This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
Not quite sure where to bring this up, but there are several articles on suicide methods that make me really uncomfortable and I think they're arguably illegal. Not sure if the best way to handle it was to view them as medical articles and keep an eye that they're not making biomedical claims without proper sourcing or if there's some other legal avenue to pursue. They're really good using a tone that sounds unbiased, like it's an objective discussion on the ethics of suicide, but they're really just pro-suicide sites and they're really dangerous. These people like to tag anything about suicide prevention as lacking NPOV or as demonstrating a "American" perspective. Reddit and other social media sites don't allow content or even links to websites that explicitly tell people how to comment suicide. Since they can't link to these articles, people will tell each other "Google suicide bag and read the wikipedia article." I would think if this content is illegal enough for reddit, it shouldn't be on wikipedia.
I think it could be argued that some of these are encouraging suicide. The suicide bag article is about exactly how to make your own suicide bag, including a diagram, with easily accessible items. The hardest thing to get would be helium or a propane-butane mixture and the rest are household items. Then look at what links there, literally any article about bags (purses, backpacks, etc.) links to suicide bag. Suicide methods is exactly what it sounds like and this is what links there: Teenage suicide in the United States, suicide prevention. Basically any article about suicide links to an article that tells you specifically how to kill yourself. Lots of them have a handy dandy suicide infoboxes that link to suicide methods. alt.suicide.holiday is an article on former usenet group that is clearly just a pro-suicide article.
This 2012 study showed that pro-suicide content on social media can increase the risk of completed suicide because it normalizes and glorifies the act and provides people with access to information about lethal methods. It specifically mentions methods using gas. This 2015 study discusses an increase in helium-related suicide deaths as a direct result of discussion about it in online forums. There have been stories in the news over the years about people who have been convicted for encouraging suicide on internet forums. Here's one from 2010 about a woman who was convicted for encouraging suicide online. What do other people think? PermStrump (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, this issue again. Suicide bags exist. They have for decades. As an encyclopedia, WP covers them. The article describes them, what they look like, their history, what people have said about them, etc. There are no step by step instructions (such instructions are readily available elsewhere [1] [2] [3] etc etc). As for the panic about increasing numbers of people using this method, it should also be noted that total numbers of suicides have not risen (indeed, suicide rates are stable or falling in most countries)
The fact that a slightly increasing percentage of suicides (the numbers are tiny) are choosing this method (for euthanasia as well as suicide) is to be expected, since it is painless, non-toxic, aesthetically acceptable and easily obtained (until recently), compared, for instance, to carbon monoxide poisoning, hanging and other brutal and distressing methods (some of which are also extremely dangerous to bystanders and medical response personnel, e.g. CO poisoning). Those who would bury the suicide bag article probably have good motives (nobody wants to see depressed youngsters making this error), and are not on a religiously-motivated campaign, but the outcome, if we suppress it, is unlikely to be good. People who are absolutely determined to kill themselves will find a way, and that way will generally be much more distressing and dangerous for all concerned. In addition, helium canisters these days are "cut" with 20% oxygen (due to a global shortage of helium) [4], so the method does not work for many who try it. To make it effective, you have to get argon or nitrogen, and these are simply NOT casually available. Buying these gasses is not something most people are equipped to do. Ratel ( talk) 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
“ | Balloon Time, a major supplier, has issued a statement to say that in the future all of their “balloon gas” will be diluted with 20 per cent air. “Our helium is rated from 98-99.99 percent pure. However, due to global helium supply issues, we are now mixing helium with air. All tanks will have 80 percent or more helium. This allows us to deliver a quality product at an affordable price.” | ” |
— Exit International |
Discussion currently ongoing at: Talk:Suicide_bag#Removed_swaths_of_original_research_and_primary_sourced
Please comment. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Real life precludes ANI action. But I'd welcome an admin freezing the article as it was so that all the reverting can stop and things can get sorted on Talk Ratel ( talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor with a small amount of experience in editing medical articles related to diving, the editing interventions based on claimed biomedical information do seem rather over the top.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I surprised there seems little pushback at this article to what seems very dubious proposals. The latest is to source a description of how "peaceful" death-by-helium is, to eyewitness accounts. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
andAccording to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in humans, "breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths. The exposed person has no warning and cannot sense that the oxygen level is too low."
And of course Ogden's studies draw on a large number of eyewitness accounts. And backing this up, autopsy does usually not show any notable findings, (lots of RS for this) suggesting an absence of unconscious death struggle. Ratel ( talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)suddenly breathing pure inert gas causes oxygen levels in the blood to fall precipitously, and may lead to unconsciousness in only a few breaths, with no symptoms at all
The CSB.gov source that Ratel and Prevalence are referring to has nothing to do with suicide bags. It’s about accidental, gradual exposure to nitrogen in the workplace in a contained environment like a small room. I’m going to quote few sources that talk about death by nitrogen asphyxiation to illustrate how irrelevant the CSB source is. But I want to clarify something first... There are 2 different statements by 2 separate people about the physical reaction (or lack there of) to the inhalation of inert gas using a suicide bag. One is a primary source in a low-impact, peer-reviewed journal written by Ogden, a right-to-die advocate and criminologist, that talks about how quick, painless and peaceful death is with helium and a suicide bag. The other statement is from a self-published newsletter written by Nitschke in which Nitschke says that helium has a risk of adverse effects, but nitrogen is much better in comparison. I’m NOT suggesting that the sources quoted below that talk about nitrogen should be used in the article since they’re about nitrogen asphyxiation using masks or in a contained environment in the workplace, not suicide bags.
While the Supreme Court case was pending, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill that would allow the state to perform executions with nitrogen gas if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional or becomes unavailable. While the medical community has voiced concerns about the method, at least one group thinks the Sooner State might be onto something. Philip Nitschke, director of the right-to-die group Exit International, said the increasing difficulty in obtaining pentobarbital has prompted him to consider gas as an alternative...”
Perfect illustration of how Nitschke doesn't represent the mainstream, medical view. By the way, Nitschke already
sells suicide kits with pure nitrogen for $690, so I wonder if that has anything to do with why he claims there are zero adverse effects compared helium, the product gas of choice promoted by his right-to-die competitors, who have essentially rejected Nitschke and his methods. Not to mention the Medical Board of Australia suspended his medical registration, to which
Nitschke replied, ‘Oh yeah? Well I was going to break up with you first. So there.’
Changing the context could prove problematic. Administrating the gas within a prison is much different than the instances in which pilots and divers have slowly and accidentally experienced a lack of oxygen. Dr. Michael Weiden, a pulmonary expert at NYU School of Medicine, says that while nitrogen could be administered without medical professionals, using it for capital punishment could create an ironic consequence: the need for sedation… somebody who thinks that an individual who’s asphyxiating will not freak out without sedation is foolish.”
“Deliberate nitrogen asphyxiation is also viewed by some as a more humane way to end human life. Nevertheless, execution by nitrogen asphyxiation is not used by any nation in the world.”
In 2010, Ogden had a case study ( PMID 20211999) published in a low-impact, peer-reviewed journal [1] where he talks about 4 assisted-suicides he observed that involved helium asphyxiation using face masks. This is the primary source cited to support the claims that suicide with helium and a suicide bag is quick and painless. [2]
"bilateral eyelid petechiae and large amounts of gastric content in the airways. These findings challenge the assumption that death by this method is painless and without air hunger, as asserted in Final Exit."They also found that the time to death varied from 5-10 minutes to up to 40 minutes.
This is exact situation is why WP:MEDRS exists! I shouldn’t need to create an argument for using MEDRS from scratch just for this specific article. PermStrump (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If he were clearly wrong, we'd have seen heavy pushback to the numerous such statements he has made in press worldwide; we'd have most definitely heard about it by now. And Ogden? Well, he is in Scientific American! Fringe 😂 ?Nitrogen can provide people quite a quick, peaceful, totally legal and totally undetectable death.
"Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources... Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."The editors claiming something isn't fringe are the ones who have to prove that support from mainstream scholars in the field exists. Until proven otherwise the WP:ONUS is on the editors who want to include the disputed content to find the better sources. It really should be removed until then. PermStrump (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Permstrump said: Ogden and Nitschke are weak sources for the statements about how quick and painless nitrogen/helium+suicide bag are and that there aren't adverse effects. They're weak because there isn't a single independent reliable source that can be used in addition or in place of Ogden and Nitschke.
So if we ignore two of the experts who have made this their life's work, we have no sources? Perm, that's only true if you ignore the great sources I gave above showing almost immediate unconsciousness ("one or two breaths"), and the existence of studies featuring inert gas asphyxia autopsies without petechiae or inhalations (therefore without what is called in veterinary science an "unconscious death struggle"
example). Do you need links to the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board document and more studies showing unremarkable autopsies? For FRINGE to come into play, Nitschke and Ogden and Humphry and Dr Bruce Dunn and etc would all have to be claiming something that flies in the face of the wording of FRINGE, namely: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.
Ratel (
talk)
09:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Changing the context could prove problematic. Administrating the gas within a prison is much different than the instances in which pilots and divers have slowly and accidentally experienced a lack of oxygen. Dr. Michael Weiden, a pulmonary expert at NYU School of Medicine, says that while nitrogen could be administered without medical professionals, using it for capital punishment could create an ironic consequence: the need for sedation… somebody who thinks that an individual who’s asphyxiating will not freak out without sedation is foolish.”Time. PermStrump (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"Mr. Ogden is director of the Farewell Foundation, which advocates for assisted suicide."Source. PermStrump (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Vancouver-based Ogden has been researching assisted death as a criminologist since 1991 and began pushing for legal reform with the birth of his Farewell Foundation last year. Behind the political advocacy, he’s also quietly performed the far more ethically thorny work of supporting those who can’t wait for the legal and political debate to play out.... Ogden’s work as a death facilitator has led to police questioning on seven occasions, he says. He was subpoenaed three times to court (in 1994, 2003 and 2004)." (source)
This is a a silly, fatuous, vexatious charge. Russel Ogden IS an expert in the field of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, as his long list of Pubmed indexed studies into this field show objectively. Not only is he called an expert in the field of assisted suicide by numerous major news sources, but his list of published studies into the topic, more than any other researcher AFAIK, speaks volumes. Let's stop this pointless discussion now please. Ratel ( talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
"A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material."See also WP:Third-party sources#Conflicts of interest. Clearly not independent on multiple fronts. —PermStrump (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I think that all of these articles are discussing the same concept by different names.
I would appreciate comments on merging any or all of them at Talk:Patient_participation#Proposal_to_merge_articles_on_similar_concepts. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This user had removed a paragraph that was supported by a secondary source (Swann 2013) and replaced it with a paragraph that was only partially supported by a primary source (removing the secondary source), without giving the reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723351811&oldid=722383241
I partially reverted the edit, removing the poorly supported paragraph added and restored the original paragraph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723434214&oldid=723388982
I made a comment on the IP address's talk page informing the user that their paragraph had been reverted and explaining why (sourcing):
/info/en/?search=User_talk:194.74.238.137#June_2016
Without responding to the talk page comment, the user changed the paragraph again, without giving the reason, messing up the formatting, and adding statements that aren't supported by the secondary source in question (while keeping the secondary source as the only source cited):
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723529352&oldid=723478315
The user's edits are at least partially correct, but the user has not added any sources to support their statements. I'm not sure what to do, however. Please assist.-- Beneficii ( talk) 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The article about the medicine taurolidine has been rewritten by an editor whose username matches the name of a company that produces the drug, Geistlich Pharma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've left a COI message on the user talk page and reported at WP:UAA. In addition, older versions of the article are essentially the sole work of another SPA, CETP2014 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that version may have COI issues as well. It would be helpful if someone from this WikiProject with expertise in this area had a look. Deli nk ( talk) 12:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
We discourage the use of conference "papers" to support biomedical information, but they do get mentioned and cited occasionally anyway. Under some circumstances, that might even be okay(ish). But there seems to be a world of basically fraudulent conferences out there, using impressive names or names that are trivially confused with reputable conferences, including these 160 academic conferences, which are all allegedly happening in the same hotel on the same two days next month. (The hotel has 235 guest rooms, if you're curious.) These 160 alleged conferences cover many areas, mostly tech- or business-related.
I don't know how easily we'll be able to spot this stuff. The example given is the perfectly legitimate 6th International Conference on Cyber Security vs the apparently illegitimate [http://www.waset.org/conference/2016/07/zurich/ICCS 18th International Conference on Cyber Security], which "just happens" to have the same name. Blanking anything with a name that matches the list won't do. However, for this particular example, all of them come from waset.org, which means that we [https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=*.waset.org&title=Special%3ALinkSearch can find them when we have links to their website].
User:Beetstra, what do you think about putting World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology's website on the spam blacklist, with a whitelist entry for the article about the business? These aren't likely to be accepted as reliable sources. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone who has access to paywalled medical refs please check recent edits to the article by User:Cmp8868. There have been significant changes which appear to rely on existing references which I cannot access. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Are Immersion pulmonary edema and Swimming induced pulmonary edema different? This is implied by the Pulmonary edema#Other article, but what is the difference? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
A rapidly emerging technology sector affecting some $131 B in nanomedicine product sales this year, there are several overlapping but disjointed articles here (health impacts), here (environmental concerns), here (toxicology) and here (main nanomedicine article). A merger discussion is underway. Thoughts on consolidation? -- Zefr ( talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder when reviewing edits, no one few people make a more than 5k byte edit in one go. Therefore when you see edits such as this
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Pandeysandeep check them for copy and pasting issues. Best
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
no one makes a more than 5k byte edit in one gofrom? When I'm composing a section (or rewriting an entire article) in a sandbox prior to sending it live, I do this all the time—here's a 123kb addition if you want a particularly extreme example. ‑ Iridescent 10:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
(in Lithuanian) Jeigu ne netaip atsiranda kraujuotakos sutrikimai širdije. Galvuoje atsiranda insuitas,tai pagal paskalo desnis ir mano mechanika ir biomechanika.{mano 111-S DESNIS tai Marcelio Atsiranda [ŠN]širdies nepankamumas, kuria rekalaujia ko grešžčio likvyduoti simptomai.TAI medicinos ir mechanikos teisioginiai ryšiai,tame tarpe prežiastiniai ryšia. Ryšai laike tampa prežaistiniai; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.55.113 ( talk) 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess this "Lithuanian" text is already autotranslation. It makes no sense at all. Hugo.arg ( talk) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the MEDRS guidelines are not sufficient to deal with controversies within the peer reviewed realm. As pointed out in this article the "low salt intake is bad" camp is arguing for a position that is untenable when considering the totality of the evidence. All they have are results of cohort studies where the statistical analysis cannot correct for confounding factors to a sufficient degree to allow such conclusions to be drawn. Such results do get published because things are done "by the book", but that should not distract from the obvious issues when drawing such conclusions. E.g. among the people who have low sodium intake there will be more frail people who don't eat much. Such effects are not going to be corrected for to the degree necessary to be able to see any effect due to low salt intake as explained in detail in the article. This has to be contrasted with the evidence that does exist about the health effects of very low salt intake from intervention studies and indigenous populations who have extremely low salt intakes. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have the authority of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) to start discussions about a formal collaboration between ISBT and Wikipedia to improve the Transfusion Medicine information on Wikipedia.
There is an international conference in September in which I would like to promote a collaboration to all working groups so that ISBT members can contribute to Wikipedia
Can you please let me know how I can develop this relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransfusionDoctor ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Any hikers or desert-dwellers around here? There's a brand-new safety-related article at wikivoyage:Arid region safety, and the editor who started it would deeply appreciate some help expanding it. Wikivoyage is much simpler than writing a Wikipedia article on the same subject: They want sensible advice, aimed at travellers and based upon experience, with no need to cite sources (although you're welcome to list sources that you recommend on the talk page). If you know a bit about safety issues in deserts and other arid regions, please "Plunge forward" and help them out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed this a new user's page and had never seen it. They use content about vaccines starting at about 1:15 as an example about NPOV.
How do you all feel about this? Jytdog ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Copying Pine, who is working on a video project. Producing a replacement video for this would be helpful. Thanks, James Hare (NIOSH) ( talk) 13:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The tool is now officially no longer maintained Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Middle East.
— Wavelength ( talk) 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems like it was written by a non-primary English speaker paraphrasing a medical textbook. It's a pretty short article. I tried to simplify the language, but I'm having to look up every other word, so I'm giving up now. Maybe someone with a better anatomy vocabulary will want to take a stab at it? :)
Eagle syndrome led me to Temporal styloid process, which doesn't have any in-line citations and this is the entire reference section: This article incorporates text in the public domain from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918), and also to Temporomandibular joint, which has been tagged as {{ technical}} since 2014 (and the tag still applies). I figured I'd point those out while I'm on the topic. —PermStrump (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Visualization of data is useful. We have some great new tools here [26]
Am currently trying to figure out how to get some of them to work. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
New account, CiproKills. -- Jytdog ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Further comments here Talk:Onychomycosis#More references for some limited benefit of tea tree oil appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25288710
Anybody? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wellcome Library and Wikimedia UK are jointly supporting a Wikimedian in Residence. For those unfamiliar with the Wellcome Library, as per their website they are "one of the world's major resources for the study of medical history... [and] also offer a growing collection of material relating to contemporary medicine and biomedical science in society."
We'd love for WikiProject Medicine members to get involved. For example, you could:
Please get in touch via the project page or my user page if you'd like to get involved in any way. Zeromonk ( talk) 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Getting medical info from Wikipedia isn’t always a bad idea...
Some fierce battles going on there and the article protected and a request for MED folks made via a tag on the article. Jytdog ( talk) 09:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
After a sudden onflux of new users who identify as ENS sufferers, I found a forum posting directing people to the page. I am now the subject of considerably vitriol there and a Facebook has apparently also been mobilised. I am doing what I can to keep the discussion productive and civil. Any help would be appreciated. Dubbin u | t | c 12:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The other day, a medical journal editor asked me if Wikipedia is being manipulated by pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and I told her there's no way of knowing for sure, short of a confession, and to the best of my knowledge no one's confessed. It did make me wonder, though, what the general feeling was here. Do you suspect there are shills at work on Wikipedia? (Let's not argue the point here, I'm just wondering about your level of suspicion/conviction, if any.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Category:Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
CFCF brings up such an excellent point that I think that it is worthy of discussion! I thought bias was assumed. Don't authors disclose their affiliations in their publications?
Doctors' handwriting ( handwriting of doctors) seems to be a notable topic.
— Wavelength ( talk) 20:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some more voices here would be useful. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
should any editor have the time, the above article could use some help/edits,(as well as related articles below) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia. Be grateful for opinions and edits on my draft talk GLILD. Dr John Hurst ( talk) 06:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Can SciCurve ( http://scicurve.com) benefit this wikiProject?— Wavelength ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned of bias here — it doesn't explain how it weights different papers to produce its top list. Is it some algorithm of relevance that depends on MESH-codes, citations, or just whichever papers support what is sold by the pharmaceutical company that pays SciCurve the most money? This is especially concerning as it gives itself out to be a source for performing systematic reviews — which it really can't be if the underlying system isn't disclosed. I would be extremely wary of using this site, simply because using its algorithms may bias which articles we or anyone else chooses to cite. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure everyone here got what my concern was: but it's about where you find sources, not necessarily the sources themselves. We should always be critical when reading a source, and when considering what it in turn has cited. But the problem is when we use these types of services such as Sci-curve or Google-scholar to find sources to cite. These are commercial actors which are under no obligation to disclose any bias in their search algorithms. Using results from their searches is akin to using a list produced by a pharmaceutical company of what they consider to be good reviews of the field. This list can be awesome and really cover most of the field, but the problem is we just don't know — they might be biased towards omitting certain negative results. A number of papers have been published on why you shouldn't use Google scholar for systematic reviews, and this argument extends to other similar commercial services which are opaque in how their weight their articles.
I don't know if these are the best studies on the topic, I haven't really reviewed them or the field, but they are a start. Soupvector also raises good points about the way unpublished studies skew science, and it is a major problem — but this is a different one, akin to the FUTON bias that already plagues Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem is that it is impossible for almost any reasonably good search engine to prove that it is unbiased. Sure it can publish its own source code. But many search engines also have some machine learning in place, which is based on search logs (what queries were written, what results users clicked on, ...). To make this transparent, the search engine would need to publish the logs and this would lead people to stop using it. 158.195.30.2 ( talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
Not quite sure where to bring this up, but there are several articles on suicide methods that make me really uncomfortable and I think they're arguably illegal. Not sure if the best way to handle it was to view them as medical articles and keep an eye that they're not making biomedical claims without proper sourcing or if there's some other legal avenue to pursue. They're really good using a tone that sounds unbiased, like it's an objective discussion on the ethics of suicide, but they're really just pro-suicide sites and they're really dangerous. These people like to tag anything about suicide prevention as lacking NPOV or as demonstrating a "American" perspective. Reddit and other social media sites don't allow content or even links to websites that explicitly tell people how to comment suicide. Since they can't link to these articles, people will tell each other "Google suicide bag and read the wikipedia article." I would think if this content is illegal enough for reddit, it shouldn't be on wikipedia.
I think it could be argued that some of these are encouraging suicide. The suicide bag article is about exactly how to make your own suicide bag, including a diagram, with easily accessible items. The hardest thing to get would be helium or a propane-butane mixture and the rest are household items. Then look at what links there, literally any article about bags (purses, backpacks, etc.) links to suicide bag. Suicide methods is exactly what it sounds like and this is what links there: Teenage suicide in the United States, suicide prevention. Basically any article about suicide links to an article that tells you specifically how to kill yourself. Lots of them have a handy dandy suicide infoboxes that link to suicide methods. alt.suicide.holiday is an article on former usenet group that is clearly just a pro-suicide article.
This 2012 study showed that pro-suicide content on social media can increase the risk of completed suicide because it normalizes and glorifies the act and provides people with access to information about lethal methods. It specifically mentions methods using gas. This 2015 study discusses an increase in helium-related suicide deaths as a direct result of discussion about it in online forums. There have been stories in the news over the years about people who have been convicted for encouraging suicide on internet forums. Here's one from 2010 about a woman who was convicted for encouraging suicide online. What do other people think? PermStrump (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear, this issue again. Suicide bags exist. They have for decades. As an encyclopedia, WP covers them. The article describes them, what they look like, their history, what people have said about them, etc. There are no step by step instructions (such instructions are readily available elsewhere [1] [2] [3] etc etc). As for the panic about increasing numbers of people using this method, it should also be noted that total numbers of suicides have not risen (indeed, suicide rates are stable or falling in most countries)
The fact that a slightly increasing percentage of suicides (the numbers are tiny) are choosing this method (for euthanasia as well as suicide) is to be expected, since it is painless, non-toxic, aesthetically acceptable and easily obtained (until recently), compared, for instance, to carbon monoxide poisoning, hanging and other brutal and distressing methods (some of which are also extremely dangerous to bystanders and medical response personnel, e.g. CO poisoning). Those who would bury the suicide bag article probably have good motives (nobody wants to see depressed youngsters making this error), and are not on a religiously-motivated campaign, but the outcome, if we suppress it, is unlikely to be good. People who are absolutely determined to kill themselves will find a way, and that way will generally be much more distressing and dangerous for all concerned. In addition, helium canisters these days are "cut" with 20% oxygen (due to a global shortage of helium) [4], so the method does not work for many who try it. To make it effective, you have to get argon or nitrogen, and these are simply NOT casually available. Buying these gasses is not something most people are equipped to do. Ratel ( talk) 21:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
“ | Balloon Time, a major supplier, has issued a statement to say that in the future all of their “balloon gas” will be diluted with 20 per cent air. “Our helium is rated from 98-99.99 percent pure. However, due to global helium supply issues, we are now mixing helium with air. All tanks will have 80 percent or more helium. This allows us to deliver a quality product at an affordable price.” | ” |
— Exit International |
Discussion currently ongoing at: Talk:Suicide_bag#Removed_swaths_of_original_research_and_primary_sourced
Please comment. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Real life precludes ANI action. But I'd welcome an admin freezing the article as it was so that all the reverting can stop and things can get sorted on Talk Ratel ( talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor with a small amount of experience in editing medical articles related to diving, the editing interventions based on claimed biomedical information do seem rather over the top.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I surprised there seems little pushback at this article to what seems very dubious proposals. The latest is to source a description of how "peaceful" death-by-helium is, to eyewitness accounts. Alexbrn ( talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
andAccording to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in humans, "breathing an oxygen deficient atmosphere can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness after only one or two breaths. The exposed person has no warning and cannot sense that the oxygen level is too low."
And of course Ogden's studies draw on a large number of eyewitness accounts. And backing this up, autopsy does usually not show any notable findings, (lots of RS for this) suggesting an absence of unconscious death struggle. Ratel ( talk) 22:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)suddenly breathing pure inert gas causes oxygen levels in the blood to fall precipitously, and may lead to unconsciousness in only a few breaths, with no symptoms at all
The CSB.gov source that Ratel and Prevalence are referring to has nothing to do with suicide bags. It’s about accidental, gradual exposure to nitrogen in the workplace in a contained environment like a small room. I’m going to quote few sources that talk about death by nitrogen asphyxiation to illustrate how irrelevant the CSB source is. But I want to clarify something first... There are 2 different statements by 2 separate people about the physical reaction (or lack there of) to the inhalation of inert gas using a suicide bag. One is a primary source in a low-impact, peer-reviewed journal written by Ogden, a right-to-die advocate and criminologist, that talks about how quick, painless and peaceful death is with helium and a suicide bag. The other statement is from a self-published newsletter written by Nitschke in which Nitschke says that helium has a risk of adverse effects, but nitrogen is much better in comparison. I’m NOT suggesting that the sources quoted below that talk about nitrogen should be used in the article since they’re about nitrogen asphyxiation using masks or in a contained environment in the workplace, not suicide bags.
While the Supreme Court case was pending, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill that would allow the state to perform executions with nitrogen gas if lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional or becomes unavailable. While the medical community has voiced concerns about the method, at least one group thinks the Sooner State might be onto something. Philip Nitschke, director of the right-to-die group Exit International, said the increasing difficulty in obtaining pentobarbital has prompted him to consider gas as an alternative...”
Perfect illustration of how Nitschke doesn't represent the mainstream, medical view. By the way, Nitschke already
sells suicide kits with pure nitrogen for $690, so I wonder if that has anything to do with why he claims there are zero adverse effects compared helium, the product gas of choice promoted by his right-to-die competitors, who have essentially rejected Nitschke and his methods. Not to mention the Medical Board of Australia suspended his medical registration, to which
Nitschke replied, ‘Oh yeah? Well I was going to break up with you first. So there.’
Changing the context could prove problematic. Administrating the gas within a prison is much different than the instances in which pilots and divers have slowly and accidentally experienced a lack of oxygen. Dr. Michael Weiden, a pulmonary expert at NYU School of Medicine, says that while nitrogen could be administered without medical professionals, using it for capital punishment could create an ironic consequence: the need for sedation… somebody who thinks that an individual who’s asphyxiating will not freak out without sedation is foolish.”
“Deliberate nitrogen asphyxiation is also viewed by some as a more humane way to end human life. Nevertheless, execution by nitrogen asphyxiation is not used by any nation in the world.”
In 2010, Ogden had a case study ( PMID 20211999) published in a low-impact, peer-reviewed journal [1] where he talks about 4 assisted-suicides he observed that involved helium asphyxiation using face masks. This is the primary source cited to support the claims that suicide with helium and a suicide bag is quick and painless. [2]
"bilateral eyelid petechiae and large amounts of gastric content in the airways. These findings challenge the assumption that death by this method is painless and without air hunger, as asserted in Final Exit."They also found that the time to death varied from 5-10 minutes to up to 40 minutes.
This is exact situation is why WP:MEDRS exists! I shouldn’t need to create an argument for using MEDRS from scratch just for this specific article. PermStrump (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
If he were clearly wrong, we'd have seen heavy pushback to the numerous such statements he has made in press worldwide; we'd have most definitely heard about it by now. And Ogden? Well, he is in Scientific American! Fringe 😂 ?Nitrogen can provide people quite a quick, peaceful, totally legal and totally undetectable death.
"Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources... Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."The editors claiming something isn't fringe are the ones who have to prove that support from mainstream scholars in the field exists. Until proven otherwise the WP:ONUS is on the editors who want to include the disputed content to find the better sources. It really should be removed until then. PermStrump (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Permstrump said: Ogden and Nitschke are weak sources for the statements about how quick and painless nitrogen/helium+suicide bag are and that there aren't adverse effects. They're weak because there isn't a single independent reliable source that can be used in addition or in place of Ogden and Nitschke.
So if we ignore two of the experts who have made this their life's work, we have no sources? Perm, that's only true if you ignore the great sources I gave above showing almost immediate unconsciousness ("one or two breaths"), and the existence of studies featuring inert gas asphyxia autopsies without petechiae or inhalations (therefore without what is called in veterinary science an "unconscious death struggle"
example). Do you need links to the
U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board document and more studies showing unremarkable autopsies? For FRINGE to come into play, Nitschke and Ogden and Humphry and Dr Bruce Dunn and etc would all have to be claiming something that flies in the face of the wording of FRINGE, namely: an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.
Ratel (
talk)
09:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Changing the context could prove problematic. Administrating the gas within a prison is much different than the instances in which pilots and divers have slowly and accidentally experienced a lack of oxygen. Dr. Michael Weiden, a pulmonary expert at NYU School of Medicine, says that while nitrogen could be administered without medical professionals, using it for capital punishment could create an ironic consequence: the need for sedation… somebody who thinks that an individual who’s asphyxiating will not freak out without sedation is foolish.”Time. PermStrump (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"Mr. Ogden is director of the Farewell Foundation, which advocates for assisted suicide."Source. PermStrump (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Vancouver-based Ogden has been researching assisted death as a criminologist since 1991 and began pushing for legal reform with the birth of his Farewell Foundation last year. Behind the political advocacy, he’s also quietly performed the far more ethically thorny work of supporting those who can’t wait for the legal and political debate to play out.... Ogden’s work as a death facilitator has led to police questioning on seven occasions, he says. He was subpoenaed three times to court (in 1994, 2003 and 2004)." (source)
This is a a silly, fatuous, vexatious charge. Russel Ogden IS an expert in the field of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, as his long list of Pubmed indexed studies into this field show objectively. Not only is he called an expert in the field of assisted suicide by numerous major news sources, but his list of published studies into the topic, more than any other researcher AFAIK, speaks volumes. Let's stop this pointless discussion now please. Ratel ( talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
"A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest or significant bias related to the material."See also WP:Third-party sources#Conflicts of interest. Clearly not independent on multiple fronts. —PermStrump (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I think that all of these articles are discussing the same concept by different names.
I would appreciate comments on merging any or all of them at Talk:Patient_participation#Proposal_to_merge_articles_on_similar_concepts. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This user had removed a paragraph that was supported by a secondary source (Swann 2013) and replaced it with a paragraph that was only partially supported by a primary source (removing the secondary source), without giving the reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723351811&oldid=722383241
I partially reverted the edit, removing the poorly supported paragraph added and restored the original paragraph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723434214&oldid=723388982
I made a comment on the IP address's talk page informing the user that their paragraph had been reverted and explaining why (sourcing):
/info/en/?search=User_talk:194.74.238.137#June_2016
Without responding to the talk page comment, the user changed the paragraph again, without giving the reason, messing up the formatting, and adding statements that aren't supported by the secondary source in question (while keeping the secondary source as the only source cited):
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mixed_affective_state&type=revision&diff=723529352&oldid=723478315
The user's edits are at least partially correct, but the user has not added any sources to support their statements. I'm not sure what to do, however. Please assist.-- Beneficii ( talk) 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The article about the medicine taurolidine has been rewritten by an editor whose username matches the name of a company that produces the drug, Geistlich Pharma ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've left a COI message on the user talk page and reported at WP:UAA. In addition, older versions of the article are essentially the sole work of another SPA, CETP2014 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so that version may have COI issues as well. It would be helpful if someone from this WikiProject with expertise in this area had a look. Deli nk ( talk) 12:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
We discourage the use of conference "papers" to support biomedical information, but they do get mentioned and cited occasionally anyway. Under some circumstances, that might even be okay(ish). But there seems to be a world of basically fraudulent conferences out there, using impressive names or names that are trivially confused with reputable conferences, including these 160 academic conferences, which are all allegedly happening in the same hotel on the same two days next month. (The hotel has 235 guest rooms, if you're curious.) These 160 alleged conferences cover many areas, mostly tech- or business-related.
I don't know how easily we'll be able to spot this stuff. The example given is the perfectly legitimate 6th International Conference on Cyber Security vs the apparently illegitimate [http://www.waset.org/conference/2016/07/zurich/ICCS 18th International Conference on Cyber Security], which "just happens" to have the same name. Blanking anything with a name that matches the list won't do. However, for this particular example, all of them come from waset.org, which means that we [https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=*.waset.org&title=Special%3ALinkSearch can find them when we have links to their website].
User:Beetstra, what do you think about putting World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology's website on the spam blacklist, with a whitelist entry for the article about the business? These aren't likely to be accepted as reliable sources. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Someone who has access to paywalled medical refs please check recent edits to the article by User:Cmp8868. There have been significant changes which appear to rely on existing references which I cannot access. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Are Immersion pulmonary edema and Swimming induced pulmonary edema different? This is implied by the Pulmonary edema#Other article, but what is the difference? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
A rapidly emerging technology sector affecting some $131 B in nanomedicine product sales this year, there are several overlapping but disjointed articles here (health impacts), here (environmental concerns), here (toxicology) and here (main nanomedicine article). A merger discussion is underway. Thoughts on consolidation? -- Zefr ( talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder when reviewing edits, no one few people make a more than 5k byte edit in one go. Therefore when you see edits such as this
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Pandeysandeep check them for copy and pasting issues. Best
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
22:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
no one makes a more than 5k byte edit in one gofrom? When I'm composing a section (or rewriting an entire article) in a sandbox prior to sending it live, I do this all the time—here's a 123kb addition if you want a particularly extreme example. ‑ Iridescent 10:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
(in Lithuanian) Jeigu ne netaip atsiranda kraujuotakos sutrikimai širdije. Galvuoje atsiranda insuitas,tai pagal paskalo desnis ir mano mechanika ir biomechanika.{mano 111-S DESNIS tai Marcelio Atsiranda [ŠN]širdies nepankamumas, kuria rekalaujia ko grešžčio likvyduoti simptomai.TAI medicinos ir mechanikos teisioginiai ryšiai,tame tarpe prežiastiniai ryšia. Ryšai laike tampa prežaistiniai; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.55.113 ( talk) 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I guess this "Lithuanian" text is already autotranslation. It makes no sense at all. Hugo.arg ( talk) 15:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the MEDRS guidelines are not sufficient to deal with controversies within the peer reviewed realm. As pointed out in this article the "low salt intake is bad" camp is arguing for a position that is untenable when considering the totality of the evidence. All they have are results of cohort studies where the statistical analysis cannot correct for confounding factors to a sufficient degree to allow such conclusions to be drawn. Such results do get published because things are done "by the book", but that should not distract from the obvious issues when drawing such conclusions. E.g. among the people who have low sodium intake there will be more frail people who don't eat much. Such effects are not going to be corrected for to the degree necessary to be able to see any effect due to low salt intake as explained in detail in the article. This has to be contrasted with the evidence that does exist about the health effects of very low salt intake from intervention studies and indigenous populations who have extremely low salt intakes. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have the authority of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) to start discussions about a formal collaboration between ISBT and Wikipedia to improve the Transfusion Medicine information on Wikipedia.
There is an international conference in September in which I would like to promote a collaboration to all working groups so that ISBT members can contribute to Wikipedia
Can you please let me know how I can develop this relationship — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransfusionDoctor ( talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Any hikers or desert-dwellers around here? There's a brand-new safety-related article at wikivoyage:Arid region safety, and the editor who started it would deeply appreciate some help expanding it. Wikivoyage is much simpler than writing a Wikipedia article on the same subject: They want sensible advice, aimed at travellers and based upon experience, with no need to cite sources (although you're welcome to list sources that you recommend on the talk page). If you know a bit about safety issues in deserts and other arid regions, please "Plunge forward" and help them out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed this a new user's page and had never seen it. They use content about vaccines starting at about 1:15 as an example about NPOV.
How do you all feel about this? Jytdog ( talk) 15:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Copying Pine, who is working on a video project. Producing a replacement video for this would be helpful. Thanks, James Hare (NIOSH) ( talk) 13:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The tool is now officially no longer maintained Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There is an outbreak of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Middle East.
— Wavelength ( talk) 03:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems like it was written by a non-primary English speaker paraphrasing a medical textbook. It's a pretty short article. I tried to simplify the language, but I'm having to look up every other word, so I'm giving up now. Maybe someone with a better anatomy vocabulary will want to take a stab at it? :)
Eagle syndrome led me to Temporal styloid process, which doesn't have any in-line citations and this is the entire reference section: This article incorporates text in the public domain from the 20th edition of Gray's Anatomy (1918), and also to Temporomandibular joint, which has been tagged as {{ technical}} since 2014 (and the tag still applies). I figured I'd point those out while I'm on the topic. —PermStrump (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Visualization of data is useful. We have some great new tools here [26]
Am currently trying to figure out how to get some of them to work. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
New account, CiproKills. -- Jytdog ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Further comments here Talk:Onychomycosis#More references for some limited benefit of tea tree oil appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25288710
Anybody? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wellcome Library and Wikimedia UK are jointly supporting a Wikimedian in Residence. For those unfamiliar with the Wellcome Library, as per their website they are "one of the world's major resources for the study of medical history... [and] also offer a growing collection of material relating to contemporary medicine and biomedical science in society."
We'd love for WikiProject Medicine members to get involved. For example, you could:
Please get in touch via the project page or my user page if you'd like to get involved in any way. Zeromonk ( talk) 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Getting medical info from Wikipedia isn’t always a bad idea...
Some fierce battles going on there and the article protected and a request for MED folks made via a tag on the article. Jytdog ( talk) 09:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
After a sudden onflux of new users who identify as ENS sufferers, I found a forum posting directing people to the page. I am now the subject of considerably vitriol there and a Facebook has apparently also been mobilised. I am doing what I can to keep the discussion productive and civil. Any help would be appreciated. Dubbin u | t | c 12:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The other day, a medical journal editor asked me if Wikipedia is being manipulated by pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, and I told her there's no way of knowing for sure, short of a confession, and to the best of my knowledge no one's confessed. It did make me wonder, though, what the general feeling was here. Do you suspect there are shills at work on Wikipedia? (Let's not argue the point here, I'm just wondering about your level of suspicion/conviction, if any.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Category:Canadian Medical Hall of Fame, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
CFCF brings up such an excellent point that I think that it is worthy of discussion! I thought bias was assumed. Don't authors disclose their affiliations in their publications?
Doctors' handwriting ( handwriting of doctors) seems to be a notable topic.
— Wavelength ( talk) 20:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some more voices here would be useful. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
should any editor have the time, the above article could use some help/edits,(as well as related articles below) thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia. Be grateful for opinions and edits on my draft talk GLILD. Dr John Hurst ( talk) 06:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Can SciCurve ( http://scicurve.com) benefit this wikiProject?— Wavelength ( talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned of bias here — it doesn't explain how it weights different papers to produce its top list. Is it some algorithm of relevance that depends on MESH-codes, citations, or just whichever papers support what is sold by the pharmaceutical company that pays SciCurve the most money? This is especially concerning as it gives itself out to be a source for performing systematic reviews — which it really can't be if the underlying system isn't disclosed. I would be extremely wary of using this site, simply because using its algorithms may bias which articles we or anyone else chooses to cite. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure everyone here got what my concern was: but it's about where you find sources, not necessarily the sources themselves. We should always be critical when reading a source, and when considering what it in turn has cited. But the problem is when we use these types of services such as Sci-curve or Google-scholar to find sources to cite. These are commercial actors which are under no obligation to disclose any bias in their search algorithms. Using results from their searches is akin to using a list produced by a pharmaceutical company of what they consider to be good reviews of the field. This list can be awesome and really cover most of the field, but the problem is we just don't know — they might be biased towards omitting certain negative results. A number of papers have been published on why you shouldn't use Google scholar for systematic reviews, and this argument extends to other similar commercial services which are opaque in how their weight their articles.
I don't know if these are the best studies on the topic, I haven't really reviewed them or the field, but they are a start. Soupvector also raises good points about the way unpublished studies skew science, and it is a major problem — but this is a different one, akin to the FUTON bias that already plagues Wikipedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem is that it is impossible for almost any reasonably good search engine to prove that it is unbiased. Sure it can publish its own source code. But many search engines also have some machine learning in place, which is based on search logs (what queries were written, what results users clicked on, ...). To make this transparent, the search engine would need to publish the logs and this would lead people to stop using it. 158.195.30.2 ( talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)