Sorry, folks, I know this is going to be a disappointment, but I can see no consensus for much of anything. Discussion is confused, and the structure of the RfC makes it difficult to follow what's being supported by whom and with what caveats—Cas Liber's analogy on the talk page of "a bunch of folks with megaphones talking past each other" is a good one. To me, the RfC appears to have jumped the gun, and so it conflates multiple questions, for example:
By attempting to answer all those questions at the same time, we've succeeded in answering none of them satisfactorily. There are some editors who oppose putting a disclaimer anywhere on articles; some who support oppose it only for articles of a certain quality; and some who will only support it with certain caveats. Many participants, for example, support one of the proposed templates but oppose or offer no opinion on others; does this mean they would object to putting a medical disclaimer on articles unless it was their preferred version(s)? That question is not answered anywhere in this RfC.
My suggestion, should the proposer wish to take this forward, would be to allow a grace period, after which a new RfC is started with the aim of answering the question on which all other questions depend: should a disclaimer be displayed on medical articles? If the answer to that question is "yes", further RfCs can be held to determine secondary concerns such as location, wording, and appearance.
As it is, I do not feel there is any way this RfC could be closed with a conclusive result, as disappointing as those who have put significant effort into the discussion will find that, and it would be grossly improper of me to force such a conclusion where there is not one to be had, especially on a matter which potentially has wide-reaching consequences and is likely to be controversial.
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia provide a more prominent disclaimer template in general, or for medical and health-related content?
Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information, and its medical disclaimer is not linked directly on any article. Instead, it is reached by clicking on the small-print link to the general disclaimer, on the last line of all pages. Concerns that Wikipedia make readers aware of the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia have been raised; background discussions are in Alanyst's sandbox and at the Medicine Project talk archive. 06:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A 2013 review found that Wikipedia is a common source of online heath information ( PMID 24103318) and a 2013 study found that Wikipedia is the most commonly accessed website for clinical pharmacy articles. ( PMID 24259640)
The 2013 review found that [emphasis added]:The only longitudinal study conducted between 2005 and 2009 observed an increase in prevalence of Wikipedia use from 2% to 16% among undergraduate medical and biomedical students. Another study reported higher use among younger medical students (480/593, 81%) compared to older consultants (215/389, 55%). Studies on the use of Wikipedia by pharmacists report rates of use ranging between 35% using this site for work-related questions in 2009 to 72% using it mainly for personal reasons in 2011. For consumers, Wikipedia was ranked first when using search engines to find information about rare diseases and to find information on generic drugs. Wikipedia ranked as the second most consulted website both by a group of patients with Crohn’s disease as well as by students searching for biomedical information. ... A recurrent finding about the information in Wikipedia was that it is in large part accurate, free, and easy to access. However, even though Wikipedia does not recommend including medication doses due to concerns about errors, it is often incomplete and can lack appropriate referencing of medical information, thereby possibly indirectly causing patient harm.
From Scott Martin: This 2013 piece in the Boston Globe, by a medical student, underlines the importance of making our readers aware that our medical content is not authoritative. [Ed note: diffs inserted]
That's the promise of Wikipedia in health care — a freely accessible and user-friendly platform through which to explore virtually any subject in medicine. But there's another side to consider. During our pulmonology block last year, two of my classmates saw an error in the site's entry for hyperventilation. They fixed the mistake and, as a joke, added "Kenny's syndrome" as a name for a particular condition. To their surprise, the edit stayed for weeks, and they even found other websites citing my friend as an acid-base disorder. Hence, the opportunity for anyone to edit Wikipedia with minimal regulation has a terrifying capacity to influence the environment for clinicians-in-training. In the worst-case scenario, these inaccuracies could adversely impact the care that patients eventually receive.
— Nathaniel P. Morris, New operating system: Wikipedia’s role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks, Boston Globe, 18 November 2013
The error [1] [2] [3] corrected by the medical student in February 2013 was inserted by an IP two months earlier. The false "Kenny's syndrome" inserted in February 2013 was removed three months later.
Other papers have negatively reviewed the quality of Wikipedia's information ( PMID 24276492), and according to DocJames, [4] an Indian pharmacy journal article scraped text from Wikipedia without attribution, setting up the possibility of undetected mirrors, where Wikipedia articles then cite Wikipedia's own content. A 2013 survey study ( PMID 24243966) on the use of smartphones by medical interns in Ireland, found that of 108 respondents, about one-third claimed to use Wikipedia weekly on the job; in their conclusions, "although the information on Wikipedia was not complete, it was not found to be incorrect".
A report by IMS Health said:...the public perception of Wikipedia being a legitimate source of information has increased dramatically in recent years. For healthcare in particular, patients are concerned about the validity and neutrality of the information they seek out, and Wikipedia increasingly meets this need ... nearly 50% of U.S. physicians who go online for professional purposes use Wikipedia for information...
Other language Wikipedias use medical disclaimers:
Wikipedia language | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|
Chinese | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Hebrew | he:תבנית:הבהרה רפואית | Bottom |
Indonesian | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian (nynorsk and bokmål) | nn:Mal:Helsenotis no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom (Long text begins with: "You should never use information from the Internet, including Wikipedia, as your sole...") |
Portuguese | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Spanish | es:Wikipedia:Aviso médico | Linked from every medical infobox: es:Plantilla:Ficha de enfermedad, es:Plantilla:Ficha de medicamento, es:Plantilla:Ficha de intervención quirúrgica, etc. |
Turkish | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
The current disclaimer is rarely viewed by readers. Per WhatamIdoing, en.Wikipedia's medical disclaimer gets fewer than 100 views per day, [5] while similar items on the same line (Wikipedia:About [6] and Contact Wikipedia [7]) get about 12,000 page views per day. [8]
Errors in Wikipedia's content may stand for months to years.
Of the 1,010 articles and lists rated as Top or High Importance by the Medicine WikiProject:
If all articles and lists (regardless of rating on the "Importance" scale) are included, quality ratings are lower.
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Proposed 15 January by Pointillist and Adrian J. Hunter:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. In case of health problems, seek the advice of a medical professional. Medical disclaimer |
Wikipedia does not give medical advice The information provided here is no substitute for the advice of a medical professional. |
General disclaimer – Content disclaimer – Legal disclaimer – Medical disclaimer – Risk disclaimer |
This draft is not yet a Wikipedia article. You are welcome to help improve it but
do not read it as if it was a Wikipedia article. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Proposed by TheDJ:
Please observe our medical disclaimer. In case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. |
Proposed by Collect:
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice. |
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement of a view should be directed to this page's discussion page or the Discussion section at the end. Threaded discussion should not be added below; it should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's !vote, endorsement, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page, and may be moved there.
Contrary to the claim that medical editors will be offended if we "template" their work, I would happily add a disclaimer to a featured article, written primarily by me— Tourette syndrome.
To those who say flagged revisions can address the problems, even several of our medical FAs are out of date; we don't always have a good version to flag.
To the argument that our "current" templates are only used in situations where recent events may make it hard for editors to keep up, I counter that the few experienced medical editors Wikipedia has cannot keep up with medical content, particularly since the advent of (poor) student edits as part of university courses.
To those who say that no real harm has ever come to anyone as a result of Wikipedia, why should we wait for an incident to happen (as in the Siegenthaler controversy that led to Wikipedia's BLP policy)? The best example of real harm and death that resulted from medical misinformation in the media and on the internet—one in which Wikipedia played a role—can be found at MMR vaccine controversy#Media role. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A general disclaimer like Version B is not helpful: it does not highlight the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia, which distinguishes Wikipedia content from other medical website content. Wikipedia readers need to be made aware-- not that Wikipedia has content errors like any other medical website-- but that Wikipedia articles are not necessarily written by or vetted by people with medical backgrounds, training or expertise.
NeilN proposed Version C after the start of this RFC (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer#NeilN). If all disclaimers are added to the top of articles (rather than buried at the bottom within the general disclaimer) I do not oppose this option and consider it a worthy compromise, in that it gets the disclaimer up top where it is more likely to be seen by unsuspecting readers, and it provides for a disclaimer on all articles, not just medical.
Stubs and start class articles are often accurate-- in fact, often more accurate than some articles with more advanced assessments.
Many medical GAs and FAs are outdated, so setting up a scheme like this doesn't address the problem. Assessments are variable, and articles change over time; article assessment at any given time doesn't mean any given version is accurate. All of these issues were well discussed at WT:MED before this RFC was launched, and the confusing scheme proposed by WSC isn't workable and doesn't address the concerns.
Introducing a BLP-style policy for medical content is not the focus of this RFC, and would belong on another RFC as a "policy" matter.
Might I suggest that new versions might first be proposed on talk, and that it would have been helpful of WSC to have read the prior discussions before putting up a proposal that results in a confusing RFC?
Per the proposal below by Anomie, I am not in favor of adding the disclaimers to the standard navigation sidebars on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia screen. They will be as lost there to unsuspecting readers as they are at the bottom; it is the unsuspecting public who doesn't understand the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia who needs to see a visible disclaimer, and they are unlikely to notice it in the sidebar. We need a disclaimer up top.
Version E was an excellent improvement, but modified version A made it even better by keeping the "anyone can edit" aspect.
I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:
I do not intend to provide a general list of reasons to oppose disclaimers (which have already been provided), but rather to make two points about this particular disclaimer. These are the same ones that I brought up in the original discussion at WT:MED.
As with my above comment, I'm not providing a comprehensive list of reasons here, but just the reason I think is most important. I don't find it plausible that Wikipedia's medical information does not cause real-world harm when it is inaccurate, simply by probability. Even if e.g. only one in a thousand people will take Wikipedia's word as truth - which is likely an underestimate - that's still a lot when considering the number of pageviews that our medical articles get. A disclaimer template may or may not be the best approach to solving the problem, but it is a valid one.
Disclaimer B appears to be the standard medico-legal disclaimer. I believe it does nothing to better inform the layperson reading the article, about the limitations of Wikipedia nor does it protect Wikipedia (or it's editors) any better than the general disclaimer.
As for disclaimer A;
Late addition re C and D:
Whatever appears needs to have a statement in plain English that can be read instantly, not just a bunch of links. The further away the message gets, the less it will be read. The link to the medical disclaimer should also not be surrounded by other links.
This would make sure links to disclaimers are more prominent and visible, immune to vandalism and suchlike. It would also address articles not specifically linked to medicine, but where medical topics are covered (e.g., the biography of a scientist). Finally, as all articles would have this header, legal and risk issues are also addressed. If technically possible, I propose that the bolding of some links be under the control of editors. For example, Medical disclaimer could be bolded by placing some hidden markup text in the article.
{{
italic title}}
works. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)As various people above have pointed out we have a problem, and ethically we should do more to minimise the risk of people coming to harm by overly trusting this site. But we need more than a disclaimer, and there are some other changes which I think could be worthwhile and might get consensus - though some would need their own RFC to flesh out the detail. Despite being an arch inclusionist, proud to have been described by a deletionist who'd met me in real life as a "hemp clad, sandal wearing, patchouli smoking inclusionist" I'm prepared to introduce a high minimum standard for what we treat as an article in this area. I think we could use a BLPprod type process to set a new defacto minimum for Medical articles, but with one crucial difference, with libel it doesn't matter whether info is in mainspace or not, but with a medical article we can be much more relaxed about drafts that are clearly marked as "not yet a Wikipedia article".
I'm also aware that medical claims occur all over the place, I've seen plant and funghi articles with claims that things are efficacious against various named conditions, so I think we need a broader approach to medical claims that like BLP is applied universally.
It seems obvious to me that we should enable flagged revisions across the site or broaden pending changes, but I am realistic enough to know that the EN community is not yet ready to implement the system that works on DE. However we have precedent with BLP that the community can empower admins to be liberal with protection if the subject area merits it.
I would be OK with some sort of a disclaimer, and B looks right to me, though clearly is insufficient for many. Version A looks to me too much like the sort of template that we put on articles with known problems, there is also something about it that jars, especially if it were to be on an article that we believed correct. So I propose:
I guess somebody has to argue in favour of version B, and that somebody is me. I like the fact that it echoes the medical disclaimer (to which it links) so simply and clearly. I don't buy the general argument about clutter. And I don't buy the argument about redundancy, given that the disclaimers we have at present are so easily overlooked. Moreover, there seems some contradiction to claim (as some are doing) both that a disclaimer is redundant, because we already have one, and that a disclaimer is not needed at all. Finally, there also seems to be a tension between the claim that Wikipedia is mostly right, and the claim that nobody in fact believes that it's mostly right.
I also like version E, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere on this page. What I don't like about the modified version A (which is otherwise quite similar to version E), is that the prominent, bolded, text "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" looks more like an invitation (to edit) than a warning. The only change I'd suggest to version E is to change "observe" to "read": "Please read our medical disclaimer" is rather clearer and more to the point than "Please observe our medical disclaimer."
Sometimes when I go to a website they'll have a pop-up ad that you have to click to get through. I could see a one-time per visit/log-in pop-up box that gave a very short Medical disclaimer notice similar to option B. It would pertain only to medical articles as already discussed and would be used in the most minimal way possible so there was a reasonable chance that new readers would see the disclaimer, and judge for themselves what to think.
As mentioned above, I support proposed version A on balance. In the longer-term I think this problem should also be addressed at source as well as at the point of consumption. When editing a BLP, prominent text appears above the edit box pointing at our BLP policies. I think when an editor edits a medical article, a similar kind of warning should appear pointing them at the relevant guidelines and policies applying to medical content.
Support using A and B:
A and B are two different kinds of precautions. A refers to the fact that content may be changed at any time by anyone. B refers to the fact that Wikipedia cannot give medical advice, even if the article the advice is based on is a good one and information accurate. As long as we know medical students and physicians are using Wikipedia (heaven help us); we need precautions on both fronts. I would prefer two banners that may seem to be overkill rather than a medical, life-threatening mistake.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC))
We definitely need a medical disclaimer, along the lines of A and B, at the top of any article or section about a medical topic.
Medical articles have a much higher potential for causing real-world harm than any other article, with the possible exception of BLPs. However, BLPs are much easier to deal with - a non-expert user can learn to recognize what a reliable source is, and make sure that all information in a BLP article is sourced by such sources. Medical information, on the other hand, is much more difficult for a non-medical person to deal with - a medical article could have been written by a non-mainstream doctor; it may be outdated; and so on. It's quite likely that our "best" medical articles were written primarily by a single doctor in the field (perhaps with non-professionals adding information, and the medical person possibly making sure that they're in line with his/her opinions); we wouldn't know.
We take special steps (such as being extra quick with the "Protect" button) for BLPs to prevent Wikipediua from being sued for damages; medical articles are also high risk - and possibly even higher - and the standard steps for BLPs are likely to be ineffective. A disclaimer will go a long way to deal with that.
Version A is close - but the second line does not actually strengthen the disclaimer.
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice
Is sufficient and accurate for the purpose. And about as non-weaselly as possible.
The proposals are undoubtedly well-intentioned, but I think they just represent an extension of the muddled thinking they purport to remedy. There has been for too long, it is said, an attitude among some Wikipedians that they just provide information as best they are able and they have no collective responsibility for how people use it (hence Wikipedia's historic aversion to disclaimers). I have some sympathy with this view, but I do not think it would be an adequate answer to create a notice simply saying, in a roundabout way: "we just provide information as best we are able and we have no collective responsibility for how people use it". This is about as useful as "third left, but please note I have no formal direction-giving qualifications" and about as likely to influence behviour as "this product may contain traces of nuts".
If it is right that we should take action regarding the content of articles of medical topics, then there are two obvious types of action to take:
However, (B) is analogous to issuing a health warning ("each week, three people die from reading this article"), and should not be confused with:
which is what I think the above proposals mainly represent.
Proposal A is slightly better than proposal B, in that it at least attempts to point to some information. But both, in my view, are flawed at a fundamental level. To some extent, I agree with User:WereSpielChequers, in that a disclaimer in isolation is insufficient. But I would go further. It is actually a negative proposal without accompanying action, because in that case it is an alternative to action. Even with accompanying action, it is a negative, because it will **inevitably** lead to a drop in the quality of articles on medical topics. This may be a small drop or a large drop, but there is no way to guard against any drop because, here and there, the sentiment "it's OK, we're covered by a disclaimer" will **inevitably** seep through the proposed fissure.
To be clear, I may be willing to support even very radical action in this area. But I think these proposals are wrong-headed and do not offer a realistic prospect of improving the encyclopaedia. Formerip ( talk) 01:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so much a fan of these disclaimers (BLPs next I presume?) but if we do add them I'd much rather prefer something like
Please observe our medical disclaimer. In case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. |
Demonstrated in an article here or something like the Dutch Wikipedia has.
Neem het
voorbehoud bij medische informatie in acht. Raadpleeg bij gezondheidsklachten een arts. |
Reasoning:
I consider neither of the above designs as definitive proposals, but my view would be that any disclaimer banner should be more distinct in design from amboxes than A, B, D
I reject options A, B, and D because they all single out some type of article that is "more deserving" of a disclaimer than others. This is not necessary, and our primary disclaimer is WP:General disclaimer in recognition of this. Singling out certain articles for disclaimers will just lead to fighting over whether some article is within the scope of those needing disclaimers and so on.
I also reject option C, because quite frankly I don't see the need to plaster links to 5 different disclaimers that all say basically the same thing at the top of every article. It'll just be another thing to clutter the article-reading interface, that the people who this RFC is concerned with "protecting" will probably ignore anyway.
The complaint that WP:General disclaimer is less visible (as shown by page views) than WP:About or WP:Contact us is valid, but the reason for this is also clear: these other pages are in the sidebar (in the "interaction" section). And whenever I'm looking for a link to the disclaimers, that's where I always look first before remembering it's at the bottom of the page. So if anything, let's just put a " Disclaimers" link in the sidebar (either in "interaction" or "navigation") instead of trying to shove banners into the tops of articles.
I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:
Note: Additional discussion has been moved to talk page.
I'm not a common participant with medical articles, but I am aware of the fact that severe physical harm or death can result from relying on the medical articles. Thus, I support the proposal to include medical disclaimers in articles that are not Good or Featured (because GAs and FAs are typically checked for inaccuracy). I also propose Version G. This version is fairly short and to the point, like the other proposals, but has the added advantage of being similar to existing article message boxes so it won't clash with them in an ugly way. I apologize if I am doing something wrong here; I haven't provided a viewpoint in an RFC before.
Please do not rely on this article for medical advice. This content is not vetted by medical professionals. |
-- Jakob ( talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Version D is flat-out misleading. Start-class and stub-class articles are real articles. Anything in mainspace is a real article, not a draft. -- Jakob ( talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Version D is a mistake that should be avoided. This effectively classifies Stud and Start class articles as drafts, which of course they are not. Some stubs just stay stubs because of a lack of detailed information about them. Not every stub and start class will become a FA. We have 20,000 stub and start classes, and to have such a tag on all those articles is a breach of established consensus and an eyesore. To put templates on medical articles is fine, but to put them on all articles will have to be done by a bot and is disruptive. Konveyor Belt 00:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This one emphasizes the "anyone can edit nature of Wikipedia, and encourages you to help. It also points you specifically to the Medicine RS guidelines. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As too vague. It does not say that anyone wrote this article, and it does not encourage changing the article. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As simplistic. It does not say the anyone can edit stuff, but it is visually muted and not a lare eyesore on articles. If any template were to be added, I'd have to say it would be this one, for it is the most pratical. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As TOO bland. If we want a medical dislaimer we ought to make sure everybody sees it. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Too simple, and does not contain a link to the disclaimer, which could be a legal issue. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
INSERT view here ...
Regarding Lesion's point 3, "The lead of articles is already cluttered. I am surprised to see some die hard opponents of infoboxes campaign for more clutter," I am not a "die hard opponent of infoboxes", but I oppose them when their format furthers inaccurate information. Additionally, they are often full of uncited factoids that are better covered in the article (or should be covered in the article). As in problematic medical content, infoboxes can be a source of inaccurate information. When I oppose them, it's not because of "clutter"; it's because they further inaccurate information. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am an opponent of clutter, specifically templates, but especially the many templates which are more for maintenance than informing the reader. Template bombing is a serious problem on the pedia, and the profusion of unimportant templates detracts from those that matter, it also promotes the transition from the SoFixIt culture of our heyday to the SoTemplateItInTheHopeThatSomeoneElseWillFixIt culture that we have been reduced to. But if a template is genuinely important, and I can accept these as such, then we should make an exception for it. But ideally as a series of declining obtrusiveness, so the better the article the less in your face the template we use. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO the "clutter" aspect could be reduced (but not eliminated) with careful design. For example, someone in a previous discussion suggested putting the disclaimer inside {{ Infobox disease}}, rather than in the middle of maintenance templates. Banner blindness is a significant problem, and thoughtful design might be able to reduce that, too. (All of that assumes that we decide to do this in the first place.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Version D was a late addition, with no prior discussion, that gained no support and plenty of opposition. Considering several requests on talk that it be withdrawn because if was complicating the RFC, with no response yet from the editor who posted it, I have commented it out. [9] If someone objects, it can be reinstated (pls discuss on talk). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that version D is out of scope of the discussion and must be removed: it is not about article quality gradation. Regardless its quality we may or may not need a disclaimer. (I have not decided yet on the isuue.) Putting several issues into one bottle produces confused and unnecessarily prolongs discussion.
If one is willing, we can have a separate discussion whether lower-level articles need a (separate) disclaimer. Staszek Lem ( talk) 02:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point I just realized. A large amount of our 'views' now come trough 3rd parties like google and Facebook and never physically reach us. We can't control what these parties do with these kind of disclaimers. They are allowed to fully and wholly ignore them as long as they don't violate the CC license. Based what they have done so far with presentation they are quite likely to strip such a banner. The interesting part is that users still consider these entry points to be 'Wikipedia', they care about the content, not who is showing it to them. If a large group of users who don't know to not trust Wikipedia is getting their answers from a fragment on Google or Facebook, does it really still matter if we put up a Disclaimer so prominently on our pages ? I'm not sure how big the division is between these two reader groups, but we should be careful to engage in navel staring, if the big problem is the rest of the body. Do we have numbers/guesses on this ? — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do not rely on it for medical advice: in case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. [more...]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. In case of health problems, seek the advice of a medical professional. Medical disclaimer |
Can you label
As a "version F" please -- it is short, to the point, and requires little elucidation, and less linkage. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 16:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice. |
Is a simple theft from proposal A's box. Collect ( talk) 17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, folks, I know this is going to be a disappointment, but I can see no consensus for much of anything. Discussion is confused, and the structure of the RfC makes it difficult to follow what's being supported by whom and with what caveats—Cas Liber's analogy on the talk page of "a bunch of folks with megaphones talking past each other" is a good one. To me, the RfC appears to have jumped the gun, and so it conflates multiple questions, for example:
By attempting to answer all those questions at the same time, we've succeeded in answering none of them satisfactorily. There are some editors who oppose putting a disclaimer anywhere on articles; some who support oppose it only for articles of a certain quality; and some who will only support it with certain caveats. Many participants, for example, support one of the proposed templates but oppose or offer no opinion on others; does this mean they would object to putting a medical disclaimer on articles unless it was their preferred version(s)? That question is not answered anywhere in this RfC.
My suggestion, should the proposer wish to take this forward, would be to allow a grace period, after which a new RfC is started with the aim of answering the question on which all other questions depend: should a disclaimer be displayed on medical articles? If the answer to that question is "yes", further RfCs can be held to determine secondary concerns such as location, wording, and appearance.
As it is, I do not feel there is any way this RfC could be closed with a conclusive result, as disappointing as those who have put significant effort into the discussion will find that, and it would be grossly improper of me to force such a conclusion where there is not one to be had, especially on a matter which potentially has wide-reaching consequences and is likely to be controversial.
— HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia provide a more prominent disclaimer template in general, or for medical and health-related content?
Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information, and its medical disclaimer is not linked directly on any article. Instead, it is reached by clicking on the small-print link to the general disclaimer, on the last line of all pages. Concerns that Wikipedia make readers aware of the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia have been raised; background discussions are in Alanyst's sandbox and at the Medicine Project talk archive. 06:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A 2013 review found that Wikipedia is a common source of online heath information ( PMID 24103318) and a 2013 study found that Wikipedia is the most commonly accessed website for clinical pharmacy articles. ( PMID 24259640)
The 2013 review found that [emphasis added]:The only longitudinal study conducted between 2005 and 2009 observed an increase in prevalence of Wikipedia use from 2% to 16% among undergraduate medical and biomedical students. Another study reported higher use among younger medical students (480/593, 81%) compared to older consultants (215/389, 55%). Studies on the use of Wikipedia by pharmacists report rates of use ranging between 35% using this site for work-related questions in 2009 to 72% using it mainly for personal reasons in 2011. For consumers, Wikipedia was ranked first when using search engines to find information about rare diseases and to find information on generic drugs. Wikipedia ranked as the second most consulted website both by a group of patients with Crohn’s disease as well as by students searching for biomedical information. ... A recurrent finding about the information in Wikipedia was that it is in large part accurate, free, and easy to access. However, even though Wikipedia does not recommend including medication doses due to concerns about errors, it is often incomplete and can lack appropriate referencing of medical information, thereby possibly indirectly causing patient harm.
From Scott Martin: This 2013 piece in the Boston Globe, by a medical student, underlines the importance of making our readers aware that our medical content is not authoritative. [Ed note: diffs inserted]
That's the promise of Wikipedia in health care — a freely accessible and user-friendly platform through which to explore virtually any subject in medicine. But there's another side to consider. During our pulmonology block last year, two of my classmates saw an error in the site's entry for hyperventilation. They fixed the mistake and, as a joke, added "Kenny's syndrome" as a name for a particular condition. To their surprise, the edit stayed for weeks, and they even found other websites citing my friend as an acid-base disorder. Hence, the opportunity for anyone to edit Wikipedia with minimal regulation has a terrifying capacity to influence the environment for clinicians-in-training. In the worst-case scenario, these inaccuracies could adversely impact the care that patients eventually receive.
— Nathaniel P. Morris, New operating system: Wikipedia’s role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks, Boston Globe, 18 November 2013
The error [1] [2] [3] corrected by the medical student in February 2013 was inserted by an IP two months earlier. The false "Kenny's syndrome" inserted in February 2013 was removed three months later.
Other papers have negatively reviewed the quality of Wikipedia's information ( PMID 24276492), and according to DocJames, [4] an Indian pharmacy journal article scraped text from Wikipedia without attribution, setting up the possibility of undetected mirrors, where Wikipedia articles then cite Wikipedia's own content. A 2013 survey study ( PMID 24243966) on the use of smartphones by medical interns in Ireland, found that of 108 respondents, about one-third claimed to use Wikipedia weekly on the job; in their conclusions, "although the information on Wikipedia was not complete, it was not found to be incorrect".
A report by IMS Health said:...the public perception of Wikipedia being a legitimate source of information has increased dramatically in recent years. For healthcare in particular, patients are concerned about the validity and neutrality of the information they seek out, and Wikipedia increasingly meets this need ... nearly 50% of U.S. physicians who go online for professional purposes use Wikipedia for information...
Other language Wikipedias use medical disclaimers:
Wikipedia language | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|
Chinese | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Hebrew | he:תבנית:הבהרה רפואית | Bottom |
Indonesian | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian (nynorsk and bokmål) | nn:Mal:Helsenotis no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom (Long text begins with: "You should never use information from the Internet, including Wikipedia, as your sole...") |
Portuguese | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Spanish | es:Wikipedia:Aviso médico | Linked from every medical infobox: es:Plantilla:Ficha de enfermedad, es:Plantilla:Ficha de medicamento, es:Plantilla:Ficha de intervención quirúrgica, etc. |
Turkish | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
The current disclaimer is rarely viewed by readers. Per WhatamIdoing, en.Wikipedia's medical disclaimer gets fewer than 100 views per day, [5] while similar items on the same line (Wikipedia:About [6] and Contact Wikipedia [7]) get about 12,000 page views per day. [8]
Errors in Wikipedia's content may stand for months to years.
Of the 1,010 articles and lists rated as Top or High Importance by the Medicine WikiProject:
If all articles and lists (regardless of rating on the "Importance" scale) are included, quality ratings are lower.
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Proposed 15 January by Pointillist and Adrian J. Hunter:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. In case of health problems, seek the advice of a medical professional. Medical disclaimer |
Wikipedia does not give medical advice The information provided here is no substitute for the advice of a medical professional. |
General disclaimer – Content disclaimer – Legal disclaimer – Medical disclaimer – Risk disclaimer |
This draft is not yet a Wikipedia article. You are welcome to help improve it but
do not read it as if it was a Wikipedia article. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Proposed by TheDJ:
Please observe our medical disclaimer. In case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. |
Proposed by Collect:
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice. |
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement of a view should be directed to this page's discussion page or the Discussion section at the end. Threaded discussion should not be added below; it should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's !vote, endorsement, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page, and may be moved there.
Contrary to the claim that medical editors will be offended if we "template" their work, I would happily add a disclaimer to a featured article, written primarily by me— Tourette syndrome.
To those who say flagged revisions can address the problems, even several of our medical FAs are out of date; we don't always have a good version to flag.
To the argument that our "current" templates are only used in situations where recent events may make it hard for editors to keep up, I counter that the few experienced medical editors Wikipedia has cannot keep up with medical content, particularly since the advent of (poor) student edits as part of university courses.
To those who say that no real harm has ever come to anyone as a result of Wikipedia, why should we wait for an incident to happen (as in the Siegenthaler controversy that led to Wikipedia's BLP policy)? The best example of real harm and death that resulted from medical misinformation in the media and on the internet—one in which Wikipedia played a role—can be found at MMR vaccine controversy#Media role. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A general disclaimer like Version B is not helpful: it does not highlight the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia, which distinguishes Wikipedia content from other medical website content. Wikipedia readers need to be made aware-- not that Wikipedia has content errors like any other medical website-- but that Wikipedia articles are not necessarily written by or vetted by people with medical backgrounds, training or expertise.
NeilN proposed Version C after the start of this RFC (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer#NeilN). If all disclaimers are added to the top of articles (rather than buried at the bottom within the general disclaimer) I do not oppose this option and consider it a worthy compromise, in that it gets the disclaimer up top where it is more likely to be seen by unsuspecting readers, and it provides for a disclaimer on all articles, not just medical.
Stubs and start class articles are often accurate-- in fact, often more accurate than some articles with more advanced assessments.
Many medical GAs and FAs are outdated, so setting up a scheme like this doesn't address the problem. Assessments are variable, and articles change over time; article assessment at any given time doesn't mean any given version is accurate. All of these issues were well discussed at WT:MED before this RFC was launched, and the confusing scheme proposed by WSC isn't workable and doesn't address the concerns.
Introducing a BLP-style policy for medical content is not the focus of this RFC, and would belong on another RFC as a "policy" matter.
Might I suggest that new versions might first be proposed on talk, and that it would have been helpful of WSC to have read the prior discussions before putting up a proposal that results in a confusing RFC?
Per the proposal below by Anomie, I am not in favor of adding the disclaimers to the standard navigation sidebars on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia screen. They will be as lost there to unsuspecting readers as they are at the bottom; it is the unsuspecting public who doesn't understand the "anyone can edit" nature of Wikipedia who needs to see a visible disclaimer, and they are unlikely to notice it in the sidebar. We need a disclaimer up top.
Version E was an excellent improvement, but modified version A made it even better by keeping the "anyone can edit" aspect.
I do not see a medical disclaimer as needed:
I do not intend to provide a general list of reasons to oppose disclaimers (which have already been provided), but rather to make two points about this particular disclaimer. These are the same ones that I brought up in the original discussion at WT:MED.
As with my above comment, I'm not providing a comprehensive list of reasons here, but just the reason I think is most important. I don't find it plausible that Wikipedia's medical information does not cause real-world harm when it is inaccurate, simply by probability. Even if e.g. only one in a thousand people will take Wikipedia's word as truth - which is likely an underestimate - that's still a lot when considering the number of pageviews that our medical articles get. A disclaimer template may or may not be the best approach to solving the problem, but it is a valid one.
Disclaimer B appears to be the standard medico-legal disclaimer. I believe it does nothing to better inform the layperson reading the article, about the limitations of Wikipedia nor does it protect Wikipedia (or it's editors) any better than the general disclaimer.
As for disclaimer A;
Late addition re C and D:
Whatever appears needs to have a statement in plain English that can be read instantly, not just a bunch of links. The further away the message gets, the less it will be read. The link to the medical disclaimer should also not be surrounded by other links.
This would make sure links to disclaimers are more prominent and visible, immune to vandalism and suchlike. It would also address articles not specifically linked to medicine, but where medical topics are covered (e.g., the biography of a scientist). Finally, as all articles would have this header, legal and risk issues are also addressed. If technically possible, I propose that the bolding of some links be under the control of editors. For example, Medical disclaimer could be bolded by placing some hidden markup text in the article.
{{
italic title}}
works. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/ 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)As various people above have pointed out we have a problem, and ethically we should do more to minimise the risk of people coming to harm by overly trusting this site. But we need more than a disclaimer, and there are some other changes which I think could be worthwhile and might get consensus - though some would need their own RFC to flesh out the detail. Despite being an arch inclusionist, proud to have been described by a deletionist who'd met me in real life as a "hemp clad, sandal wearing, patchouli smoking inclusionist" I'm prepared to introduce a high minimum standard for what we treat as an article in this area. I think we could use a BLPprod type process to set a new defacto minimum for Medical articles, but with one crucial difference, with libel it doesn't matter whether info is in mainspace or not, but with a medical article we can be much more relaxed about drafts that are clearly marked as "not yet a Wikipedia article".
I'm also aware that medical claims occur all over the place, I've seen plant and funghi articles with claims that things are efficacious against various named conditions, so I think we need a broader approach to medical claims that like BLP is applied universally.
It seems obvious to me that we should enable flagged revisions across the site or broaden pending changes, but I am realistic enough to know that the EN community is not yet ready to implement the system that works on DE. However we have precedent with BLP that the community can empower admins to be liberal with protection if the subject area merits it.
I would be OK with some sort of a disclaimer, and B looks right to me, though clearly is insufficient for many. Version A looks to me too much like the sort of template that we put on articles with known problems, there is also something about it that jars, especially if it were to be on an article that we believed correct. So I propose:
I guess somebody has to argue in favour of version B, and that somebody is me. I like the fact that it echoes the medical disclaimer (to which it links) so simply and clearly. I don't buy the general argument about clutter. And I don't buy the argument about redundancy, given that the disclaimers we have at present are so easily overlooked. Moreover, there seems some contradiction to claim (as some are doing) both that a disclaimer is redundant, because we already have one, and that a disclaimer is not needed at all. Finally, there also seems to be a tension between the claim that Wikipedia is mostly right, and the claim that nobody in fact believes that it's mostly right.
I also like version E, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere on this page. What I don't like about the modified version A (which is otherwise quite similar to version E), is that the prominent, bolded, text "Anyone can edit Wikipedia" looks more like an invitation (to edit) than a warning. The only change I'd suggest to version E is to change "observe" to "read": "Please read our medical disclaimer" is rather clearer and more to the point than "Please observe our medical disclaimer."
Sometimes when I go to a website they'll have a pop-up ad that you have to click to get through. I could see a one-time per visit/log-in pop-up box that gave a very short Medical disclaimer notice similar to option B. It would pertain only to medical articles as already discussed and would be used in the most minimal way possible so there was a reasonable chance that new readers would see the disclaimer, and judge for themselves what to think.
As mentioned above, I support proposed version A on balance. In the longer-term I think this problem should also be addressed at source as well as at the point of consumption. When editing a BLP, prominent text appears above the edit box pointing at our BLP policies. I think when an editor edits a medical article, a similar kind of warning should appear pointing them at the relevant guidelines and policies applying to medical content.
Support using A and B:
A and B are two different kinds of precautions. A refers to the fact that content may be changed at any time by anyone. B refers to the fact that Wikipedia cannot give medical advice, even if the article the advice is based on is a good one and information accurate. As long as we know medical students and physicians are using Wikipedia (heaven help us); we need precautions on both fronts. I would prefer two banners that may seem to be overkill rather than a medical, life-threatening mistake.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC))
We definitely need a medical disclaimer, along the lines of A and B, at the top of any article or section about a medical topic.
Medical articles have a much higher potential for causing real-world harm than any other article, with the possible exception of BLPs. However, BLPs are much easier to deal with - a non-expert user can learn to recognize what a reliable source is, and make sure that all information in a BLP article is sourced by such sources. Medical information, on the other hand, is much more difficult for a non-medical person to deal with - a medical article could have been written by a non-mainstream doctor; it may be outdated; and so on. It's quite likely that our "best" medical articles were written primarily by a single doctor in the field (perhaps with non-professionals adding information, and the medical person possibly making sure that they're in line with his/her opinions); we wouldn't know.
We take special steps (such as being extra quick with the "Protect" button) for BLPs to prevent Wikipediua from being sued for damages; medical articles are also high risk - and possibly even higher - and the standard steps for BLPs are likely to be ineffective. A disclaimer will go a long way to deal with that.
Version A is close - but the second line does not actually strengthen the disclaimer.
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice
Is sufficient and accurate for the purpose. And about as non-weaselly as possible.
The proposals are undoubtedly well-intentioned, but I think they just represent an extension of the muddled thinking they purport to remedy. There has been for too long, it is said, an attitude among some Wikipedians that they just provide information as best they are able and they have no collective responsibility for how people use it (hence Wikipedia's historic aversion to disclaimers). I have some sympathy with this view, but I do not think it would be an adequate answer to create a notice simply saying, in a roundabout way: "we just provide information as best we are able and we have no collective responsibility for how people use it". This is about as useful as "third left, but please note I have no formal direction-giving qualifications" and about as likely to influence behviour as "this product may contain traces of nuts".
If it is right that we should take action regarding the content of articles of medical topics, then there are two obvious types of action to take:
However, (B) is analogous to issuing a health warning ("each week, three people die from reading this article"), and should not be confused with:
which is what I think the above proposals mainly represent.
Proposal A is slightly better than proposal B, in that it at least attempts to point to some information. But both, in my view, are flawed at a fundamental level. To some extent, I agree with User:WereSpielChequers, in that a disclaimer in isolation is insufficient. But I would go further. It is actually a negative proposal without accompanying action, because in that case it is an alternative to action. Even with accompanying action, it is a negative, because it will **inevitably** lead to a drop in the quality of articles on medical topics. This may be a small drop or a large drop, but there is no way to guard against any drop because, here and there, the sentiment "it's OK, we're covered by a disclaimer" will **inevitably** seep through the proposed fissure.
To be clear, I may be willing to support even very radical action in this area. But I think these proposals are wrong-headed and do not offer a realistic prospect of improving the encyclopaedia. Formerip ( talk) 01:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so much a fan of these disclaimers (BLPs next I presume?) but if we do add them I'd much rather prefer something like
Please observe our medical disclaimer. In case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. |
Demonstrated in an article here or something like the Dutch Wikipedia has.
Neem het
voorbehoud bij medische informatie in acht. Raadpleeg bij gezondheidsklachten een arts. |
Reasoning:
I consider neither of the above designs as definitive proposals, but my view would be that any disclaimer banner should be more distinct in design from amboxes than A, B, D
I reject options A, B, and D because they all single out some type of article that is "more deserving" of a disclaimer than others. This is not necessary, and our primary disclaimer is WP:General disclaimer in recognition of this. Singling out certain articles for disclaimers will just lead to fighting over whether some article is within the scope of those needing disclaimers and so on.
I also reject option C, because quite frankly I don't see the need to plaster links to 5 different disclaimers that all say basically the same thing at the top of every article. It'll just be another thing to clutter the article-reading interface, that the people who this RFC is concerned with "protecting" will probably ignore anyway.
The complaint that WP:General disclaimer is less visible (as shown by page views) than WP:About or WP:Contact us is valid, but the reason for this is also clear: these other pages are in the sidebar (in the "interaction" section). And whenever I'm looking for a link to the disclaimers, that's where I always look first before remembering it's at the bottom of the page. So if anything, let's just put a " Disclaimers" link in the sidebar (either in "interaction" or "navigation") instead of trying to shove banners into the tops of articles.
I oppose this proposal for the following reasons:
Note: Additional discussion has been moved to talk page.
I'm not a common participant with medical articles, but I am aware of the fact that severe physical harm or death can result from relying on the medical articles. Thus, I support the proposal to include medical disclaimers in articles that are not Good or Featured (because GAs and FAs are typically checked for inaccuracy). I also propose Version G. This version is fairly short and to the point, like the other proposals, but has the added advantage of being similar to existing article message boxes so it won't clash with them in an ugly way. I apologize if I am doing something wrong here; I haven't provided a viewpoint in an RFC before.
Please do not rely on this article for medical advice. This content is not vetted by medical professionals. |
-- Jakob ( talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Version D is flat-out misleading. Start-class and stub-class articles are real articles. Anything in mainspace is a real article, not a draft. -- Jakob ( talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Version D is a mistake that should be avoided. This effectively classifies Stud and Start class articles as drafts, which of course they are not. Some stubs just stay stubs because of a lack of detailed information about them. Not every stub and start class will become a FA. We have 20,000 stub and start classes, and to have such a tag on all those articles is a breach of established consensus and an eyesore. To put templates on medical articles is fine, but to put them on all articles will have to be done by a bot and is disruptive. Konveyor Belt 00:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This one emphasizes the "anyone can edit nature of Wikipedia, and encourages you to help. It also points you specifically to the Medicine RS guidelines. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As too vague. It does not say that anyone wrote this article, and it does not encourage changing the article. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As simplistic. It does not say the anyone can edit stuff, but it is visually muted and not a lare eyesore on articles. If any template were to be added, I'd have to say it would be this one, for it is the most pratical. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
As TOO bland. If we want a medical dislaimer we ought to make sure everybody sees it. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Too simple, and does not contain a link to the disclaimer, which could be a legal issue. Konveyor Belt 17:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
INSERT view here ...
Regarding Lesion's point 3, "The lead of articles is already cluttered. I am surprised to see some die hard opponents of infoboxes campaign for more clutter," I am not a "die hard opponent of infoboxes", but I oppose them when their format furthers inaccurate information. Additionally, they are often full of uncited factoids that are better covered in the article (or should be covered in the article). As in problematic medical content, infoboxes can be a source of inaccurate information. When I oppose them, it's not because of "clutter"; it's because they further inaccurate information. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am an opponent of clutter, specifically templates, but especially the many templates which are more for maintenance than informing the reader. Template bombing is a serious problem on the pedia, and the profusion of unimportant templates detracts from those that matter, it also promotes the transition from the SoFixIt culture of our heyday to the SoTemplateItInTheHopeThatSomeoneElseWillFixIt culture that we have been reduced to. But if a template is genuinely important, and I can accept these as such, then we should make an exception for it. But ideally as a series of declining obtrusiveness, so the better the article the less in your face the template we use. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
IMO the "clutter" aspect could be reduced (but not eliminated) with careful design. For example, someone in a previous discussion suggested putting the disclaimer inside {{ Infobox disease}}, rather than in the middle of maintenance templates. Banner blindness is a significant problem, and thoughtful design might be able to reduce that, too. (All of that assumes that we decide to do this in the first place.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Version D was a late addition, with no prior discussion, that gained no support and plenty of opposition. Considering several requests on talk that it be withdrawn because if was complicating the RFC, with no response yet from the editor who posted it, I have commented it out. [9] If someone objects, it can be reinstated (pls discuss on talk). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that version D is out of scope of the discussion and must be removed: it is not about article quality gradation. Regardless its quality we may or may not need a disclaimer. (I have not decided yet on the isuue.) Putting several issues into one bottle produces confused and unnecessarily prolongs discussion.
If one is willing, we can have a separate discussion whether lower-level articles need a (separate) disclaimer. Staszek Lem ( talk) 02:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting point I just realized. A large amount of our 'views' now come trough 3rd parties like google and Facebook and never physically reach us. We can't control what these parties do with these kind of disclaimers. They are allowed to fully and wholly ignore them as long as they don't violate the CC license. Based what they have done so far with presentation they are quite likely to strip such a banner. The interesting part is that users still consider these entry points to be 'Wikipedia', they care about the content, not who is showing it to them. If a large group of users who don't know to not trust Wikipedia is getting their answers from a fragment on Google or Facebook, does it really still matter if we put up a Disclaimer so prominently on our pages ? I'm not sure how big the division is between these two reader groups, but we should be careful to engage in navel staring, if the big problem is the rest of the body. Do we have numbers/guesses on this ? — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do not rely on it for medical advice: in case of health problems you should seek the advice of a medical professional. [more...]
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. In case of health problems, seek the advice of a medical professional. Medical disclaimer |
Can you label
As a "version F" please -- it is short, to the point, and requires little elucidation, and less linkage. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 16:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Do not rely on Wikipedia articles for medical advice. |
Is a simple theft from proposal A's box. Collect ( talk) 17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)