Post by Niels on Nov 6, 2007 1:34:26 GMT -5
Check out this conversation on wikipedia's morgellons discussion page:
tinyurl.com/2tcszg
Removal of link to www.morgellonswatch.com?
Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.
The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there WAS consensus to leave that link, and it should be restored. Dyanega 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Although the site appears to be accurate, it is a blog, and the creator (perhaps justifiably) refuses to identify himself or his credentials. I really don't think it's an exception to the "normally to be avoided" language in WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that this site is not being used as a reference for any statements, but is just included under External Links. The topic of Morgellons is hotly contested, and there should be some way of alluding to the opposing points of view. How about adding some indirect language to the text of the article, like 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation?' I agreee that the case for including the site explicitly would be stronger if the site operator were identified. EdJohnston 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm the site operator. Identifying myself would not help, as I have no credentials or experience in this subject beyond the content of my "blog" (I'm a retired computer programmer). Hence there is no real authority behind the articles I write, in the sense that Wikipedia normally looks for. I would note (as others have) that it's just a link, and not a reference. Morgellons Watch is really the only source of detailed skeptical analysis of Morgellons, and I do think it's quite a useful resource, with over a hundred articles. It ranks quite highly in Google results, and has been reference in numerous media articles, including New Scientist [121] (quote: "Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia"), Psychiatric News [122] (Quote: "More information is posted at <www.morgellons.org> and at <http://morgellonswatch.com>".), the Dallas Observer [123] (Quote: "One of the most popular Web sites on the disease is Morgellons Watch, a blog dedicated to poking holes in every known theory on the disease."), and in several other places. Herd of Swine 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The web references you mention I don't find convincing, and I was actually going to suggest that the banner at the top of this page, with the 'press mention of Wikipedia,' should be deleted as too minor to include. Literally all that Elkan says about Wikipedia in the article in the New Scientist that you mention is one sentence about 'slugging it out at Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.' I hope we don't treasure that as a testimonial to our work here, since it notes the arguments that took place here but says nothing about the scientific value of the results. EdJohnston 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no illusions of MorgellonsWatch being declared a Reliable Source, but rather that it is useful reference (or, at least, counterpoint) to anyone looking at the subject. I think the problem is partly that everyone can SEE that it's a useful external link, but it's disqualified because of the guidelines excluding blogs. I don't think it meets any of the other 13 exclusionary guidelines. I also that it DOES meet #4 of the |What should be linked guidelines: "4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". And also "links to be considered" #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Herd of Swine 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for studying WP:EL in such detail. I'd give my support to including the link here if the owner were identified. Otherwise, I'd rather include it indirectly with a phrase like what I proposed above, 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation.' I hope we will get comments from other long-time editors of this page before reaching a conclusion. The case might be different if morgellonswatch could serve as an actual reference for the article, or if it were judged notable enough to receive a couple of sentences of discussion in the article itself. If third parties had commented on actual reportage by morgellonswatch, that might be enough to justify a comment. If it does nothing but helpfully gather links to other sites, the case is not so strong. EdJohnston 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to identify myself, because I've had death threats (of dubious seriousness, but still...). I think MorgellonsWatch does more than "helpfully gather links to other sites", and most of what I do there is critically examine scientific claims of the MRF, for example they often talk about fibers fluorescing under UV, and so I write a short article about how this is not unusual [124]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [125]. But I totally understand that the guidelines are the there for a reason, and if it's felt the link should be removed, I'm not going to campaign any more for it's reinstatement. Herd of Swine 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to open up such a can of worms here with my random spam link search. In general, blogs are listed as the kinds of external links normally to be avoided. The caveat is: except those written by a recognized authority. Since MorgellonsWatch's author is not a recognized authority, the link should be kept off the article either as a source or as an external link. I understand Herd of Swine's desire to have privacy, but he/she must accept that given this wish, authority cannot be recognized for this source; further, given that Herd of Swine recognizes that "there is no real authority" behind the article on his/her website, clearly then it cannot be used here. Again, I apologize for opening the apparent can of worms. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see some near-fairness and near-balancedness happening here for a change. Because basically this wikipedia page appears to be a surrogate for MorgellonsWatch and is totally biased against Morgellons victims. Constantly calling Morgellons patients DOP, formication, or menopause is hate speech that results in medical discrimination, and ultimately leads to increased morbidity and mortality of these patients who are no more "DOP" than an untreated tertiary-syphillis case. It is a serious disease, with serious medical consequences for allowing the infection to go unchecked. In fact, the goal of MorgellonsWatch and HerdOfSwine is to have all Morgellons patients turn into untreated tertiary syphillis cases, much like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male -- victims who are left to suffer with an untreated infection and are left to spread it into their community. So it's totally understandable that Margellons is receiving death threats for his hateful lies. His ethics are no different from the criminals of Tuskeegee. Furthermore, the sheer volume and compulsiveness of his cheerleading against Morgellons victims indicates an abnormal level of interest in the subject, and leads to speculation that he's representing HMO industry associations' financial interest in ignoring this new disease. In Lyme-land, that role has long been the part of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_McSweegan and it appears that Margellons is the McSweegan of Morgellons. Similar to McSweegan, Margellons uses a bogus online persona to harass Morgellons victims online because he's afraid of exposure. If he weren't serving up hateful lies, he wouldn't need to hide, or worry about death threats. But if you post hate speech, you will get hate back. [User:75.83.171.237|75.83.171.237]] 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
tinyurl.com/2tcszg
Removal of link to www.morgellonswatch.com?
Per this edit, User:Levine2112 removed the link to www.morgellonswatch.com from the article.
The link was originally added to the article here on 9 June 2006, and has survived in the article through thousands of edits, leading me to believe that it has consensus support among editors. The language in WP:EL is only that blogs are 'normally to be avoided.' Since Morgellons Watch provides close scrutiny of the statements at www.morgellons.org and helps give balance to the pronouncements of that site, I can see its value and recommend that it be kept. EdJohnston 04:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there WAS consensus to leave that link, and it should be restored. Dyanega 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Although the site appears to be accurate, it is a blog, and the creator (perhaps justifiably) refuses to identify himself or his credentials. I really don't think it's an exception to the "normally to be avoided" language in WP:EL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that this site is not being used as a reference for any statements, but is just included under External Links. The topic of Morgellons is hotly contested, and there should be some way of alluding to the opposing points of view. How about adding some indirect language to the text of the article, like 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation?' I agreee that the case for including the site explicitly would be stronger if the site operator were identified. EdJohnston 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm the site operator. Identifying myself would not help, as I have no credentials or experience in this subject beyond the content of my "blog" (I'm a retired computer programmer). Hence there is no real authority behind the articles I write, in the sense that Wikipedia normally looks for. I would note (as others have) that it's just a link, and not a reference. Morgellons Watch is really the only source of detailed skeptical analysis of Morgellons, and I do think it's quite a useful resource, with over a hundred articles. It ranks quite highly in Google results, and has been reference in numerous media articles, including New Scientist [121] (quote: "Most of the ideas and research have yet to be formally published, leaving believers and sceptics to slug it out on websites such as Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia"), Psychiatric News [122] (Quote: "More information is posted at <www.morgellons.org> and at <http://morgellonswatch.com>".), the Dallas Observer [123] (Quote: "One of the most popular Web sites on the disease is Morgellons Watch, a blog dedicated to poking holes in every known theory on the disease."), and in several other places. Herd of Swine 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The web references you mention I don't find convincing, and I was actually going to suggest that the banner at the top of this page, with the 'press mention of Wikipedia,' should be deleted as too minor to include. Literally all that Elkan says about Wikipedia in the article in the New Scientist that you mention is one sentence about 'slugging it out at Morgellonswatch.com and Wikipedia.' I hope we don't treasure that as a testimonial to our work here, since it notes the arguments that took place here but says nothing about the scientific value of the results. EdJohnston 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no illusions of MorgellonsWatch being declared a Reliable Source, but rather that it is useful reference (or, at least, counterpoint) to anyone looking at the subject. I think the problem is partly that everyone can SEE that it's a useful external link, but it's disqualified because of the guidelines excluding blogs. I don't think it meets any of the other 13 exclusionary guidelines. I also that it DOES meet #4 of the |What should be linked guidelines: "4: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.". And also "links to be considered" #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Herd of Swine 22:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for studying WP:EL in such detail. I'd give my support to including the link here if the owner were identified. Otherwise, I'd rather include it indirectly with a phrase like what I proposed above, 'a web search for Morgellons will find sites critical of the statements of the Morgellons Research Foundation.' I hope we will get comments from other long-time editors of this page before reaching a conclusion. The case might be different if morgellonswatch could serve as an actual reference for the article, or if it were judged notable enough to receive a couple of sentences of discussion in the article itself. If third parties had commented on actual reportage by morgellonswatch, that might be enough to justify a comment. If it does nothing but helpfully gather links to other sites, the case is not so strong. EdJohnston 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to identify myself, because I've had death threats (of dubious seriousness, but still...). I think MorgellonsWatch does more than "helpfully gather links to other sites", and most of what I do there is critically examine scientific claims of the MRF, for example they often talk about fibers fluorescing under UV, and so I write a short article about how this is not unusual [124]. I also do various experiments like replicating Morgellons photos [125]. But I totally understand that the guidelines are the there for a reason, and if it's felt the link should be removed, I'm not going to campaign any more for it's reinstatement. Herd of Swine 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to open up such a can of worms here with my random spam link search. In general, blogs are listed as the kinds of external links normally to be avoided. The caveat is: except those written by a recognized authority. Since MorgellonsWatch's author is not a recognized authority, the link should be kept off the article either as a source or as an external link. I understand Herd of Swine's desire to have privacy, but he/she must accept that given this wish, authority cannot be recognized for this source; further, given that Herd of Swine recognizes that "there is no real authority" behind the article on his/her website, clearly then it cannot be used here. Again, I apologize for opening the apparent can of worms. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see some near-fairness and near-balancedness happening here for a change. Because basically this wikipedia page appears to be a surrogate for MorgellonsWatch and is totally biased against Morgellons victims. Constantly calling Morgellons patients DOP, formication, or menopause is hate speech that results in medical discrimination, and ultimately leads to increased morbidity and mortality of these patients who are no more "DOP" than an untreated tertiary-syphillis case. It is a serious disease, with serious medical consequences for allowing the infection to go unchecked. In fact, the goal of MorgellonsWatch and HerdOfSwine is to have all Morgellons patients turn into untreated tertiary syphillis cases, much like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male -- victims who are left to suffer with an untreated infection and are left to spread it into their community. So it's totally understandable that Margellons is receiving death threats for his hateful lies. His ethics are no different from the criminals of Tuskeegee. Furthermore, the sheer volume and compulsiveness of his cheerleading against Morgellons victims indicates an abnormal level of interest in the subject, and leads to speculation that he's representing HMO industry associations' financial interest in ignoring this new disease. In Lyme-land, that role has long been the part of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_McSweegan and it appears that Margellons is the McSweegan of Morgellons. Similar to McSweegan, Margellons uses a bogus online persona to harass Morgellons victims online because he's afraid of exposure. If he weren't serving up hateful lies, he wouldn't need to hide, or worry about death threats. But if you post hate speech, you will get hate back. [User:75.83.171.237|75.83.171.237]] 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)