Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
MEpedia talk:Science guidelines
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Project page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit source
New topic
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Sources to avoid == I'm a bit concerned because this contradicts advice we give elsewhere, for instance the outlines that specifically asking for the Wikipedia page, or, lower down on this page, explaining that it's a good source of sources, just not a good thing to cite directly. Additionally, I'm not sure I agree with the idea a doctor's website should never be cite: to me the more important thing (similar to the Wikipedia issue) is making sure the editor understands and documents for the reader what exactly a source can and cannot be considered reliable for. A doctor's website is probably pretty reliable for documenting that doctor's opinion, which may be of interest to the community even if it differs from consensus (or more often, if there is no consensus). The important thing is that the prose make clear when something is individual opinion and not consensus. So I'm wondering if these warnings could be converted into more "advice for handling sources" rather than telling people they can't use them at all. [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 21:34, July 13, 2019 (EDT) :I was hoping for some good feedback on this. Thank you. :It might help to look this [https://www.me-pedia.org/index.php?title=Overtraining_syndrome&oldid=51563#cite_ref-1 old version] for what I'm trying to avoid - especially sources 1, 3, and 9 (the last is a doctor), look at the mentions of Lyme and symptoms list. <br > :'''Wikipedia''' is best removed from the Article outlines in my view. A link to webmd, merckx msnuals or scienxedirect's search results would be much better. But linking to it wikipedia learn more is not the same as citing it. The [[MEpedia:Editorial_guidelines]] already point out Wikipedia is not reliable so I think we are being consistent. We could change the wording of the new section to suggest '''reading''' the References section on Wikipedia only for suggested sources, but I think ''linking'' to Wikipedia as a source is not OK. I've just been trying to sort out another page that actually linked to a numbered Wikipedia reference rather than the reference itself. Bear in mind also that some of what we cover are "contested" diagnoses, and Wikipedians are not representative of the general population - they are prominently young, male, single, childless (none of which are bad things but limited life experience), lacking in a biological or health background and in my experience highly skeptical and prone to promote minority opinions, regardless of new facts. <br > :I'm finding '''doctors websites''' frequently used for key information that should be taken from elsewhere - or containing various misunderstandings - like symptoms of a poorly understood condition - which actually don't match the proposed diagnostic symptoms and probably cover half the population - and for unproven benefits of various supplements. So many doctors use "Chronic fatigue" and "Chronic fatigue syndrome" interchangeably, others claim to have found a cure (and they will sell you it). Dr Axe has "4 ways to overcome CFS" - with a few references that he massively overstates - treatments we certainly don't to claim are effective based on that. The single source he uses is a normal article suggesting that those treatments should be investigated further - not the same as Dr Axe claiming they are the "most promising treatments" for CFS. [https://drrondrucker.com/cfs This doctor] claims CFS is an autoimmune gut condition, and only 8 months of his non-prescription pills will treat it - that's not something we should cite on the Autoimmunity hypothesis page which is one of the harder places to get sources (OMF research is looking into autoimmunity at the moment). Any doctor's website with no sources on the article shouldn't be used (unless perhaps it's a well known expert in the field or they are cited on a page about the treatment they themselves have invented eg Dr Gupta on the Gupta programme page). Doctor's websites often promote whatever their niche treatments are - eg the "leaky gut" doctors will list 30 symptoms and that's their opinion - based on no actual studies at all, but gets cited as if it's fact. There's also a tiny number of atrocitious websites with a single author and single reviewer that just make things up (patient.co.uk actually invented totally false information a few years ago - didn't even get the classification or symptoms right - this has happened on several pages there.) There's also many references to "verywellhealth" that are actually just blogs by people with the illness but get cited as medical facts. So, that's what I'm trying to address. There's a real avoidance of peer reviewed journals too, in favor of unreferenced websites. I'm certainly open to suggestion. :'''YouTube''' videos might be something else that shouldn't be cited as a reference (unless it's explaining a clinical trial, treatment or clearly described as an opinion). Linking to it is fine, or embedding on the page to support referenced facts. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 15:22, July 14, 2019 (EDT) :: I think it might be helpful to us to start a policy whereby any changes to the guidelines are discussed before they are implemented. These are really good ideas being raised, it would be nice to get them right. Just my 2 cents! ::[[User:Pyrrhus|Pyrrhus]] ([[User talk:Pyrrhus|talk]]) 00:31, July 15, 2019 (EDT) ===Re: Sources to avoid -- [[User:JaimeS|JaimeS]] ([[User talk:JaimeS|talk]]) 11:42, July 15, 2019 (EDT)=== : Hmm. : Rather than saying we can never use a doctor's website, I think it's more appropriate to say that PRIMARY sources are always, always preferable to SECONDARY sources. If a doctor cites a statistic and doesn't say where it's from, and you can't find the PRIMARY source, you shouldn't cite it. In fact, I'm surprised that this adjuration doesn't already exist somewhere. It's kind of vital to citation prioritization! The same goes for Wikipedia: it's a good place to hunt down PRIMARY sources. One wouldn't cite Wikipedia itself, and that should have been clear in the guidelines' original incarnation. : We can also clarify the citation of facts versus opinions or theories. For example, let's say someone wants to reference Myhill's theories. She hasn't published often, but she's influenced a great number of patients' ideas about the disease, and treated a great number of patients; and anyway, we'd be citing her work as theory, not fact. "Many researchers have found mitochondrial dysfunction" <-- cites Myhill's site [NOPE] "Some clinicians, such as Dr Myhill, have treated people with ME with supplements geared to augment mitochondrial dysfunction" <-- cites Myhill's site [YES] : I do agree we should talk about any changes on policy pages before implementing them. :::I should have discussed here first. My apologizes. Dr Myhill may be very popular but she has had complaints to the GMC and been forced to change her website to a degree as a result, not so much about ME but her anti-vaccine statements. What about changing the doctor one to:<br > "Information from a doctor's website must be verified for accuracy (read the original sources used), or presented as a minority opinion only, and not used for the introduction or symptom lists" :::Re: Types of sources. Primary / secondary / tiertary are confusing teens to many. Wikipedia relies on tertiary eg systematic reviews like Cochrane or encyclopedia. We have very few and they are typically biased in ME or CFS Research. We actually prefer primary (eg peer reviewed articles) and secondary (Consensus statements, guidelines, etc). I find many charity websites to be very accurate, if articles are referenced. I think it would be better to talk about '''verifiable sources''' and '''academic sources'''. Perhaps with unreferenced articles from doctors/physios/etc considered one of the lowest quality of sources, only to cited as Dr X claims / believes / views that ... :::I think it would be a positive to have an outright ban on using perhaps up to 5 extremely low quality websites that rank highly, including Wikipedia, but allow them under "learn more" or "articles and blogs" links since many explain patient experiences or different minority but valuable views. A few websites could be included due to being inaccessible in outside the country of origin - [[User:Pyrrhus]] has raised this before. :::Feedback would also be welcome on proposed changes to the [[Template_talk:Cleanup|Cleanup template]] including links to scientific guidelines and being able to pick a default message to add to. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 12:10, July 15, 2019 (EDT) ===Re: Sources to avoid -- ~~~~=== : Replace this text with your reply
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs