Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 03:46, 7 May 2021 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 29) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Primary sources usage

CLOSED
Save to a one opinion it's fair to state that the Suggestion to either revise or eliminate disputed provision faced a reasonable opposition among majority of participants.NO changes are suggested or adopted.

Per reasons above and as the nominator (OP) I formally WP:CLOSE this discussion. Feel free to reopen it or CHALLENGE the closure if you wish.

Participants (8 / ~8 days)
--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest the following statement concerning Primary Sources (PS) to be revised OR completely eliminated from the intro as contradictory to goals of Wikipedia and both dogmatic, confusing and misleading relatively to the title under which this article exist, and generally flawed. Just for comparison:

The Title: «Identifying reliable sources (medicine)»
The Guide: «Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content» — Ruthlessly and indiscriminately excluding a whole range of potentially useful primary sources.

Too many contributors took this statement as unquestionable rule or misapplied it even though it's neither strictly a policy (WP:POLICIES), nor a firm guide. Not just only it's contradictory to the said goals but it's directly in violation with WP:PRIMARY (from WP:OR policy, and many other useful advises: WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, WP:PRIMARYCARE) which clearly state that primary sources may be used with care. The most recent and fresh example is here: Pancreatic cancer revert, 15:55, March 20, 2021; the contribution amended contained mostly primary sources. It was inevitably and ruthlessly amended even though under this guideline they are perfectly reliable to the information they were given.

If revised I suggest to lift the restriction on PS and allow to add primary-sourced information strongly on discussion and consensus-basis (if challenged) unless such information is clearly misleading or if PS used are used to back up statements clearly out of scope of the former. AXONOV (talk) ⚑

EDIT: If you are not truly interested in this discussion or judge lightly and superficially please avoid getting involved.

I've been working off and on in the area for about 14 years. Wikipedia has determined that it's focus is on the summary of biomedical information, an overview of the research, and because there are readers who use Wikipedia for biomedical information, primary sources- new research that has not been replicated is a risk for readers looking for medical information. This has been discussed many many times and nothing has convinced me that we should throw out WP: MEDRS. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: I seek either to loosen or detail the quoted guide line which indiscriminately prohibits everything that deems to be primary without due concern for actual statements these PS are used for. On the other side, where do think all those researchers coming here out of curiosity would find clues for their future study seeing no (notable based on consensus) frontline studies/reporting mentioned? Should be always resort to consensus based contributions in case of PS-backed up contributions? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I don't support loosening the guide at all. This is a collaborative-based project so yes we resort to consensus. Please read the other comments here which explain when primary sources could be considered. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: .. when primary sources cold be considered Well but this is not subject to any guideline so guidelines cannot be used to justify reverts. You may question notability policy by requesting more related sources but this is often unwarranted as statements aren't seriously bold.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The tilt to prefer secondary sources for biomedical content is one of the wisest WP:PAGs Wikipedia has. Without it Wikipedia could (for example) be complicit in health scams like the MMR autism scandal, and numerous others. MEDRS does not absolutely prohibit primary sources, so the proposal is a bit disingenuous in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: .. Wikipedia could (for example) be complicit in health scams like the MMR autism scandal I totally agree with this but I hardly see it as good justification to disallow indiscriminately a whole range of sources. It has nothing to do with identification of reliability as it falls directly under Original Research (OR) policy which clearly disallow making any research here so it should be applied respectively. (Under OR I mean leap-logic conclusions based on speculative researches, kind of casuistry, facts-broadening etc.)--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary text. It is thus primarily built on secondary sources. If we bypass those and start picking out primary sources which secondary sources have ignored, then we become an ersatz secondary text and that indeed, is a species of WP:OR, which is to be avoided. We are meant to reflect accepted knowledge, and that is predominantly found in high-quality secondary and tertiary sources. 20:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: Of course we should not trash anything. That's the WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT-venue. The secondary sources are always preferred but aren't required under any threat of punishment. Some too vehemently defend rules which are rather more harmful than the harm they were intended to prevent.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement about primary research articles not being generally suitable as sources has widespread support, and has done since the guideline was created in 2006. Many people, coming from a scientific background where they are expected to review the primary research literature, find this confusing. They want to write their own literature reviews as Wikipedia articles. They may even think they know better than the people who do write reviews and get them published, and that process is too darn slow! The kind of things Wikipedia lets people use primary sources for, could theoretically also be used for these primary research papers: that in 2017 some researchers did a study with a number of participants and claimed certain results and published them in 2019. In that sense it is similar to citing a book for the facts that Joe wrote a book about plants and published it in 2021. But just like we can't cite that book to claim "Joe's book on plants is the authoritative reference to which all others are compared", we can't cite a primary research paper and claim drug X cures disease Y. So people try to slip the details of a study, as a proxy for its conclusions, into Wikipedia all the time. The problem is, on its own, we don't know if the medical/scientific community consider that study or its findings to be notable or even agree on its conclusions: do they affect clinical practice or accepted thinking about a disease, say? WP:WEIGHT, policy, requires editors consider the weight of some fact/opinion in the secondary literature. MEDRS is the application of policy to medical article sourcing, and editors adding text sourced solely to primary research papers are nearly always violating policy. -- Colin°Talk 18:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: .. So people try to slip the details of a study, as a proxy for its conclusions, into Wikipedia all the time. This problem deserves to be addressed IMO but the way it's done here is a bit overkill. I suspect it's resulted from misunderstanding of difference between policy and guideline and purposes of different policies in general.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's unlikely to be the problem, since Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is pretty minimal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: .. we don't know if the medical/scientific community consider that study or its findings to be notable or even agree on its conclusions Well notability criteria is a subject to WP:GNG guideline so the one should be followed respectively. The thumb rule is evidence of coverage. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexander Davronov: The fact that your reverted edit in a featured article cited primary sources does not mean that this was the only reason why it was deservedly reverted. Exceptional, consensus-based inclusion of information from primary sources is perfectly allowed; adding them before discussing them or asking for consensus would mean opening Wikipedia to endless questionable material. Also, nobody takes anything lightly or superficially here, so your "EDIT" was uncalled for. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NikosGouliaros: This one is to deter those who have little time or interest in reasonable objection. The questionable things here are covered by WP:OR policy and reasonably disallowed to be introduced.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander, you disclosed the problem when you said "potentially useful". Potentially useful as long as every Wikipedian editor was as intelligent, educated, wise, correct, well read, neutral and fair as me. The rules Wikipedia has are very much a result of its open editing policy: anyone can edit. If we selected editors among those who could be trusted and who had the appropriate qualifications and experience to write articles about the state of medical research/knowledge/practice, and for whom citing the primary literature was merely a professional courtesy, we wouldn't need MEDRS. -- Colin°Talk 21:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Well I totally agree but at least for some cases we could leave the door a bit open so the primary stuff can be allowed to be discussed and iron-rule wouldn't be an easy excuse for those who want to prevent everything non-secondary-tertiary etc. without having decent cause. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT doesn't have an "If editors on the talk page agree, then they can ignore this policy" exemption. If secondary sources do not give that primary research weight, then neither should we. And we have to live with the restrictions that imposes on us: we will not be as quick to report the latest research. One can buy a newspaper for that. -- Colin°Talk 21:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alexander Davronov: It's of no use to argue the MEDRS guideline here. First, every editor who commented disagrees with you; no one thinks there should be changes, and that's a consensus. Second, a change to this guideline would require larger community input. None of us here can give anyone "permission" to change a community supported guideline even if we wanted to. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Littleolive oil: .. Second, a change to this guideline would require larger community input. .. That's doubtful. It took less than that to introduce challenged provision into this Guide in 2014.[1][2] Why should it take more than that? There is no reason. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I will add my voice to those opposing this for basically the reasons given above. There is a huge quantity of primary research studies out there, many of which contradict each other and/or are not replicated. Only academic experts are qualified to sort this out and to write literature reviews. If we water down the guidance here then it opens the door to major inaccuracies and WP:WEIGHT violations via editors (even accidentally) cherry-picking certain studies and presenting them as truth. Crossroads -talk- 03:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A likely belated oppose changing MEDRS primary guidance - the OP here appears to be attempting to form an argument that MEDRS violates Wikipedia principles, but has formed no such argument and merely says people abuse it. If people are abusing a guideline to inappropriately revert policy-compliant edits (which I haven't seen any evidence of here), the correct solution is to form a consensus that the edit is permitted by policy and as such is not outweighed by the guideline. I also take issue with saying that this "ruthlessly and indiscriminately exclud[es] a whole range of potentially useful primary sources" - because yet again, no evidence supporting such claim has been provided. MEDRS guidance on primary sources is primarily to clarify three sections of WP:NOT - which is a policy - specifically "not directory" (not a directory of studies published on a topic), "not textbook/scientific journal" (not a collection of studies on a topic), and "not indiscriminate" (WP is selective in what it covers both in terms of article topics and content, and does not simply include information because it exists). So, at its base, any semblance of an argument the OP here is attempting to make is hot air at best. This isn't to mention that the OP seems to claim that this guideline prohibits primary sources for medical content - which it doesn't - it just makes clear that most information can be reliably sourced to secondary sources, and that which can't better be damn important to include if it can only be sourced to primary sources. To put it simply, if information doesn't violate WP:NOT, it can almost always be sourced to secondary sources, which policy states are preferred, and as such, the use of primary sources for medical topics is almost always unnecessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Initial proposal to add provision «Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content», made by Doc James, February 27, 2014 (UTC).
  2. ^ a b Landing of provision by Doc James (Revision). March 5, 2014

Intermediate note

I the wake of claims made above I made a little research on history on challenging Primary sources use prohibition. If you are interested here is some back-story:--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources prohibition history
Date Link Note
January 7, 2019 What are 'primary sources' and why are they unacceptable?
March 9, 2018 Suitability of primary sources
March 5, 2014 Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - prohibiting primary sources
December 29, 2013 Proposal to add language to "Respect secondary sources" section
February 5, 2014 Better explanation of primary vs secondary sources
March 31, 2014 The stifling impact of secondary sources on the flow of information. Abused by parties who love to remove content 1
November 22, 2013 Concern about MedRS date guidelines and wiping out sources Abused by parties who love to remove content 2
February 27, 2014 Initial proposal to add provision «Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content» Made by Doc James
March 5, 2014 Provision landing. Made by Doc James
January 21, 2021 Abusing MEDRS is destructive and harmful Abuse
I'm sorry you went to this trouble. You will not be able to change this guideline to suit your desire to use primary sources unless you have community agreement. There are, as multiple editors have said above, times when, with consensus, a primary source can be used, but the guideline says, with care-caution. None of the discussions you've posted above indicate that a single editor with out agreement changed the guideline in any substantial way. Editors who suggested changes did so because they had some agreement and discussion. Doc James, a highly experienced editor in this area, as you saw, tightened the guideline but did so knowing he had some agreement. You have no agreement/ consensus here to change anything and in fact you have multiple opposes. I'd really suggest you edit for awhile to get the hang of a collaborative community and environment; it can take awhile to realize that no single editor has the power to make changes against community consensus-community meaning multiple editors from a few to many depending on the circumstances. The MEDRS guideline protects against research that has not yet been reviewed-viewed in context of other research, replicated, shown to have some veracity in light of other research. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of abuse

It seems like the body of facts that WP:MEDRES is highly abused just can't stop growing. Here is another case in which somehow the provision bubbled up in completely unrelated article: Restored revision 1013861229 by MrOllie (talk): All the same issues laid out for you at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus. I see it as serious problem which warrants clarification to this flawed guideline. My edits were literally reverted as I was adding more reliable sources along with primary one. This corrupt practice of undue reverts must be ended. I will allow this discussion to dangle for a bit longer than when said provisions were adopted in 2014. At least I expect parties who edit WP:MEDRES-linked articles occasionally have a voice here. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about this is "abuse"? Natureium (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: This is a subsection of the ongoing discussion of the WP:MEDRS provision starting at above. I provided additional case which clearly shows that WP:MEDRS is abused to justify removal (reverting) of content which is "deemed" as poorly sourced (not always holds being true). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Davronov, you've been given advice on the Talk:Pancreatic cancer page to use instead the secondary sources that cite the primary ones. Yet on Malassezia you persist in writing about primary research studies, citing only those primary research studies. We don't do that. Your opinion regarding the importance of the studies (in the HTML comment: "This is really interesting work worth noting it") is irrelevant. You need secondary sources to establish WP:WEIGHT. -- Colin°Talk 10:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: I often see no people's efforts to actually showing me issues with sources in relationship with specific content or specific provisions of specific guidelines. I also see no evidence there was primary sources anywhere. I see no evidence of utter need to remove (revert anything in bulk) - save to exceptional cases.
Meanwhile, on other side, I see tons of evidence of controversy surrounding WP:MEDRS and its flawed provision used to justify removing Wikipedia content with no due discretion or willing to discussion. Moreover, I see that the guideline's own supplemental WP:BMI#What_to_do_if_you_want_a_more_appropriate_source is constantly violated here (unsurprisingly).
All this warrants serious changes and revision of the WP:MEDRS. Are you going to ignore all of this? If so, I'm going to call more parties independent from WP:MEDRES community as it seems that guideline established by it is seriously abused preventing others from constructive contributions or just even discussing matters. All new comers seems to be treated with contempt. In this guideline I propose to clarify that reverts of a big chunk of sourced statements must be followed by a clear explanation of reasons of such with specific links and details. Otherwise it should be considered no more than minor WP:VANDALISM act and punished accordingly. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text you added to Malassezia talked about and referenced a primary research study, and cited the primary research paper that resulted from this (though you seem to have ended up with two references to the same paper). The "Science Daily" link is churnalism: at the bottom it says "Story Source: Materials provided by NYU Langone Health / NYU School of Medicine.", in other words, a press release from the institute about their latest research. Please find a review paper, or textbook, or other respected secondary source for this material. I don't know how you can say "I also see no evidence there was primary sources anywhere". I note that you are edit warring on that article, and that this does not usually end well. I suggest you try to listen carefully to what multiple parties have advised, rather than making claims that a long-standing guideline is fundamentally flawed. -- Colin°Talk 11:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: ...The text you added to Malassezia talked about and referenced a primary research study Stop trying to take this discussion into a different venue. If you feel truly impartial do it please in respective discussion: Talk:Malassezia#WIP because this is a bit different topic. The problem discussed here doesn't concern whether sources were legit or not. It's about misapplication of WP:MEDRS in order to abuse the right to remove sourced (non-verifiable as per WP:BURDEN, in bulk or not) content as "unreliable" from Wikipedia without burden of actually providing details on why and where, in which provision, for which text etc.. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "trying to take this discussion into a different venue". You yourself linked to the revert of your primary-sourced content at Malassezia, and you yourself asked "I also see no evidence there was primary sources anywhere". I've explained your text fails WP:WEIGHT, which is policy. Verifiability is only a necessary but not sufficient condition to include text. If your problem is not so much with policy as what you perceive as editors abusing policy or guideline, then I suggest a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to report the miscreants. But I don't fancy your chances of retaining editing privileges for long. I do recommend you take a different approach and back down on the accusations of abuse. The editors who are saying you are wrong have considerable experience in this area. -- Colin°Talk 12:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in fact, you are already enjoying yourself at ANI. -- Colin°Talk 13:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nature article on "the systemic production of falsified research"

I thought that folks would want to be aware of this.

Apparently much of the sham research is landing in what could be considered MEDRS journals. I hope that our reliance on secondary & tertiary sources would help alleviate this, although if bogus primary research gets taken seriously in reviews & surveys of the literature, this would be problematic. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason to insist on high sourcing standards, though ultimately if the citadel falls, Wikipedia will too, as all we can do is reflect "accepted knowledge". Alexbrn (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is genetics and population genetics covered by MEDRS?

We already have Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources, so we should try not to use primary sources. We also have the essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science). But I'm wondering if this guideline includes genetics and population genetics specifically as well. Bogazicili (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information may be useful. The scope of "genetics and population genetics" is quite broad but I would think it is relevant if those genes are being discussed wrt health or ability. Is there a specific article conflict you had in mind. If so, WT:MED might be the better place to discuss. -- Colin°Talk 07:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just noticed many low quality sources in numerous articles across Wikipedia: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_Biology/Genetics#Low-quality_population_genetics_content_across_Wikipedia Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Colin said, it depends greatly on what information it is and how the information is being used. For example, discussing the genetic similarity between two similar bacteria/viruses - but not discussing how that affects humans at all (i.e. simply discussing the genetic code and not talking about transmissibility or virulence) would not be MEDRS. The second you start talking about how that genetics affects human illness/disease you must use MEDRS to cover all of the information in the tree - or at least a MEDRS must clearly make the connection between the genetic change and the change in humans - otherwise you're combining a non-MEDRS and a MEDRS to say something that the MEDRS itself doesn't say, but would require MEDRS. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nanomedicine (Elsevier journal)

The journal Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and Medicine has some serious issues:

The accused is still listed in the editorial board.

The over 30 articles which reference the journal may need some extra checking. Nemo 05:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=1021868925"