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!
==Types of studies == This on ''in vivo'' etc is very long and not important. Hardly any research on ME/CFS uses these terms, and if they do they don't make them prominent. I would prefer to remove this information, or to replace it with Clinical trials information - eg A case study is not a clinical trial, clinical trials will have a trial registration number, difference between Review articles, Editorials or Theories, and Research (eg research involves specific methods and results). [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 11:01, 14 April 2019 (EDT) :Good idea! We could also make [[MEpedia:In vivo studies]] and [[MEpedia:In vitro studies]]--or just mainspace entries with those topics (honestly we should def do at least the latter, I will see about starting that today)--to offer here as "See also" but yes, I agree it's not among the main issues of science literacy for editing MEpedia well, and we could trim either to make the whole more concise/readable or to make space for other subjects. [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 14:19, 14 April 2019 (EDT) ::I started the mainspace pages ([[In vivo studies]] and [[In vitro studies]]) but def, I can see the usefulness of also having project space pages in case anyone goes seeking more specific guidance on how MEpedia wants these distinctions described. So we could move the info over there rather than delete it. [[User:Notjusttired|Njt]], I'm sure if you have ideas about what should be included instead, they'd be welcome--you could post a mock-up here for discussion? (If you are up for it, no worries if not.) [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 16:43, 14 April 2019 (EDT) :::That sounds good, although the way it's written suggests more suitably for studies involving tissue samples and animal testing - there's no animal model and I am unsure if there's is much that can be tested with tissue samples given the multi-systematic nature and the risk of trying to get samples from the key areas (brain and spinal column, just a little dangerous!). :::What would be useful would be some of this [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies/glossary glossary] - I was looking earlier at Phase 1 to Phase 3 descriptions. :::Also to keep in mind is not to explain very short / simple things - I've requested debtors add the '''Lingo extension''' - it creates a glossary page and links it to anywhere the term is found on any page - so much could be added there rather than separately in Science Guidelines. :::My 2 big issues with science guidelines are to get editors not to cite Wikipedia or use ME-pedia pages as citations (they should be links), and to get across that science writers publishing only online are often poor sources for science (fine for personal experiences or Articles to link to) - some terrible "science" out there written by a single professional and either not peer reviewed or almost no improvements made. '''Journals''' should be the main source in my view given the lack of textbooks on ME/CFS. Science Direct is also excellent to search for book chapters or topics not specific to ME/CFS. Some clinics have good articles but others are just terrible. [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (EDT) ::::To your first point, I actually think for instance the [[Bhupesh Prusty]] talk at NIH last week specifically discussed ME/CFS research that does isolate certain kinds of material, and the difference that can make in the findings (see [https://twitter.com/MEActNet/status/1114219970660052992 this Twitter thread]), but I totally agree with you that that is '''far''' more advanced science than the main issues the Science guidelines need to convey to improve the scientific value of MEpedia.<br>Coming over from Wikipedia, I am accustomed to much, much higher standards for what can be included, but I understand where the [[MEpedia:About|mission statement]] is coming from about wanting to gather more than what's verified by review articles. To me the big challenge is getting people specify the quality of the source they're using. Like you say: is it one doctor's opinion? Is it some patients on a forum? Is it a peer-reviewed study? If it is, did have three patients or 300? Etc.<br>That glossary is a really good idea. I don't know how the extension you mention works but I'm also happy to start mainspace entries for some of the most common concepts. For all of this, I'm not remotely qualified to write a textbook-level explanation, but I hope if I can get things started, it's easier for folks who do have the scientific expertise to add on, amend, specify. [[User:Canele|Canele]] ([[User talk:Canele|talk]]) 20:31, 14 April 2019 (EDT) ::::::Everything in that page would be cited anyway - e.g. from a medical dictionary, or a book chapter - science direct's website is excellent for finding book chapters. The page name defaults to [[Terminology]] and it needs particular syntax.<br> ::::::The huge issue with sources is that there aren't any textbooks on ME/CFS. Not one. All books are based on author's own views or research. Although editors really should be stating in the text where info comes from for single sources, e.g. Jason and Sunquist (2009) stated that... I also disagree with you on Wikipedia standards: the editorial / scientific standards mean anything even remotely controversial can be (intentionally) skewed by editors using extremely poor quality sources which count as tiertary sources because opinions and reviews are given greater weight than objective science - some tierary sources barely have any references. Skeptics (actually disbelievers) rule on Wikipedia and there is a bullying culture in evidence on some pages - all editors do not have equal rights or equal influence. Scientists get marginalized since qualifications don't count. The demographics of Wikipedia editors are not representative of society in general to say the least. Talk pages on controversial topics consist of unfounded accusations of using sock puppets (happened to Angela Kennedy), and I've seen editors regularly move content they don't like to talk pages to tie up other editor's time so it won't be included. We don't have edit wars here. We go for facts, not opinions. If a popular opinion has very weak evidence then repeating it often gives it more weight on Wikipedia. Craziness! Also some editors mis-cite sources - what looks like a good reference turns out not to say that at all. Wessely and Sharpe do the same in their own articles.<br > ::::::At the moment I think many editors just aren't seeing crucial pages like the Science guidelines or manual of style. I read all the welcome message and How to contribute when I first signed up, but only when an editor pointed out the Manual of style did I find it.<br> ::::::Editing massage: I'd like to change the message editors see before submitting to include links to Editorial guidelines, Science guidelines, Manual of style, and remind them that Wikipedia and blogs are not science sources, and that "if you can't cite it you can't say it". [[User:Notjusttired|notjusttired]] ([[User talk:Notjusttired|talk]]) 07:13, 15 April 2019 (EDT) ===Re: Types of studies -- ~~~~=== : 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