MEpedia talk:Editorial guidelines

Redirects

Do folks find it more helpful to keep misspelled entries as redirects to the correct name (e.g. pointing Zach Shan to Zack Shan), or delete the misspelled version? Some trade-offs:

• Deleting them means the dropdown results in the search bar will be less cluttered.
• Keeping them means if anyone makes the same misspelling in the future, they will still be guided to the correct entry. For instance, if someone created a link to Zach Shan in another entry, it would still take the reader to the correct researcher.

Here's is Wikipedia's guidance on this issue, but MEpedia may have different needs so I thought I'd ask for opinions. Thanks! Canele (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2019 (EST)

I feel strongly that misspelled names are to be corrected and the misspellings deleted. Using a misspelling of a person's name is disrespectful to that person. If someone goes by more than one variation of his/her name, all of those variations should be noted with redirects to his or her main bio, e.g., Geraldine Cambridge and Jo Cambridge, or Roberto Patarca and Roberto Patarca-Montero. I can think of no needs that MEpedia could have that precludes the use of this common standard. Kmdenmark (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Misspelled names only appear when you start typing a page name - which is confusing since you don't know which to pick - or doing a full content search eg when the name you were looking for didn't come up. I tend to favor keeping redirects if searching by the mispelled name doesn't find the correct spelling. With adding links to authors by the visual editor redirects help because they connect the 2 spellings so both appear - and the icon shows which is correct. I am OK either way but would strongly suggest keeping redirects like Z Shan in order to help the visual editor find the correct author. When it comes to certain topics that are often spelled wrong redirects are a great help. notjusttired (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

Rename to MEpedia:Editorial guidelines

Any objection if this page "Editorial Guidelines" is renamed to "MEpedia:Editorial guidelines"?
Since this page is about the MEpedia project itself, it really should belong in the MEpedia namespace. ("MEpedia:")
Pyrrhus (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2019 (EDT)

Let's do it. Canele (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2019 (EDT)

Do not give advice

I have added this to clarify. It is especially relevant when describing treatment protocols or dose suggestions for medications. I added similar to the scientific guidelines. User:JaimeS User:JenB User:Kmdenmark User:Pyrrhus User:Hip User:DxCFS User:MEandCFS notjusttired (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

This would belong in the science guidelines, not the editorial guidelines. I'll copy this discussion over there.

Pyrrhus (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2019 (EDT)

I agree wholeheartedly not to give medical advice. I feel uncomfortable with the pages that do. It can inadvertently cause harm. Kmdenmark (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2019 (EDT)

Any objection if I remove this section as it already exists in the Science Guidelines here: https://www.me-pedia.org/wiki/MEpedia:Science_guidelines#No_advice

I worry that repeating ourselves will make the guidelines too long. If we want people to read them, we should keep them short and sweet.

Pyrrhus (talk) 00:48, July 20, 2019 (EDT)

I agree with adding the section not to give medical advice in the editorial guidelines. See this as one of the most important things people should know if they want to contribute to MEpedia. - Sisyphus.

Image sources

We have some under different licenses, which we have been able to set for some time with the upload tool. I suggest changing the wording to add unless otherwise stated since we have some fair use images, and some scientific images licensed as reuse without modified or Non-commercial reuse / No derivatives. This content wouldn't be practicable to recreate. Plus of course, so many millions missing photos. I think the editorial guidelines have been out of step with MEpedia copyrights and Help:Image for a while. User:JaimeS User:JenB notjusttired (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

External links embedded in text

I think all external links belong in references or learn more. Some articles rely heavily on many external links - including some of the most popular articles that may have been created when there was far less content to link to on here. I think the editorial policy should say internal links only in the content. Also I suggest removing Wikipedia from the article outlines given it is not acceptable in the Science guidelines. notjusttired (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (EDT)

I'm in favor of keeping Wikipedia links in the "Learn More" sections, in cases where the Wikipedia page is substantial. Linking to wikipedia as a companion source of information is qualitatively different from using it as a citation, in my opinion. An official ruling on this would be helpful. -- EscapeTheFog (talk) 01:57, June 13, 2019 (EDT)

Paging User:JaimeS... :)

Pyrrhus (talk) 20:25, June 14, 2019 (EDT)

Re: External links embedded in text -- JaimeS (talk) 14:18, June 26, 2019 (EDT)

I'm actually okay with using Wikipedia sources in the Learn More section but ONLY as User:EscapeTheFog mentions, when the article is superlative.

Regarding external links, I'd say the same wobbly rule, unfortunately. Generally speaking we should be linking within the Wiki and external links should be rare. Think, internal links first, if there is nothing that works internally, then external link.

Our ultimate goal is that people know where good resources are located. If Wikipedia or another external source is the best we've got, we lead them there.

Has this issue been resolved? Do we need to add anything to the page?

Pyrrhus (talk) 13:55, October 24, 2019 (EDT)

Consensus

There's no mention here of editing by consensus (between editors), or of scientific consensus - also not in the Science guidelines. Scientific consensus could mean expert consensus or could mean widely accepted between doctors or advocates notjusttired (talk) 17:37, August 10, 2019 (EDT)

Oh, there should definitely be some mention that working on a collaborative encyclopedia means that editorial decisions must be made by consensus.

I don't think we can say anything about scientific consensus, since there is (unfortunately) no scientific consensus about anything related to ME/CFS. Even when there appears to be a scientific consensus, such as with the BPS approach, the scientific consensus can be dead wrong.

Pyrrhus (talk) 13:55, October 24, 2019 (EDT)

Links that may be worth adding

• reminder of US spelling, with link to manual of style, except on translated pages of course
• making large changes - how best to go about it
• removing paragraphs or topics from a page - do we suggest moving to talk page, or discussion first, or does it depend on if it's a popular or long page, often edited, or if it's suspected spam? I'm thinking of short pages that are rarely edited, or new pages too.
• we don't have a page deletion policy
• when to revert edits, and if to discuss first
• dispute policy?

--Notjusttired

Except for the first bullet point, these would be good topics to address in MEpedia:Discussion and collaboration or MEpedia:Deletion policy. Not sure they would belong in the editorial guidelines, though.

Pyrrhus (talk) 13:55, October 24, 2019 (EDT)

Links

Links to related topics in manual of style or science guidelines would be good

biopsychosocial model (BPS) - A school of thought, usually based in psychology, which claims illness and disease to be the result of the intermingling of biological, psychological and social causes. (Learn more: me-pedia.org)