Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
MEpedia talk:Science guidelines
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Project 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!
==Contested evidence == *How do we report on research on a researcher's page when there is substantial evidence or the conclusions from a piece of research are contested? Eg X does a clinical trial saying the Lightning Process is effective, but the Lightning Process page (and scientific consensus) says the opposite. This goes to neutral POV (point of view). *1. If most of the researcher's evidence is contested do we use maybe a single major source to refute each, or put it all in a Criticisms section instead? Or do both? I'm uncomfortable writing things like "and X reported that medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) including CFS..." when CFS isn't categorized as MUS - that's a minority opinion. Is it better to put ''X regards CFS as medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), and X's study on antidepressants for MUS found...'' - Would mentioning limitations reported by the study (if it does), or by others be helpful? Eg use of broad Oxford criteria, drop out rates, being very specific about severity or how many improved. 2. Bias: Wikipedia has a list of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch words to watch] that suggest biased writing, these might be best in the editorial guidelines, but I think it useful to link to them here. Eg claim - "X claimed that..." is considered likely bias. *3. Experts- Wikipedia gives the same weight to all regardless of qualifications / Special interests (I personally hate this - experts should not always have authority but they are experts!) - what's our view? *4. Neutral point of view - [[Esther Crawley]]'s page is one of our top 10, it's not neutral in my view. What guidelines can help with this? *5. A few pages have a list of articles on a particular point of view (list of articles explaining CBT not approx got CFS) - do we insist that an opposite list must also exist, and what about scientific consensus, if it supports the view that the list has do we still need the opposite? *6. I find it very hard to work out if some topics are scientific or editorial guidelines. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:51, August 8, 2019 (EDT) ::Neutrality does not mean a balance between postive and negative. If someone is an angelically good or a notoriously bad researcher, than the article should reflect that. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User talk:Guido den Broeder|talk]]) 17:14, September 16, 2019 (EDT)
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