[Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...

Mon Nov 8 01:53:39 UTC 2010

I haven't heard the word "eventuate" before.

My comment addresses the plain meaning of the words - namely that if
sourcing style was followed editors would have to disclose funding sources
too. The wiki process means that editors (even grossly biased ones) are not
creators of novel views. Their edits and the article as a whole can be
derived from writings of those who did create the views included. It's the
latter whose biases, ultimately, need checking.

A wiki editor who is biased  has their edits (and the state of the article)
speak for them. The material can therefore in principle be neutrally
assessed by his/her peers without knowledge of that editor's private views
*. That's not true for the authors of the content we cite.

* - of course often that can't happen due to disruption, but in principle we
could find neutral editors for any article in any stage, who could so assess
it. So in principle this is always true even in specific cases it doesn't
happen.

FT2

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:44 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:28 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not so. The difference is we document reliable sources, we don't create
> > them.
> >
> > A user writing "X said Y" is not verifying that Y is true. They are
> > verifying that X said Y was true. They need to show evidence that any
> third
> > party can check, why they believe "X said Y" is true.
> >
> > Once that's done, the status of the editor is immaterial - because they
> > themselves are not creating anything so their ability to create
> information
> > isn't at question. They are simply saying "this is what X said, this is
> > where anyone can check X said it and form their own view".
>
> The point geni was making is that while it is appropriate for journals
> to publish funding information with their articles, it is not normal
> for people citing those articles to note the same with each citation.
>
> I think geni also flippantly pointed out that the potential for COI of
> our contributors is the elephant in the room.  I hope you don't truly
> believe that our contributors have no COI and the COI of our editors
> is immaterial on the _current_ state of the content.  The hope is that
> over time NPOV will rise to the top, but in many topical areas this
> has yet to eventuate.
>
> > By contrast academics and researchers writing papers are forming their
> own
> > view. So the factors going into that are crucial to assess the quality
> and
> > basis of that view and reliance a reader may wish to personally place on
> it.
>
> The factors involved are not limited to funding; at the end of the day
> we need to be discerning about which sources we use, rather than use
> them all and add lots of information to the citations for the reader
> to decide how biased the sources are.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>