User talk:Gene Hobbs/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gene Hobbs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This Month in Education: May 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 5 | May 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
- Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
- We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
- Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
- The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
- We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
- More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
- Citation details are important:
- We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
- Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
- Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
- Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.
Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.
– the WikiProject Medicine team--Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Extra note - clinical trials or compassionate use, are not the same thing as routine medical use. Please don't blur the distinction. Please use high quality sources for content about health, as noted above and described in MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I like better guidance but still have to seriously question if a stub is better than primary sourced content. Thanks for the update --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the primary sourced content does not mislead the reader, you're probably right, Gene. But you must remember that Jytdog spends a lot of time on the front line, fighting against Big Pharma and undisclosed paid editors who are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their latest money-making scheme. I think that Jytdog will understand that in the field of hyperbaric medicine and diving physiology, there is not the opportunity (or finance!) to produce the same volume of research and analysis as is found in mainstream medicine. An obvious example is that both you and I are very aware that the seminal research on oxygen toxicity dates back to 1945, and that Christian Lambertsen's work on pressure-time tolerance curves from the late 1980s remains the definitive statement of those relationships. So I believe that in the very niche field that we deal with, a case can be made for some discretion in the application of MEDRS to primary sourcing. Where we do have secondary sources (that copy of Bennett & Elliott that you sent me remains my principal reference), we will make full use of them, but sadly not every aspect of underwater-related medicine enjoys recent, regular reviews. I hope that you, Becky and Ryan are well. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I get it, I was specifically looking at an article where it was pulled from technical and primary but useful back to a stub level. Front line or not, it went from useful overview for me as a non-clinical person to useless. I got most of what I wanted to know from the older article so I am set and since it is far from a real interest, I'm not spending my time to work on it. Always going to be challenges and differences in opinion. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- What article was this? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Auditory brainstem implant. Not a big deal, I doubt it gets much traffic... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I find I agree with you on this one. I think the baby went out with the bathwater. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Auditory brainstem implant. Not a big deal, I doubt it gets much traffic... --Gene Hobbs (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- What article was this? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I get it, I was specifically looking at an article where it was pulled from technical and primary but useful back to a stub level. Front line or not, it went from useful overview for me as a non-clinical person to useless. I got most of what I wanted to know from the older article so I am set and since it is far from a real interest, I'm not spending my time to work on it. Always going to be challenges and differences in opinion. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- As long as the primary sourced content does not mislead the reader, you're probably right, Gene. But you must remember that Jytdog spends a lot of time on the front line, fighting against Big Pharma and undisclosed paid editors who are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their latest money-making scheme. I think that Jytdog will understand that in the field of hyperbaric medicine and diving physiology, there is not the opportunity (or finance!) to produce the same volume of research and analysis as is found in mainstream medicine. An obvious example is that both you and I are very aware that the seminal research on oxygen toxicity dates back to 1945, and that Christian Lambertsen's work on pressure-time tolerance curves from the late 1980s remains the definitive statement of those relationships. So I believe that in the very niche field that we deal with, a case can be made for some discretion in the application of MEDRS to primary sourcing. Where we do have secondary sources (that copy of Bennett & Elliott that you sent me remains my principal reference), we will make full use of them, but sadly not every aspect of underwater-related medicine enjoys recent, regular reviews. I hope that you, Becky and Ryan are well. Best regards, --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I like better guidance but still have to seriously question if a stub is better than primary sourced content. Thanks for the update --Gene Hobbs (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: June 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 6 | June 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
This Month in Education: July 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 7 | July 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
This Month in Education: August 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 8 | August 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
This Month in Education: September 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 9 | September 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
This Month in Education: November 2018
Volume 4 | Issue 10 | October 2018
This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Gene Hobbs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This Month in Education: November 2018
This Month in Education: January 2019
This Month in Education: February 2019
This Month in Education: March 2019
Bring your idea for Wikimedia in Education to life! Launch of the Wikimedia Education Greenhouse
|
Apply for Education Greenhouse  Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupe |
—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This Month in Education: April 2019
|
This Month in Education Volume 8 • Issue 4 • April 2019 Contents • Headlines • Subscribe In This Issue |
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)