Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
Talk:Mady Hornig
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
I disagree that the info about the pending lawsuit shouldn't be posted until the suit is settled. It should be posted with updates as they come. People come to MEpedia for the latest news, and this lawsuit re: Dr. Hornig's institution and her superior that oversees her ME/CFS work is news. People living with ME/CFS will want to know what the suit is about and how it will affect ME/CFS work coming out of Columbia University. If the suit was not related to Dr. Hornig's ME/CFS work, then I would agree that it is irrelevant. Likewise, I think that the suit does not have to be resolved to still be relevant news. What do others think about it being included? [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (PDT) ________________ As the person who removed the info my view is this: The mission statement of MEpedia is "We are crowd-sourcing a knowledge base on the history, science and medicine of ME, CFS, and related diseases.". What we are discussing is whether the details of an ongoing lawsuit where one researcher has made some, as yet, unproven allegations about a fellow researcher counts as history, science or medicine of ME. As things stand I would suggest that it doesn't count as any of these things. I would also argue that people don't come to MEpedia for the latest news, I certainly don't visit Wikipedia for the latest news. And how will the suit affect the work coming out of Columbia? My argument would be that we can't possibly know. And the suit isn't related to Dr. Hornig's actual research work. All we have is the equivalent of legal gossip. If the lawsuit is confirmed to have had an impact on the science or findings then we should revisit posting something regarding that. [[User:AndyPR|AndyPR]] ([[User talk:AndyPR|talk]]) 06:34, 12 May 2018 (PDT) ___________________ I accept your explanation and continue to invite others to give their opinions. I only have one counter-argument and that is the readers of MEpedia come for many reasons and the mission of MEpedia should reflect the vast motivations of all patrons. [[User:Kmdenmark|Kmdenmark]] ([[User talk:Kmdenmark|talk]]) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (PDT) ___________________ I don't see it as gossip. It's a legal case filed in a court (which will likely have cost a great deal in attorney billing) and demonstrates the presence of a significant dispute. That dispute could well affect M.E. research, and those considering donating to causes related to this lab need to have a full picture. If the professional working relationship between these two researchers breaks down, that could affect pwME, and to me it is appropriate these facts are documented, just as if the case is thrown out in future we document that too. I would like the content to be included in the pages for the two researchers. [[User:Ollie|Ollie]] ([[User talk:Ollie|talk]]) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (PDT) ___________________ I believe it should be included for both researchers also. It is part of ME/CFS research history as Mady Hornig and Ian Lipkin are both researchers in the field of ME/CFS and at the same University. Allegations include issues with ME/CFS research and accusations that funds were taken out of Autism research and put into ME/CFS. These aren't just accusations of improper conduct on a personal level, they include ME/CFS research misconduct. --[[User:MEcfsFMS|MEcfsFMS]] ([[User talk:MEcfsFMS|talk]]) 12:25, 15 May 2018 (PDT) ——————————————————— I don’t believe the complaint should be on the individuals’ pages. I have hesitated to get involved in this discussion because it is a personal matter between the two researchers. However, seeing it was reposted today, I felt the need to contribute. I did read the complaint and I don’t feel it is in line with MEpedia’s mission of being about the science. I also looked into Wikipedia’s policies of what constitutes as “coverage” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#The_coverage) and this legal matter doesn’t fit the criteria. This site isn’t a newspaper. That’s why Google and Twitter exist. Since this matter has not been resolved, I feel it should remain on this Discussion page, where it is publicly accessible to everyone, but isn’t detrimental to the overall cause of the community - advocating for awareness. Once it has been resolved and the actual impact on ME/CFS research has been sorted out, then it could become historically relevant. [[User:MEcfsdeej|MEcfsdeej]] ([[User talk:MEcfsdeej|talk]]) 08:41, 17 May 2018 (PDT)
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs