Talk:Mady Hornig
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? 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. 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. 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. 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. --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. MEcfsdeej (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2018 (PDT)
