Wikipedia entry on CFS

[Sean]

The Talk Page history for CFS on Wikipedia, over several years, will confirm Sciencewatcher's appalling track record.

Now that they're pushing to 'low socio-economic status' as a CFS risk factor, doesn't that undermine a rather key part of his model?

But, but, but,... I thought they said it was a 'non-disease' of pampered bored white middle-class women, with nothing to complain about?

It's so hard keeping up with their latest explanation.

 

[alex3619]

The Talk Page history for CFS on Wikipedia, over several years, will confirm Sciencewatcher's appalling track record.

Now that they're pushing to 'low socio-economic status' as a CFS risk factor, doesn't that undermine a rather key part of his model?

But, but, but,... I thought they said it was a 'non-disease' of pampered bored white middle-class women, with nothing to complain about?

It's so hard keeping up with their latest explanation.

This is ideology driving the argument. They say whatever fits their theory. Evidence seems to be irrelevant. Instead they base things on citation: can they quote something from an authoritative source? It doesn't matter if its groundless, or if it in turns cites another source, which cites another, and spirals around till it disappears in puff of speculation.

I sent out an alert on Co-cure in 2007/8 (I don't recall which year) which was cited in Magical Medicine. In that I listed three pages of errors and distortions in the Wikipedia article. That was when people first contacted me and told me how many times they tried to fix things. Within hours its changed back, or that was the timeframe back then anyway.

 

[peggy-sue]

Many years ago, I changed it. I didn't do a brilliant job, not even a very good one, but it got deleted after a few minutes.

 

[Wally]

Many years ago, I changed it. I didn't do a brilliant job, not even a very good one, but it got deleted after a few minutes.

I wish there was a way to expose the wizard behind the curtain.

 

[justinreilly]

I think that the Wikipedia article is very important in the long run, but I submit now we have to focus on the IOM, CCC, and next the other HHS definition landgrabs- NIH research definition and CDC. I think after those are dealt with, one of the very most important areas is to correct the Wikipedia article and I plan to do that. As a reminder, I am not allowed by Wikipedia rules to recruit people to edit the article, so I won't do that.

 

[Undisclosed]

Some general info. on who may be anonymously editing Wikipedia.

Here is an article from 2007 discussing how anonymous editing of Wikipedia entries can be monitored. See, http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all

Here is a the link to a post on the Forum where additional information on who may be editing Wikipedia entries is identified. Unfortunately the article which is quoted in this post is apparently no longer available online. http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/anonymous-editing-on-wikipedia.23478/

@Wally -- you can find the article that you referred to as no longer available online here.