User talk:Sailormd

Welcome!

Hello, Sailormd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I agree with your sentiments on your userpage, but as I stated on Talk:Arthritis I disagree what eMedTV constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia policy. JFW | T@lk 18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFW -- When I reviewed the reliable source policy for Wikipedia, as you know it says the following: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."

If you read about eMedTV, you will see that they have health care professionals, like us, oversee the creation of content and have an established editing process is place. I have also found their information, along with other sites, to have accurate information when cross-referenced with the PI's (for drug specific information) and my own clinical knowledge. Therefore, I would consider them a reliable source per the Wikipedia definition. With that being said, however, I would never use them or another site as a reference without verifying with at least one additional source.

After reading some of the other information on Wikipedia, I do agree that a site like an eMedTV should not be used in the External links section.

BTW --thanks for the welcome information. I think as you my objective it to make the information on Wikipedia accurate and accountable.Sailormd 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should cite PIs directly rather than use a website when discussing side effects of medication.

Traditionally, Wikipedia medical articles rely on peer-reviewed journal articles wherever possible, as these are the actual sources of the information we are presenting. For some good examples, see multiple sclerosis, asthma and coeliac disease. These are featured articles, at least partially because of their referencing apparatus. Together, the medical contributors have authored WP:MEDRS, which outlines the "source hierarchy" for medical articles.

You haven't stated whether you are linked to eMedTV's operations in any way; if this is the case, please be aware that we have a conflict of interest policy. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my response in the medical rounds area and I would agree with what you are saying. It is why I did not add anything into the articles that I also read on rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. These were very well written articles and properly sourced. When I found errors in the other articles, I made those changes, added some information, then cited my source.

I am not affiliated with eMedTV. I have just found that they have done a good job of synthesizing drug information. There are other references that I will use going forward. What you can help with clarity is do you feel it is better to not cite if it is a secondary source like Mayo Clinic, etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sailormd (talk • contribs) 23:02:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Removing references

It seems like someone criticized your use of sources(eMedTV), so to prove a point, you went around and deleted comparable sources in other articles (WebMD). If this isn't the case of what happened, please excuse me for being presumptuous. Regardless, it is never appropriate to remove a cited source without replacing it with something. If the source is problematic, then the content that comes from the source is also problematic, so ideally, you should have deleted not only the references, but also the content which was being references by the WebMD citations. That said, without prior discussion or a clear consensus, it is disruptive to simply remove sourced content. What the best course of action should have been was to remove the questionable source (WebMD) and replace it with a more reliable source. At the very least, you could have removed the the references and replaced them with a citation needed tag. However, removing the reference while leaving the content (now unsourced) is problematic. Therefore, I have rolled back your recent edits that removed these sources. If you want to work on improving this area of the encyclopedia, please, in the future, consider replacing questionable sources with decent information with better sources. This wasn't a matter of the source giving inaccurate information because you would have removed the content in addition to the reference if that were the case.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WebMD is a questionable source by the nature of the fact that they license their content. Referencing syndicated content is in general a poor practice. It is like referencing a newspaper that received an article from the AP. Furthermore, just because those references are on the pages, does not merit them staying there. Finally, it is not necessary to reference all information. For example, it is really not necessary to have a reference for what a bunion is. Any MD can read the article and see whether or not it is accurate. Its like referencing the definition of heart failure or any of the other thousands of medical conditions. My recommendation is that if you had a problem with my removal of this source (after I had verified the accuracy of the information, alert the person that added the information. Let them decide if the information that they presented requires the source. People should be accountable for the information that they put in and should be able to defend it.

With that being said, I understand somewhat where you are coming from because I did have my sources removed. But, at that point, I had a choice to remove the information that I had provided or to leave it up there. In some cases, I removed the content because I felt the source was necessary for transparency purposes. In other cases, I felt the content was generally accepted medical practice and I left it. But I as the author made that choice. Since you did not provide the information, contact the person that did. Then he (or she) and I can have a discussion as far as the relevancy of the source. Sailormd 05:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]