New NIH article touting benefits of CBT and GET

[Esther12]

The failing isn't with Wikipedia, but is with medical journals for poor peer review practices and heavy bias towards one theory.

I get what you're saying but if wikipedia wrongly assumes that reviews don't need independent critical analysis, that seems like a problem with wikipedia. A problem with a lot of reviews is that they seem to assume that they should just trust the interpretations of other researchers!

 

[halcyon]

if wikipedia wrongly assumes that reviews don't need independent critical analysis, that seems like a problem with wikipedia.

It's not that they assume that. Preference is given to high impact factor journals, which should have sufficiently critical peer review processes. Again, in a perfect world, said journals would not publish bad work, but in reality they do. And if two sufficiently high quality journals publish competing views, then both views would be given equal coverage in a Wikipedia article due to their rule of having a neutral point of view. It will be a very very long time before CBT/GET are no longer prominently displayed in the CFS article.

 

[SOC]

And 2) it were approved by the editors.

Aye, there's the rub.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I remember reading that someone selling a book promoting mind-body solutions for CFS is also a wikipedia editor (sciencewatcher/David Jameson). From reading the talk page, he seemed to know how to play the wikipedia rules in a way which meant that what was true didn't really matter, what was claimed in a 'respectable source' did. It looked like some people were trying to make it more reasonable over there, but it seemed to be a lot of work learning arcane wikipedia rules, rather than being able to have a reasonable discussion about what the evidence shows. Thanks a lot to all those willing to put the time/effort needed into this gruelling task.

Because the researchers who developed CBT/GET have such low standards for themselves, and they keep claiming that CBT/GET being as useful as a placebo means that they're effective treatments, that means wikipedia claims that they're effective treatments.

In light of some recent controversy, I heard that wikipedia are looking to update their rules governing conflicts of interest. See this for example.

It seems to me that this 'sciencewatcher/David Jameson' has a pretty clear conflict of interest when it comes to editing pages on ME/CFS.