This article was written by Julia Ziobro, keratoconus patient since 1985. (unsigned comment by RodC 13:43, 29 August 2004)
It's a pretty informative article. Have you read Larry Wall's cornea transplant diary? Anyway, I think the article could be cleaned up a little. The article seems to have as much to do with cornea transplant as it does with keratoconus. Maybe the article could focus more on keratoconus. Not everybody with keratoconus will require a transplant.
Overall, I think the article is informative and looks promising, but needs a bit of work. I will see if I can find some kind of image for keratoconus. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 16:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have broken the article into sections and rearranged the sentence order a little to try to improve the flow and keep the concepts together. Overall, it's a good article. -- BillC 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The etymology of Keratoconus is not "cone eye" but "conical cornea".
See for example
Dictionary.com: kerato- cornea, [Greek kerto: horn] and conus [Greek, Latin conus: cone] --
BillC
00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Good job BillC. It look much improved over the original. I keep meaning to look for a good image of keratoconus. I work for the Ophthalmology dept at a local teaching hospital and we have thousands of teaching photos of various eye conditions. However, I won't know if we have any good images until go through some of them. Most of them are 35mm slides, and the cataloging isn't that great. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 23:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
" It is sometimes called the "academic's eye disease" because two-thirds of the people afflicted with it have IQs above 130. "
This is interesting. Got a reference somewhere? CW 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed this text from the article, pending some independent citation. I am unable to find any reference to it in the literature available on the net, other than in WP clones. If someone can come up with a referenced source for it, they should return it to the article, complete with the reference. -- BillC 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is very interesting, because I've got it in both eyes, as did my father and uncle and we all have IQs in excess of 130. I'd really like to see this confirmed or shot down. Umlautbob 06:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In New Zealand, where the incidence of keratoconus is much reported much higher than other parts of the world, it is certainly not associated with high IQ's, and the opposite *may* be true; it is more common in the lower demographics. Fillup 07:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The number of external links in this article grows ever upward; many are links to individual's home pages and blogs. These is likely to end up as broken links, and the content in some of the links is not always encyclopedic material. The article is becoming less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a web page for people to post their experiences with KC. While that's commendable, it is not what is expected in an encyclopedia. I'm proposing that we strike away most, if not all of those links and replace that section with References. In there we can put some more scholarly and verifiable sources. Any thoughts? -- BillC 17:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have recently posted a link to my personal database concerning an alternate treatment for Keratoconus. The site is not a commercial site and is not in any way funded by those that promote the technique. The information contained is controversial in that the basis to the technique is a contridiction to what is generally regarded as 'safe practice' by most in the medical system... yet I and many other have had excellent results. My point is that it is very important that ALL sides of any topic are shown. In Wikipedia's case it is proving to be an extremely well rounded resource for promoting this kind of 'full coverage'. From what I can gather the very fact that it is created by the public gives it a non-bias credibility lacking in other similar journals. I agree that it should remain 'scholarly' and that the prospect of clutter from broken links is a distinct possibility but how do we define 'scholarly'? If this is only on the basis of medical qualification then it defeats what makes Wikipedia unique. The article has links directly to clinics that promote certain treatments for Keratoconus (see Dr. Art Epstein) alongside informative patient testimonys (see Julia Ziobro's site), here we have the two extremes doctor view and patient view. I believe we need the mixture of both... question is who decides on the mix? Hari Navarro
---
Hope that is of some help-- Hari Navarro
--- The upgrade to the page was well done... I have now learnt what 'contraindicated' means! By the way the link to the International center for Keratoconus (Kcenter) is a dead link, the site no longer exists.
--- You are welcome to use my Keratoconus topo maps ( http://www.miniarkdatabase.com/testimonials.htm), I'm not sure where you will find a 'Normal' set of maps for comparison- I have been having some very positive feedback to the changes you have been doing, it is much appreciated. Hari 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. -- Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Bill, not sure if you are interested in linking to either of these. According to the this link at the Indiana University School of Optometry, this study found Fleischer's ring in 98% of 42 keratoconic eyes. It's not mentioned in the abstract and I don't have the full write-up. And this Japanese study found it in 6 of 6 w/ "secondary" keratoconus. AED 23:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
A small caption would be useful for the image in the intro. CG 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link suggesting (more or less) that keratoconus may be caused by magnesium deficiency. Someone more knowledgeable than I ought to look into this! http://www.ctds.info/magnesium.html#keratoconus Neoprote 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is not suitable for featured article because of graphical nature of a pictures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.181.57.246 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
I agree, not fun when opening the main page right now. 206.103.66.134 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
These were the recent changes:
Some review of these sections will be needed. -- BillC 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: I just happened on to this entry because it was on page one and caught my eye (pun intended) since I have keratoconus. Though well-written, I believe the article misses at least one feature of the keratoconus experience -- allergies. About half of keratoconus patients also have problems with allergies effecting their eyes. Some opthamologists think our tendency to rub our eyes causes addtional damage to our corneas. I recommend adding discussion of allergies to this entry. 67.150.83.116 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)J.
I would suggest moving the References section after the Notes section, putting the cited web links next to the other External Links listed. 128.195.108.92 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This eye condition is rather unsightly. I do not recommend a picture like this be featured on the main page, as it may prevent visitors from returning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.170.225 ( talk • contribs)
Gross! -- M4-10 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I got a jolt from it on the main page, and the larger picture in the article is extremely disconcerting. A link to the picture would be far more preferable. Hexedit 11:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like it. The picture instantly communicates the problem to the reader / viewer. Overall, it's rather... eye-opening. ;) -- Flask
Its been bothering me all day. Jack Cain 11:31, 5 June HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://localhost:1025/9040/badcontent.html Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 187 Connection: close
<html><head><title>Page has moved found</title></head><body>The page has moved. Please <a href=" http://localhost:1025/9040/badcontent.html">click here</a> for the new page.</body></html>2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been considering changing mHTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://localhost:1025/22190/badcontent.html Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 188 Connection: close
<html><head><title>Page has moved found</title></head><body>The page has moved. Please <a href=" http://localhost:1025/22190/badcontent.html">click here</a> for the new page.</body></html>y homepage. ~ Wave of Mutilation 12:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for changing it, It was far nicer to open wikipedia and not get a shock. -- Ashley P
Ah, much better. I remember when I first opened the page, I couldn't quite tell what the picture was supposed to be, but when I saw what it was, I literally said, out loud, "Oh, GROSS!!!" The new one is much better. RememberMe? 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
all i get is the word "negro" when i open this page ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 ( talk • contribs)
sorted now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 ( talk • contribs)
I find it pretty unprofessional how the picture on the main page keeps getting changed, this is the fourth time already. I personally agree that the picture with the eyeball is inapropriate for the main page, I flinch every time I see it. I like when it was just the graph, and it looks like evryone else here did, so I don't know why it got changed back. -- Thankyoubaby 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, please keep the more neutral picture on the front page. There's no need for such a disturbing image, I've actually been avoiding Wikipedia today because of the picture. Yakolev 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
whats so disgusting about it? :S the eye is only slightly wonky. Nothing too weird. -- Krsont 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the image is not exactly appropriate for some users, but Wikipedia is not censored. I personally feel that a less graphic image would be more appropriate for the main page, though on the article I find it appropriate as it further describes the condition by giving a visual example. Cowman109 Talk 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That picture is really disturbing. It was the first time I felt a need to avoid Wikipedia just so I could avoid seeing that creepy, scary picture. Please don't show such things ever again. JIP | Talk 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha! This long-held debate earned a spot as #77 in the bad jokes section. Wikipedia:Go directly to Bad Jokes, Do not Delete, do not collect Other Nonsense Dragix 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this page protected seeing as it's a featured artical for today? Loserdog 3000 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Featured article just seems to have gone plain weird this week. First we get that guy nobody's heard of from Ohio, now pictures that seem almost calculated to give some people the creeps. And like everyone else has been saying, tons of vandalism. I think people get the idea that Wikipedia is open to all without having to have it demonstrated to them on a page which is clearly ripe for vandalism. Bedesboy 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of course, we avoid protecting the featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection for the reasoning. Raul654 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an image of an eye with this condition where the eyelids are not retracted? At the moment, this image may be misleading, as people may not realise the eyelids have been manually retracted. Carcharoth 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I've translated the whole text of the article into Russian. Alas, most of the images here are "local", belonging to the english Wikipedia. It would be great to have them in the Commons! -- CopperKettle 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the image to the right to the article, at the signs section, please feel free to move it or remove it in order to keep the featured status, but please notify me at my talk page, thank you Maen. K. A. ( talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
All round, Good Work guys, a big pat on the back is in order - RH
This article was written by Julia Ziobro, keratoconus patient since 1985. (unsigned comment by RodC 13:43, 29 August 2004)
It's a pretty informative article. Have you read Larry Wall's cornea transplant diary? Anyway, I think the article could be cleaned up a little. The article seems to have as much to do with cornea transplant as it does with keratoconus. Maybe the article could focus more on keratoconus. Not everybody with keratoconus will require a transplant.
Overall, I think the article is informative and looks promising, but needs a bit of work. I will see if I can find some kind of image for keratoconus. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 16:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I have broken the article into sections and rearranged the sentence order a little to try to improve the flow and keep the concepts together. Overall, it's a good article. -- BillC 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The etymology of Keratoconus is not "cone eye" but "conical cornea".
See for example
Dictionary.com: kerato- cornea, [Greek kerto: horn] and conus [Greek, Latin conus: cone] --
BillC
00:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Good job BillC. It look much improved over the original. I keep meaning to look for a good image of keratoconus. I work for the Ophthalmology dept at a local teaching hospital and we have thousands of teaching photos of various eye conditions. However, I won't know if we have any good images until go through some of them. Most of them are 35mm slides, and the cataloging isn't that great. -- Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/ C 23:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
" It is sometimes called the "academic's eye disease" because two-thirds of the people afflicted with it have IQs above 130. "
This is interesting. Got a reference somewhere? CW 19:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed this text from the article, pending some independent citation. I am unable to find any reference to it in the literature available on the net, other than in WP clones. If someone can come up with a referenced source for it, they should return it to the article, complete with the reference. -- BillC 22:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is very interesting, because I've got it in both eyes, as did my father and uncle and we all have IQs in excess of 130. I'd really like to see this confirmed or shot down. Umlautbob 06:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In New Zealand, where the incidence of keratoconus is much reported much higher than other parts of the world, it is certainly not associated with high IQ's, and the opposite *may* be true; it is more common in the lower demographics. Fillup 07:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The number of external links in this article grows ever upward; many are links to individual's home pages and blogs. These is likely to end up as broken links, and the content in some of the links is not always encyclopedic material. The article is becoming less like an encyclopedia entry and more like a web page for people to post their experiences with KC. While that's commendable, it is not what is expected in an encyclopedia. I'm proposing that we strike away most, if not all of those links and replace that section with References. In there we can put some more scholarly and verifiable sources. Any thoughts? -- BillC 17:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I have recently posted a link to my personal database concerning an alternate treatment for Keratoconus. The site is not a commercial site and is not in any way funded by those that promote the technique. The information contained is controversial in that the basis to the technique is a contridiction to what is generally regarded as 'safe practice' by most in the medical system... yet I and many other have had excellent results. My point is that it is very important that ALL sides of any topic are shown. In Wikipedia's case it is proving to be an extremely well rounded resource for promoting this kind of 'full coverage'. From what I can gather the very fact that it is created by the public gives it a non-bias credibility lacking in other similar journals. I agree that it should remain 'scholarly' and that the prospect of clutter from broken links is a distinct possibility but how do we define 'scholarly'? If this is only on the basis of medical qualification then it defeats what makes Wikipedia unique. The article has links directly to clinics that promote certain treatments for Keratoconus (see Dr. Art Epstein) alongside informative patient testimonys (see Julia Ziobro's site), here we have the two extremes doctor view and patient view. I believe we need the mixture of both... question is who decides on the mix? Hari Navarro
---
Hope that is of some help-- Hari Navarro
--- The upgrade to the page was well done... I have now learnt what 'contraindicated' means! By the way the link to the International center for Keratoconus (Kcenter) is a dead link, the site no longer exists.
--- You are welcome to use my Keratoconus topo maps ( http://www.miniarkdatabase.com/testimonials.htm), I'm not sure where you will find a 'Normal' set of maps for comparison- I have been having some very positive feedback to the changes you have been doing, it is much appreciated. Hari 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. -- Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Bill, not sure if you are interested in linking to either of these. According to the this link at the Indiana University School of Optometry, this study found Fleischer's ring in 98% of 42 keratoconic eyes. It's not mentioned in the abstract and I don't have the full write-up. And this Japanese study found it in 6 of 6 w/ "secondary" keratoconus. AED 23:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
A small caption would be useful for the image in the intro. CG 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link suggesting (more or less) that keratoconus may be caused by magnesium deficiency. Someone more knowledgeable than I ought to look into this! http://www.ctds.info/magnesium.html#keratoconus Neoprote 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is not suitable for featured article because of graphical nature of a pictures.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.181.57.246 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
I agree, not fun when opening the main page right now. 206.103.66.134 03:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
These were the recent changes:
Some review of these sections will be needed. -- BillC 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: I just happened on to this entry because it was on page one and caught my eye (pun intended) since I have keratoconus. Though well-written, I believe the article misses at least one feature of the keratoconus experience -- allergies. About half of keratoconus patients also have problems with allergies effecting their eyes. Some opthamologists think our tendency to rub our eyes causes addtional damage to our corneas. I recommend adding discussion of allergies to this entry. 67.150.83.116 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)J.
I would suggest moving the References section after the Notes section, putting the cited web links next to the other External Links listed. 128.195.108.92 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This eye condition is rather unsightly. I do not recommend a picture like this be featured on the main page, as it may prevent visitors from returning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.170.225 ( talk • contribs)
Gross! -- M4-10 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I got a jolt from it on the main page, and the larger picture in the article is extremely disconcerting. A link to the picture would be far more preferable. Hexedit 11:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I kind of like it. The picture instantly communicates the problem to the reader / viewer. Overall, it's rather... eye-opening. ;) -- Flask
Its been bothering me all day. Jack Cain 11:31, 5 June HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://localhost:1025/9040/badcontent.html Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 187 Connection: close
<html><head><title>Page has moved found</title></head><body>The page has moved. Please <a href=" http://localhost:1025/9040/badcontent.html">click here</a> for the new page.</body></html>2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been considering changing mHTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: http://localhost:1025/22190/badcontent.html Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 188 Connection: close
<html><head><title>Page has moved found</title></head><body>The page has moved. Please <a href=" http://localhost:1025/22190/badcontent.html">click here</a> for the new page.</body></html>y homepage. ~ Wave of Mutilation 12:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for changing it, It was far nicer to open wikipedia and not get a shock. -- Ashley P
Ah, much better. I remember when I first opened the page, I couldn't quite tell what the picture was supposed to be, but when I saw what it was, I literally said, out loud, "Oh, GROSS!!!" The new one is much better. RememberMe? 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
all i get is the word "negro" when i open this page ???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 ( talk • contribs)
sorted now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 ( talk • contribs)
I find it pretty unprofessional how the picture on the main page keeps getting changed, this is the fourth time already. I personally agree that the picture with the eyeball is inapropriate for the main page, I flinch every time I see it. I like when it was just the graph, and it looks like evryone else here did, so I don't know why it got changed back. -- Thankyoubaby 16:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, please keep the more neutral picture on the front page. There's no need for such a disturbing image, I've actually been avoiding Wikipedia today because of the picture. Yakolev 18:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
whats so disgusting about it? :S the eye is only slightly wonky. Nothing too weird. -- Krsont 16:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the image is not exactly appropriate for some users, but Wikipedia is not censored. I personally feel that a less graphic image would be more appropriate for the main page, though on the article I find it appropriate as it further describes the condition by giving a visual example. Cowman109 Talk 18:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That picture is really disturbing. It was the first time I felt a need to avoid Wikipedia just so I could avoid seeing that creepy, scary picture. Please don't show such things ever again. JIP | Talk 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha! This long-held debate earned a spot as #77 in the bad jokes section. Wikipedia:Go directly to Bad Jokes, Do not Delete, do not collect Other Nonsense Dragix 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this page protected seeing as it's a featured artical for today? Loserdog 3000 16:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Featured article just seems to have gone plain weird this week. First we get that guy nobody's heard of from Ohio, now pictures that seem almost calculated to give some people the creeps. And like everyone else has been saying, tons of vandalism. I think people get the idea that Wikipedia is open to all without having to have it demonstrated to them on a page which is clearly ripe for vandalism. Bedesboy 18:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of course, we avoid protecting the featured articles. See user:Raul654/protection for the reasoning. Raul654 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to get an image of an eye with this condition where the eyelids are not retracted? At the moment, this image may be misleading, as people may not realise the eyelids have been manually retracted. Carcharoth 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I've translated the whole text of the article into Russian. Alas, most of the images here are "local", belonging to the english Wikipedia. It would be great to have them in the Commons! -- CopperKettle 09:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the image to the right to the article, at the signs section, please feel free to move it or remove it in order to keep the featured status, but please notify me at my talk page, thank you Maen. K. A. ( talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
All round, Good Work guys, a big pat on the back is in order - RH