Wikipedia entry for CFS

[justinreilly]

The project talk page if anyone wants to contact the project to complain on the CFS wiki page being rated as a B is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine

The second section on that page talks about professors making editing wikipedia a homework assignment- the one linked to in the beginning is a prof. making all 1500 students in his intro psych class edit for a hw assignment (someone there says basically 'we're going to have to deal with all of these people making bad edits because the guidelines will never change to restrict/control posting by new editors). so it seems like it would be ok for us to organize/ask people to edit.

 

[justinreilly]

Originally Posted by taniaaust1
I noticed you were there.

Take care as it is in wiki rules that one isnt allowed to gather a group up to try to change things, they can ban your account for it. So as much as its all biased there and needs to be changed. We cant work on it as a group. But yeah the more who post there, the less biased the info will be as it is consensus.


I'd love to hear more about this. If I headed a disability insurance company I'd certainly hire people to try to control the wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_(essay)

It is not currently prohibited on Wikipedia. The community has to date, attempted twice to ban the practice, with the outcome twice being no consensus. It is however been made by consensus that editors who are paid, represent a clear Conflict-of-Interest and are Strongly Encouraged to state this on WP:COIN what articles they are being paid to edit and declare whom they are working for before doing so. Failure to do so may result in conflicts with established editors and the wikipedia community. Depending on how severe the situation, your privilege to edit Wikipedia, may be subject to sanctions for both you and who you represent....

 

[fla]

At the bottom of the CFS wikipedia page you can rate the page for how trustworthy, objective, complete, well written it is. We should all rate it harshly and honestly...

 

[Guido den Broeder]

Hmm, I see no such option (and yes, I'm logged in).

The CFS page was turned into propaganda when the court case against the NICE guideline ran. Simultaneously, many ME patients were banned from Wikipedia, sometimes by mr. Wales himself - he is a big fan of Wessely - to ensure that there was no opposition. A hundred references to biomedical research were thrown out. Subsequently, the new version was (informally) entered as evidence to support the guideline. The editor responsible for most of this, who had appeared from nowhere, left Wikipedia the day the court case was decided.

There is, however, still an NHS employee present who will delete any attempt to create an article on ME.

 

[justinreilly]

Hmm, I see no such option (and yes, I'm logged in).

The CFS page was turned into propaganda when the court case against the NICE guideline ran. Simultaneously, many ME patients were banned from Wikipedia, sometimes by mr. Wales himself - he is a big fan of Wessely - to ensure that there was no opposition. A hundred references to biomedical research were thrown out. Subsequently, the new version was (informally) entered as evidence to support the guideline. The editor responsible for most of this, who had appeared from nowhere, left Wikipedia the day the court case was decided.

There is, however, still an NHS employee present who will delete any attempt to create an article on ME.

Hi Guido,

I think the rating form only comes up once in a while randomly.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea about that. Wales likes Wessely? oh god. any particular reason why you know of? Who works for NHS? Is he editing on the clock for them? did he disclose his connection (as you are supposed to do if paid to edit)?

Thanks for your work on the article. I am sorry you were banned. The article would be much better if you were still there.

 

[Guido den Broeder]

I'm not sure what has caused mr. Wales' admiration. Perhaps they share the same view of the world. The NHS employee is not working around the clock on the topic, he is an administrator who lets others do the dirty work and then protects that. And no, he has not declared himself. As a physician, he was found responsible for the death of an elderly patient.

I don't think Wikipedia is worth much effort at this time. The entire project seems doomed. What happens with CFS, happens with a thousand other topics as well, and Wikipedia Commons has become a deposit for child-pornographic images.

 

[justinreilly]

You may be right, since you know more about this than me, but I am willing to try. There has been some progress made by you, Tekaphor and others; and wikipedia is read by so many that any progress is worth it, imo. It certainly is unfair to us.

I'm not going to bother at this point with the article on Wessely, since they use the 'living person' standards to take anything negative about the person out, even if true. After reading the article, you'd think he was Mother Theresa with his royal physician's medal for "CFS" research and bike-a-thoning for gulf-war illness research.

Can you tell me the name of the NHS doctor and how you know he's involved?

On the discussion page (topic 6, at the end), I have brought up an edit that really must be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C...iological_Factors_may_Contribute.22_to_CFS.3F

"Multiple Psychological and Physiological Factors may Contribute" to CFS?

I'm going to revive this discussion from the last archived page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C...iological_Factors_may_Contribute.22_to_CFS.3F
re: "multiple psychological and physiological factors may contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms. pmid at 12562565; Chronic Fatigue and Its Syndromes by Simon Wessely, Matthew Hotopf and Michael Sharpe (Jan 15, 1998) " Wesseley, Sharpe and Hotopf are not reliable authorities. This is also an outdated book (1998). There isn't a reasonable basis for concluding that multiple psychological factors contribute. I have certainly read that from authoritative sources and will look for one. As far as I know, no bona fide study has ever found psychologic factors as (even partially) causative. Really, the line has to be drawn against using the results of any study employing the patently invalid "Sharpe ('Oxford") 1991" criteria which defines nothing more than Idiopathic CF, not CFS (it explicitly excludes illness with any neurologic signs; "ME" has always been classified as neurologic by WHO). Since there is strong (though manufactured, on the part of the UK psychiatrists) controversy over psychological causation, this should not be included in the first paragraph as a fact. It should be treated in the controversy article or somewhere else. JustinReilly (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 

[SilverbladeTE]

It IS important to have this travesty changed, because much of the population uses Wiki as their touchstone for "facts"

The Truth is the FIRST casualty in any war, and this IS a war. Like I keep saying, those behind the ME victimization, are masters of manipulation. Look what their profession is!
Do you know the military uses psychologists etc as part of their huge "psy-ops" systems?
Same with corporations and advertizing, which IS a form of war waged on the public to distort/indoctrinate/control them.
Most people just have no idea how dangerous, pervasive and destructive this stuff is, they will accept the Soviet etc style of propaganda is evil, but not their own master's machinations

manipulation of reality = power/money/control

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

"ME is made up! they are just weak, malingering cowards! pay them no heed! Reject, detest them! or are you weak, cowardly, thieving like them?"
Do you see how the Public cna be manipulated into ignoring, even maligning innocent people?

 

[taniaaust1]

Hmm, I see no such option (and yes, I'm logged in).

The CFS page was turned into propaganda when the court case against the NICE guideline ran. Simultaneously, many ME patients were banned from Wikipedia, sometimes by mr. Wales himself - he is a big fan of Wessely - to ensure that there was no opposition. A hundred references to biomedical research were thrown out. Subsequently, the new version was (informally) entered as evidence to support the guideline. The editor responsible for most of this, who had appeared from nowhere, left Wikipedia the day the court case was decided.

There is, however, still an NHS employee present who will delete any attempt to create an article on ME.

nods.. that is the kind of thing Im refering about. They can ban you you if you are deemed editing in biased ways (eg a patient group working together).
.....

I just found something I thought interesting at wikipedia. Bounties can be done by people to try to get articles better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty_board . A bounty could be offered by someone(s) to get the CFS page up to feature article statis.

 

[Enid]

Interesting tania - can't afford much but willing to get the mumbo jumbo out of their article by donation with others.

 

[justinreilly]

The only issue with that is that I don't think they'd allow/accept a bounty for making the article more accurate (I assume only for making it more in line with their guidelines which would probably make it less accurate). And as I said before, you're also allowed to pay people directly, but again i'm guessing they might not allow us to pay someone to make it more accurate.