There are a lot of articles listed here.
While we need to correct misinformation in bad articles, we have to be careful about giving more attention to bad behavior than to good. Any attention is good attention in some media books and we don't want to encourage those who write garbage.
I see a two-pronged goal here:
1) we want to encourage sound, scientific, sympathetic writers to keep writing on the topic... and their editors to want to publish such articles, and
2) we want people who search to learn more about SEID to find the most accurate and informative articles.
How best to accomplish these goals?
I agree with these goals. Regarding #1, a similar discussion is going on in another thread. Do you mean that more attention should go towards reinforcing good writers than to correcting bad journalists? Or do you mean that no energy should go towards correcting bad articles? I'm on board for the first. While some sites consider any traffic good traffic (often described as click-bait sites), reputable news organizations (NYT, WAPO,WSJ for example) are concerned about maintaining their credibility and tend to correct or amend coverage if there are numerous valid reader complaints. On this illness (as we know), some news orgs have been slow to change. Some reporters have self-corrected and have adjusted their views after patient input, though.
Good points - for (2) I think we need a new thread (when we're ready) listing the good articles with a title that says something like, 'Click through to these good Hornig/Lipkin articles to give them traffic and get more of them!'
For (1), if there's bad info, I think we need to point it out and say in the comment that there's a big audience for articles on this where the writer understands the issue, and a well-networked community who will funnel attention to it.
Yes! We should also try, as has been mentioned to get across the point that more funding is needed, perhaps with a hashtag that can be followed on social media. #MoreFundingNow for example.
It's important that we go beyond "clicking through" on the very best articles. We want to use the power of search engines to our advantage. We want the best articles to come out on top when someone (journalist, politician, your grandmother) does a search.
Someone who knows more about these things can hopefully give better information than I can at how to utilize this resource, but I think we need to make a concerted effort to use search engines to find the best articles (even though we know they're there) and click on the result to get search engines to give more priority/value to those articles. Am I right? Anyone here up to speed on how search engines work?
Before I was sick, I was in a tech field.. If anyone knows someone on either the technical side or the marketing side of internet site marketing, these people would be good people to ask. Also, tech geeks (geek used in the positive sense of the word) are always good resources. I do know that some issues advocacy groups use a focused search strategy - maybe others have experience in this strategy. I don't know how or if search engines approve, frown upon or don't care about these strategies. These groups also always share news articles with each other quickly, through email, twitter and Facebook, so that articles they like are read and rank highly on news org sites (different from search engine ranking). There are many factors that determine search engine rankings, like newness of content and good SEO strategy. Traffic is always a big part of search engines' algorithms. Google has an overview of their search process, but the algorithms are proprietary.