So working backwards here is a project that someone might be interested in tackling. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia Editors are a bit nervous about me sending a bunch of skeptics over to a page for some of this "guerrilla skepticism" stuff. I think it is called "sandbagging". Anyway, this arrived in my email a few weeks ago and I thought it might be useful but never got to it.
Anyway, I think a mention on the Boiron and the Oscillococcinum pages might be warranted. Its not every day they get such attention from skeptical groups...or maybe they do? If so why isn't there already a bunch of mentions on their pages? We can't just assume that the public knows as much as we do about these products.
Bioron gets about 1,000 hits a month, and Oscillococcinum gets 7,000-8,000 hits a month. I would avoid the homeopathy page unless you have a really awesome citation and blub. That is a well-watched page and the editors have worked long and hard coming to some kind of agreement about what should be on the page. Before editing homeopathy (which is semi-protected) discuss what you want to do on the discussion page, listen to the comments from the other editors. BTW homeopathy gets about 90,000 hits a month, so people are clearly interested in this topic and coming to Wikipedia for answers.
And don't just stop there, I'm sure there are a lot more places the citation can be used, with slight modifications to the blurb left on the page. There are a lot of "fringe" smaller pages that the public is reviewing and we need to make sure they are getting the entire picture.
Remember editing on Wikipedia needs to be neutral, let the article speak for you. Less is more sometimes and make sure the citation is really good. Think about the importance of this, over 1 million people are reading the homeopathy page each year, do you think that a well-written blog/podcast on that subject would reach that many people? No pressure or anything.
CFI and CSI Petition FDA to Take Action on Homeopathic Drugs
Apparently CFI and CSI have this going in a press release. Here is the link to the article. I haven't looked into it in great depth, so I'm not sure that a press release is a good citation. There may be links to follow that will get you to something more noteworthy. Remember a secondary cite is better. Don't quote the person writing the blog/petition/press release but quote the newspaper/journal/TV news show that quotes the primary cite.Anyway, I think a mention on the Boiron and the Oscillococcinum pages might be warranted. Its not every day they get such attention from skeptical groups...or maybe they do? If so why isn't there already a bunch of mentions on their pages? We can't just assume that the public knows as much as we do about these products.
Bioron gets about 1,000 hits a month, and Oscillococcinum gets 7,000-8,000 hits a month. I would avoid the homeopathy page unless you have a really awesome citation and blub. That is a well-watched page and the editors have worked long and hard coming to some kind of agreement about what should be on the page. Before editing homeopathy (which is semi-protected) discuss what you want to do on the discussion page, listen to the comments from the other editors. BTW homeopathy gets about 90,000 hits a month, so people are clearly interested in this topic and coming to Wikipedia for answers.
And don't just stop there, I'm sure there are a lot more places the citation can be used, with slight modifications to the blurb left on the page. There are a lot of "fringe" smaller pages that the public is reviewing and we need to make sure they are getting the entire picture.
Remember editing on Wikipedia needs to be neutral, let the article speak for you. Less is more sometimes and make sure the citation is really good. Think about the importance of this, over 1 million people are reading the homeopathy page each year, do you think that a well-written blog/podcast on that subject would reach that many people? No pressure or anything.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق