, but for the same amount of material on talk I would rather post in multiple parts. Please don't say I engage in bad faith when all I have done is faithfully quote the journal and ask that we keep the standards of project med for this new page on the phenomenon.Freepsbane (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• See https://www.chronicle.com/article/Journal-Issues-Revised-Version/245928 (again), which says "The new version adds context and softens language that drew complaints from transgender advocates, but the primary findings in the paper remain unchanged". I do not interpret "the primary findings in the paper remain unchanged" (=what an independent reliable source wrote about the corrected paper) as meaning anything close to "the paper's findings were not affirmed" (=what you wrote in your 19:43, 20 March 2019 comment here).
• For the record, I do not consider activist to be an insulting word. In this particular case, I use it to differentiate between lay people who are intentionally trying to change public opinion on a general subject and clinicians, who seem to be less willing to make sweeping statements to the press.

In the meantime, if you'd like to do something useful, then you might consider expanding Questioning (sexuality and gender). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Again you cite a non-scholarly secondary source, the correction published in PLOS explicitly states "The post-publication review identified issues that needed to be addressed to ensure the article meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Given the nature of the issues in this case, the PLOS ONE Editors decided to republish the article, replacing the original version of record with a revised version in which the author has updated the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, to address the concerns raised in the editorial reassessment" polling data from a descriptive study is the least important aspect, PLOS determined the interpretation, the Discussion and Conclusions were not publication quality and forced a complete rewrite. Rejecting the interpretation of data and conclusion, the most important aspects of a descriptive study does not an endorsement make. This is why we must strive to cite the journals themselves, not lay sites that might misinterpret and play a game of telephone.Freepsbane (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You also made a mistake in describing my criticism as uninformed and politically motivated from a layman. I'm a biomedical researcher, I have publications. I know how to read journals and if as plosone says they forced a total rewrite of Conclusions and Discussion that is far from an endorsement, usually only major concerns that would otherwise lead to a rejection of the paper force an extensive rewrite of multiple sections like, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. And I am not engaging in original research, I am going by both the letter of correction which said there were many problems to correct to make of publication quality, and the editor's word[15] on this matter. Also I have zero expertise regarding Questioning (sexuality and gender) so editing that would not be constructive. But I do know how to read papers, how their publishing works, and I can take the time to read the letter of correction and the editor's statement and my citing them helps. Better to quote the scholarly source than lay sites that might misinterpret.Freepsbane (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Not really been following this but noticed a large (probably unduly large) amount of material on this topic has suddenly warped-in to our PLOS One article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I worry those additions might be premature. I’ve been slow to made nontalk edits. Better we study what the journal letter of correction and editor said in detail than fall into pitfalls like citing a mass media source that says something completely different to the journal itself.Better we go slow. Correction, it seems well written and heavily cited the journal reviewers and other scholarly bodies involved in this controversy. Perhaps pruning and further revising would help but I recommend keeping that section and improving. The most important thing is we rely on what the journal says, not lay sites that say something completely dissimilar as we have seen the pitfalls of just now.Freepsbane (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that most Wikipedia editors will agree with me when I say that the views of Wikipedia:Independent sources should normally be given more WP:WEIGHT than potentially self-serving statements made by involved parties. I believe that this view is generally held even when the independent sources in question were written by a staff writer who has covered academic scandals for more than a decade at one of the biggest academic-focused news magazines in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The ROGD article is self defined as a medical article and WP:MEDPOP guidelines are very clear that “independent sources” from the popular press are highly unreliable for medical topics and one should at all costs cite scholarly journals in their place. I’m not certain why you imply the plosone editors and reviewers have ulterior motives. The fact is the published statements from the journal are very clear and the “independent” lay site you cited says something completely different. When in doubt, cite the scholarly journal, per WP:MEDPOP lay sites often botch their science reporting. I trust the journal. And our rules say to trust them. And in fact the only source chronicle cited is the journal itself so I see no reason not to cut the pop media middleman out as they say we should and quote the journal itself.Freepsbane (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to WP:Biomedical information – not to all things science, or all things academic. I do not believe that "They published a corrected version of the paper, in which some sections were changed and others weren't" is biomedical information. (Both "This really happens" and "This doesn't really happen" would be biomedical information.)

As for implying that PLOSone editors have "ulterior motives", I am instead stating outright that I believe that they are humans, and that they are therefore subject to certain tendencies, including, but not limited to, a desire to resolve painful and embarrassing situations and a desire to preserve their reputations (and paychecks), not to mention the usual level of difficulties one expects while humans are dealing with conflicts of interest. You may call that cynicism if you choose; I prefer to call it "experience".

Or – I think it's reasonable for Wikipedia to approach this apology from the journal for its publication mistakes with the same skepticism that most of us would approach an apology from a drug company for their publication mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

PER PLOS: the ROGD paper deals with a hypothetical subtype of a medical condition it is a biomedical study and our guideline say the popular press can’t reliably assess those. And as you can verify, the letter of correction (which states the original paper was not publication quality and that extensive rewrites to Intro, Discussion and Conclusion were ordered) is part of Littman’s peer reviewed study. It is just a much a section of her paper as the results are. Do propose we discard part of the peer reviewed study and keep the parts you like? At any rate, what I’ve said is the editor and reviewer comments concur with the letter.

If you truly believe PLOS is so beset by bias, so that even Littman’s citable peer reviewed article has a section falsely saying the original was not publication quality and underwent extensive rewrites. Then I am certain you will be able to document your claims by citing other journals who note it’s unreliability. This is a very shallow check but the sources I find say that while PLOS is in prolonged decline (which has only gotten worse since if plummeting Impact Factor counts), it isn’t considered near as bad as a predatory journal. Ergo Littman’s peer reviewed article and the Letter Of Correction which is part of it should be citeable, at least on the subject of paper corrections they detail. If PLOS were really as terrible and uncitable as you claim they are, would that not also mean all of Littman’s paper is invalid, not just the parts you dislike like the Letter?

Additionally, our guidelines are exceedingly clear that Mr. Bartlett is very unreliable when it comes to assessing biomedical studies such as this one per WP:MEDPOP: “Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results... News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms.” Mr. Bartlett claiming “the primary findings in the paper remain unchanged” is exactly what our guidelines say he is incredibly unreliable at. The choice is between listening to a letter of correction subsection on Littman’s citable paper, which is supported by editor and reviewer comments, or a layman our guidelines say is incredibly unreliable for assessing studies.Freepsbane (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Also I’m not saying the journalists at the chronicle site have agendas, they just don’t have the training to read papers. So when they heard that the “results” section (which is just mater of factly stated poll responses which only could have changed had the polling been redone) was unchanged they mistook it for the paper being the same. When in fact the abstract intro, discussion and conclusions were according to the letter of corrections extensively rewritten (about as dramatic a change reviewers can ever force) and ergo the data interpretation changed. If they don’t know how papers are organized they could have missed. It is not their fault, it is just an illustration of why we must cite journals over popular culture whenever possible.Freepsbane (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And yes I did check: Mr. Bartlett of the chronicle is not a trained scientist, he has zero scholarly publications or experience as a reviewer so he was out of his element in trying to interpret the letter; a professor for that matter would understand how serious extensive rewrites to make the paper publication quality are. Bartlett was trying to interpret the letter so better we cite and quote the letter itself. I’m certain Bartlett is expert on pop culture reporting but this shows why we must cite the journals themselves. Freepsbane (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• CHE not a "site"; it's a 53-year-old weekly newspaper, complete with old-fashioned things like paid subscribers and rolls of newsprint.
• Bartlett has written about a number of other academic scandals, so I imagine that he's capable of writing about this one, too. Remember that journalists don't rely on their own views for news stories anyway, but instead interview others and report what they learn from their sources. Even if we agreed that personal experience with the peer-review system is necessary to fully understand this (and I certainly do not agree with your claim), I hope that we could also agree that most educated adults – and especially adults who have spent many years working as a professional journalist – are capable of looking at the two versions side by side and seeing how much changed between the two versions. If he writes that the findings didn't really change, then I think that means that the findings didn't really change materially. Dressing it up in a bunch of lay-friendly language doesn't change the fact that the author thinks this might be real, as she publicly affirmed in a long interview last week.
• We have whole sets of rules about why we don't interpret – or necessarily even cite – primary sources ourselves, especially when secondary sources exist. We let other people interpret the sources. Start at WP:PRIMARY for the most relevant ruleset; MEDRS' rules are much stricter, but I've already told you that I think MEDRS is irrelevant for the question of how much the paper changed. If we're lucky, we'll be seeing even better sources about this before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Again, this is an inappropriate appeal to authority. Mr. Bartlett could be Walter Cronkite and a lion of popular culture reporting and his ability to report on medical facts or accurately assess studies would still be no better than yellow journalism. This isn't my opinion so much as it is our rules, our guidelines are very clear that the popular press is not able to accurately appraise studies, their data quality, or the review process. And CEH has nothing to suggest they should be exempt from such rules (as Nature's news service written by experts and overseen by editors might be) Mr. Bartlett is not educated as a scientist and has no knowledge of the review process. Worse yet, as you note, his appraisal ("results" same = no change to conclusion) is completely divergent from the letter of correction which says the original version was not of publication quality and extensive rewrites were made to the Intro, Discussion and Conclusion. Our guidelines already say the popular press is unreliable at assessing studies and methodology, and here the journal itself, along with the editor and reviewers contradict a popular press reporter. It is not a hard choice to follow our rules and quote the journal over a source explicitly disallowed per WP:MEDPOP.
• And I am aware that primary sources like Littman PLOS paper are discouraged for medical topics, as I said, that is why I question if the ROGD page can be saved(supporting evidence is tenuous even if the PLOS paper weren't prevaricating on conclusion). However our rules don't have a blanket ban on them like we do on the popular press for reviewing and assessing biomedical studies. In this case, it is much safer to follow rules and quote the letter of correction on Littman's paper, which is supported by PLOS' editor and reviewers. As noted the experts are all unified on this matter and say the paper had significant flaws and underwent major revisions. I'm certain Littman might disagree with the letter but it is published on her paper, it is part of the peer reviewed study. Mr.Bartlett and others could still be useful for expanding "society and culture" tangents to biomedical articles. If you are so fond of his work then I humbly suggest you expand Jeffrey I. Gordon's biographical data. All the talk says that he's certain to win a Nobel prize in the next few years. Since I am an ESL user, I wouldn't be as good at improving his page as you would, and you know of many good lay sites that are adequate for his biography.Freepsbane (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• And once again, I think it important to emphasize that according to PLOS, ROGD is a hypothetical subtype of a known medical condition and that the Littman study is a biomedical study, both facts that make this matter subject to medres rules. And the introduction (WP:MEDDEF) of our biomedical reference guidelines explicitly discount the lay press as reliable sources on biomedical topics for anything other than "society and culture" applications. Even if a primary study is admittedly preliminary and poor evidence for a controversial topic like ROGD; published letter of correction on Littman's peer reviewed page is at least a reliable source on the study's quality and it is further supported by the editor's and reviewers' comments. I see no reason not to quote it instead of a disallowed popular press source which seemingly contradicts it.Freepsbane (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe you will find that I'm tolerably familiar with Wikipedia's rules, and with MEDRS's contents in particular. I see that you have picked one rule, in isolation, that produces the effect that you want. I'm telling you that other rules exist and oppose your desired outcome. Since you are still determined to elevate (your chosen bits of) the MEDRS guideline above the PRIMARY policy, then I present the following quotations from MEDRS for your consideration:
    1. "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources." [Meaning: You can't cite PLOSone's own comments on its own actions to contradict the CHE news story, which, by dint of providing some analysis, is actually a secondary source.]
    2. "Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints." [Meaning: You shouldn't be citing PLOSone's own comments on its own actions at all. Note that this sentence differs from how I'd personally apply it, in light of other rules: I think that we should cite PLOSone, with proper WP:INTEXT attribution that identifies it as their view.]
    3. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. [Meaning: You actually should be citing secondary sources, even if that means citing a journalist, and even if that means citing a journalist whom you believe to know nothing about statistics, even though he's written about statistical problems like p-hacking in the past.]
  • I agree that there are problems with our ruleset. A search through the archives will find that I have repeatedly raised the problem of WP:N declaring something to be an acceptable article, and then MEDRS trying to prevent it from having any content. But this is not actually one of those serious cases, especially if the subject of the article is taken as an idea, rather than a scientifically proven medical condition. If having solid scientific evidence were actually a requirement, then we'd have to delete all of our altmed content, all of our content on experimental drugs, and a good deal of our history of medicine articles. We don't have to do that because our policies and guidelines are actually more flexible than a strict reading of selected bits of MEDRS indicates. 15:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Again this is an inappropriate appeal to authority. Mr. Bartlett per our rules is not a “secondary source” when it comes to interpreting biomedical studies. Per WP:MEDDEF and WP:MEDPOP he and the rest of the popular press are unreliable sources when it comes to interpreting studies. There is no ambigutity in this policy. For some reason you forgot that the “secondary sources” MEDRES refers to are literature reviews published in Nature and JAMA and other scholarly journals. So there is a simple heuristic to see if Mr. Bartlett’s appraisal is a reliable source: is it a literature review in a scholarly journlal, or baring that is Mr. Bartlet’s work at least published in a scholarly journal? The answer is no.Freepsbane (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Again, I think it imperative everyone read WP:MEDDEF and the rest of the rules: by reliable secondary sources they mean literature reviews in JAMA (and that a paper in PLOS one obviously can’t overturn them), not popular press written by laymen which they explicitly say are unreliable. It is important we don’t conflate weighty reviews with sensationalistic new stories our press says are uncitable for any medical topic but society and culture tangents. We should approach this with common sense: if we were writing our own literature review, or writing a graduate level paper, it would be fine to cite the letter of correction on the published study. It would be completely against norms to start citing a variety of popular press. It’s not hard to see that a review on JAMA and a medical news story on PodunkNewsSite.com are not equal, even if the later is technically (an unreliable) “secondary source”.Freepsbane (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Also “If having solid scientific evidence were actually a requirement, then we'd have to delete all of our altmed content” I feel like this is either an insincere or misinformed slippery slope argument. With all due respect, it’s is exedingly easy to find reviews in top journals that systematically debunk alternative medicine claims. For instance this is one of many JAMA reviews debunking vaccine induced autism. Even obscure topics, such as Kenneth Zucker’s studies according to the AAP having serious validity and methodological flaws are addressed by a review from the AAP. We can and do enforce MEDRES on alternative and fringe medicine topics and it in no way hinders debunking, instead it ensures we only use excellent sources to show what the medical consensus is. True it makes it harder for the fringe point of view to get their content in the article but if they want to fix that they just need to step it up and produce more Nature reviews.Freepsbane (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I'm sorry to keep having to repeat this, but you are factually wrong. This is an error that was quite common on Wikipedia about five years ago, but it's an error. Any piece that analyzes a previous publication is "secondary" (at least for the part of the source that does that analysis; some sources contain both primary and secondary content). Any piece written by a disinterested person is "independent". That doesn't make those pieces good sources – I wrote WP:NOTGOODSOURCE a few years back, and it may provide you some comfort – but the fact that the Bartlett piece is not an ideal source (to use MEDRS' term) for biomedical information doesn't mean that it magically stops being a "secondary" source (or that it develops some sort of conflict of interest, for that matter).
    And, yes, everyone should go read MEDDEF. In particular, they should read the very first four words: "In the biomedical literature" – a category restriction that does not happen to include apologies by publishers for publishing a bad paper (or obituaries, which is another example of non-biomedical content that also appears in academic journals). "We're sorry we screwed up" is "Society and culture" content, not biomedical information. The last paragraph in MEDDEF tells you what kinds of sources are acceptable for "Society and culture" content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Again, I regret having to quote guidelines however, they are exceedingly clear: “Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content. Please see Popular press below.” And “society and culture” they make clear in WP:MEDPOP refers to biographical and pop culture information related to the medical topic. Not assessing studies: “Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results... News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms.” (Saying “the primary findings in the paper remain unchanged” runs smack into that prohibition, Mr. Bartlett per our guidelines is not a reliable source at comprehending findings)
  • You describe Mr.Bartlett’s news story as a reliable secondary source, let us see what our guidelines say: ”A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.”
  • Please tell me if Mr. Bartlett published in a medical journal, specialist academic or professional book, or medical guideline or position statements published by a major health organization? I think our definitions are very clear, a news story per WP:MEDDEF is not remotely anything like a literature review in JAMA. As for PLOSone, the letter of correction is appended to Littman’s peer reviewed study along with the reviewer comments; it is a section of her paper just as the Results are a section. If you insist we must discard the paper due to ulterior motives, then the paper it is a section of would be discarded as well?Freepsbane (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

    Let's look at this from the view of a Wikipedia editor wanting to write an article. There are 22 sources cited in ROGD and 12 in Lisa Littman, plus a few more closely related to the topic. Now read those sources and try to figure out what content they will support.

    Will they support a BLP of Littman? Not a chance – wherever shes's mentioned in an independant source, it's subsidiary to a discussion of the controversy her paper produced.

    Will they support an article on a medical condition called "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria"? Not a chance – none of the sources that satisfy MEDRS give any credence to the existence of such a condition (which is what you're arguing, Freepsbane).

    Will they support an article on a controversy around a junior medical researcher who did some research and published some pretty speculative conclusions, that were subsequently roundly criticised? You betcha – sources don't need to be MEDRS to write about a controversy and there are plenty of them. As long as we simply report the facts of the controversy, and not editorialise by taking a stance on the controversy ourselves, we're toeing the line concerning Wikipedia's policies. We may all have our opinions on whether ROGD exists as a medical condition, but we need to resist the temptation to speak in our own voice when writing an article.

    So, I still maintain that all those sources are easily enough to write an article on a notable (per WP:GNG) topic; it's just that neither of the articles we currently have is that topic. --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Out of those 22 sources, all except the Littman study and her poster(Which as noted are substandard for medres due to being primary) are constrained by WP:MEDPOP and are extremely unreliable for reinforcing any medical or methodological premise. That is all that is this page’s concern.Freepsbane (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that diligent editors have added the Littman controversy to Plosone’s controversy section.Freepsbane (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your post that you deleted I hope you have realised that you have the wrong end of the stick. I'd rather you didn't personalise an argument, but I think you'll find that I have a good track record of strongly defending MEDRS. But you will find that you weaken the argument for only using MEDRS sources for biomedical content anywhere in Wikipedia, if you insist on overreaching by trying to apply it to non-biomedical content. There is no ban on using quality mass media sources anywhere on Wikipedia, except for biomedical content (and to some extent, certain other specialised topics that have their own RS criteria, such as WP:RS/AC), so please don't try to ghettoise a topic by insisting it has to be in a "Society and culture" section on a page like PLOS One: that's not a call we're entitled to make. For what it's worth, I think the section at PLOS One #Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy does a good job of summarising the 13 sources it cites. That's as good a solution as a stand-alone article and I'm now going to redirect Lisa Littman and Rapid onset gender dysphoria to there. I expect some pushback, so you'll no doubt have the opportunity to make your argument again when an RfC on the redirects is started. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I support the redirect plan. I'd suggest AfD'ing the articles if there's push-back. Bondegezou (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's started already. Reverted at ROGD. I've started the discussion at Talk:Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria #Redirect. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will speak in article talk in support of your redirect plan as well.Freepsbane (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. You may or may not wish to comment at the parallel discussion at Talk:Lisa Littman #Redirect. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Expert eyes are needed at Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi

Tc CNCH2CMe2(OMe) 6Cation

Some expert eyes are needed at Technetium (99mTc) sestamibi (a pharmaceutical agent used in nuclear medicine imaging). For background, see this discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• should also post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy

How we conclude its a pseudoscience. We not have any instruments yet to discover its function of dilution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:610F:F61:E927:528D:348B:1EA7 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Simply put: Because it doesn't work, and cannot work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not conclude it's a pseudoscience. The scientific sources we cite do. Natureium (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

alveolar cleft grafting

Alveolar cleft CT

I've started a new page on Alveolar cleft grafting (one of the surgeries for the treatment of cleft lip and palate). I'll be expanding and adding more citations tomorrow. Could someone take a quick peak to make sure i've structed it inline with WP:MEDMOS and add it onto our watched articles list? Ian Furst (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Ive reviewed the article(if it had more references it would be to the article's benefit)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. More citations and pictures coming. Ian Furst (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)