MediaWiki talk:Common.js

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history


Clearer disclaimer?

This page contains code that adds a bright banner to the top of every page in the “Potential treatments” and “Medical hypotheses” categories. The banner presents a brief disclaimer saying “This is a Potential Treatment page” or “This is a Medical hypothesis page”. I believe the purpose of this disclaimer is to warn readers to expect a slightly lower standard of evidence than that used in other pages. (In line with the “room for debate and speculation” section of MEpedia:About.)
What about making this more explicit by adding to the end of each disclaimer, in smaller font, “Please read critically.” Tagging User:JaimeS User:Notjusttired User:Kmdenmark User:Canele User:Sisyphus User:EscapeTheFog User:Hip User:JenB
Pyrrhus (talk) 01:35, July 20, 2019 (EDT)

-I'm ok with this. A bit out of topic perhaps but I always thought the sentence: "The information provided at this site is not intended to diagnose or treat any illness." should be at the top of the page and featured more prominently. - Sisyphus.

I would rather leave as it is, extra words would make the heading cluttered and less readable. I think the words "hypothesis" and "potential" already flag up that these are controversial / may not have much support. I disagree that the content of the page has weaker sources. I think it's just flagging up that someone once suggested something. As Sisyphus said we already have the disclaimer. notjusttired (talk) 06:17, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
Heh, am I allowed to agree with all of the above? I share Pyrhhus and Sisyphus's desire to emphasize disclaimers more strongly (e.g., MEpedia:General disclaimer still needs the update Jamie approved). At the same time, I also agree with Njt that 1, we should be attentive to the paradoxical effect where the less there is to read, the better the chances the message actually gets through, and 2, I worry about differentiating some pages as having lower standards lest it become a false promise about the higher standard elsewhere: as a wiki, where we are never able to 100% monitor and guarantee quality, my preference is encourage readers to apply careful scrutiny across the board.
Maybe we could name-check Hypotheses and Potential treatments pages in the Science guidelines as places to be particularly attentive to making sure the prose specifies the quality/limits of evidence available? Canele (talk) 17:07, July 20, 2019 (EDT)