User:LaraLove/Adoptee classroom/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of old assignments.

Contents

[edit] BlinkingBlimey

  1. Read over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to learn, well, what the title says.
    It seems pretty much every argument I've made in AfD so far was invalid. Oh dear. I've not got a lot of opportunity to spend a decent length of time in AfD for the next day or so, but when I have I'll list the discussions on my talk page and pop a note below. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Participate in some discussions at WP:AFD.
    Well, I set up the page that I mentioned User:BlinkingBlimey/AfD contributions, but unfortunately I got a bit carried away and I've been nominating for deletion rather than contributing. I know. Running before I can walk. I will keep it up to date, but basically anything after today should reflect my learning from today's assignment. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    Those look good. You're good with the alphabet soup (dropping policy acronyms). Your noms are also good. Nice work. Continue with this, then we'll work on closing. I don't do XfD, funny enough, so I'll have to go find out about closing, haha. Lara❤Love 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    I've carried on (though I've not been logging all the contributions I've been making). What next??? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I want to be quite smug about this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Four Types of Pleasure - no idea how it will go, but feel good about doing the research and actually being able to disagree with the proposal! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danaullman

  1. Read over WP:COI
  2. Read over WP:RS
Thanx...I have re-read both of these articles.
Did you get my email? I need your advice. Dana
I'm looking into it now. Lara❤Love 19:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The following assignments should take time to complete. I'm not expecting this to be done quickly. You may go in any order. Completed assignments should be posted to my talk page.

  1. Re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources
    1. In your own words, what defines a reliable source? What defines an unreliable source?
    2. Give an example of a reliable source from those at your disposal for Homeopathic information.
    3. Give an example of a reliable source for Ionic crystal.
  2. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability
    1. The requirement for carefully selected qualitative sources applies to what?
  3. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
    1. Write an example of an NPOV paragraph relating to Homeopathy.
    2. Speaking specifically on the section WP:UNDUE, how does it apply to Homeopathy?
  4. Read Wikipedia:Fringe theories
    1. Do you believe this applies to Homeopathy?
  5. Read Wikipedia:Civility
    1. What are some examples that contribute to an uncivil environment that have been used either by you or others in recent discussions on Homeopathic articles? (Do not use names, and do not be so specific that it serves to call another editor out.)
  6. Read Wikipedia:POVPUSH#POV_pushing
    1. What does the term "POV pushing" describe here on Wikipedia?
  7. Read Wikipedia:Consensus
    1. How does one know when consensus has been reached?

[edit] Dana's homework assignments

  1. Re-read Wikipedia:Reliable sources
    1. In your own words, what defines a reliable source? What defines an unreliable source?
      Reliable sources are verifiable information from research published in peer-review journals, scholars, and/or notable 3rd parties. Unreliable sources are unverifiable information, original research, extremist points of view, and sources that have no 3rd party confirmation.
    2. Reliable source for homeopathic information:
      http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html (site of Professor Martin Chaplin)
    3. Give an example ofFind a reliable source for Ionic crystal:
      A university chemistry textbook
      Note from Lara: I perhaps worded that wrong. Fixed. The article is unreferenced. I would like you to reference it with at least one source.
      Reply from Dana: Actually, there are now 3 references at the wiki article, but another one could be this textbook published by Barrons [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability
    1. The requirement for carefully selected qualitative sources applies to what?
      Verifiability is required for all quotations, for information that is or that may be questioned as valid.
      Note from Lara: Well, apparently WP:V has been the target for some massive jacking since I wrote these assignments. At the time, before some people went a little trim happy, the answer was: The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.
  3. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
    1. Write an example of an NPOV paragraph relating to Homeopathy. Below is an edited version of the 3rd paragraph to the Homeopathy article.
      The ideas of homeopathy are considered by some to be scientifically implausible[8] but scientific sound by others.(1)(2) Some scientists consider homeopathy to be directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge,[9] while others assert that the unique process of serial dilution using double-distilled water in glass bottles is based on sound pharmacy and science.(3)(4) Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by clinical studies.[10][11][12][13] , while other meta-analyses have found that the placebo response is an inadequate explanation for the positive responses that controlled trials have found.(5)(6) This controversial body of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst" in the words of a recent medical review,[14] though homeopaths point to meta-analyses and systematic reviews to show safe and effective treatment from homeopathic medicines.(7)(8)(9)(10)
      Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design[15][16], though homeopaths assert that the previously referenced reviews and meta-analyses were published in respected peer-review journals. Only when investigators chose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies in which primarily one homeopathic medicine was prescribed to every patient without the usual need for individualization of treatment common to quality homeopathic care did the statistical significance from homeopathic treatment vanish. While it is true that a single homeopathic medicine can sometimes be effective in the treatment of specific conditions (as observed in the Oscillococcinum trials in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome or Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD,(11) this result is an exception to the rule.
      A recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo,[8] though this comparison of 110 homeopathic studies with a matching selection of 110 medical studies uncovered only 21 “high quality” homeopathic studies and 9 “high quality” medical studies. The comparison of these studies was never made public, though other authors have done this and shown a statistically significant effect from homeopathic medicines beyond placebo (p=0.0392).(12) This meta-analyses then selected only the largest studies as a way to reduce statistical bias, which resulted in comparing 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional trials. The result of this comparison found that homeopathic medicines were not found to have more of a clinical effect than a placebo, though homeopaths assert that a different type of statistical bias occurs when using the larger trials that primarily did not include individualization of treatment which is often necessary for properly homeopathic care.
      (see References 5-18 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#_note-shang) (the above references in boxed parenthesis are the numbers for these references[like this]
      The new references (the ones I have recommended) are in these curved parenthesis:
      (1) http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html.
      (2) Domenico Mastrangelo, Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy. Med Sci Monit. 2006 Dec 18;13 (1):SR1-8 17179919. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17179919.
      (3) http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html -- Special Issue The Memory of Water, Homeopathy. 96,3(July 2007). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14754916.
      (4) Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323. This review of research assessed 105 trials, 81 of them positive [1]. The authors concluded: “Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible”, “the evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications”, and "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definite conclusions".
      (5) Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. PMID 9310601. Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favour of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant. The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.”
      (6) Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.
      (7) Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.
      (8) Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.
      (9) Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.
      (10) Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.
      (11) Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936
      (12) Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB (2006) What a difference a trial makes. FACT, Supplement 1, 28-29.
    2. Speaking specifically on the section WP:UNDUE, how does it apply to Homeopathy?
      Undue weight refers to the wiki policy of giving a similar proportional amount of attention to unconventional points of view as presently exists. The challenge to editors who get involved in articles about homeopathy is that homeopathy, historically and today, is not an extreme minority, and it holds some significant prominence in many countries in world. It has been shown that 37% of British and 40% of Dutch physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (see the BMJ reference below)(and there is separate evidence that approximately 30-40% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines...I can provide these references later if requested). Also, homeopathy plays a major role in the care of a large number of Europeans. This article from the BMJ shows that between 16-56% of people in European countries use homeopathic medicines. [2] Further, according to alternative medicine, the vast majority of American medical schools have courses on this subject: 60% of the standard medical schools, 95% of osteopathic medical schools and 84.8% of the nursing schools teach some form of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine). These statistics suggest some acceptance of CAM as an integral part of medical education. Articles on homeopathy need to acknowledge it as a minority POV, and information about it needs to have V and RS.
  4. Read Wikipedia:Fringe theories
    1. Do you believe this applies to Homeopathy?
      Fringe theories refer to ideas that are not widely accepted within the mainstream. This relates with homeopathy because its concepts and practices are not widely accepted within the medical mainstream. However, homeopathy has been recognized by virtually every country in the world as a valid medical practice and maintaining a list of medicines that are recognized as accepted drugs in each country. Although some people aserts that there is presently inadequate evidence to verify the biological activity or clinical efficacy of homeopathic medicines, there is a body of basic science research, clinical research, outcome studies, and cost-effectiveness studies that suggest that homeopathic medicines are not just placeboes. People who assert that homeopathy has this evidence base must provide evidence of this in a verifiable way, with reliable sources, and with notability of results.
  5. Read Wikipedia:Civility
    1. What are some examples that contribute to an uncivil environment that have been used either by you or others in recent discussions on Homeopathic articles? (Do not use names, and do not be so specific that it serves to call another editor out.)
      One editor asserted that the 12C potency represent such a small dose of medicine that it is like 1 molecule in the entire Atlantic Ocean. I responded by saying that the 12C potency uses 12 test tubes of water, and at most, it is akin to one part in 12 test tubes. After this editor repeated his ratio many times, I told him that his ideas were akin to “being two tacos short of a combination plate.” When this editor complained that I was attacking him personally, I told him that my assertion was not to him but to his ideas. I sought to use a humorous metaphor here to lighten the conversation, but some editors look for reasons to complain against other editors who do not share their POV. Ultimately, I have to be more careful with whom I choose to be humorous, and I need to make a stronger effort to avoid even the hint of a personal attack.
  6. Read Wikipedia:POVPUSH#POV_pushing
    1. What does the term "POV pushing" describe here on Wikipedia?
      Wow…I didn’t realize that “POV pushing” is a clear sign of uncivility. I was previously guilty of this, though I didn’t realize it at the time that it was so uncivil and that such accusations must be made very carefully. My apologies. POV pushing is the aggressive promotion of minority or fringe points of view.
  7. Read Wikipedia:Consensus
    1. How does one know when consensus has been reached?
      This is a tough question because consensus is an ever-changing process. Through polite and civil discussion that makes reference to V, RS, and notable sources, an agreement on reasonable wording for inclusion can be made in an article. Negotiated agreement between editors can come to an mutually agreed upon NPOV statement.

[edit] Comments

[edit] From Lara

Dana, I haven't looked at it all in depth yet, but I can see you've worked hard on this, and I appreciate that. I'll look over this in detail tonight. Lara❤Love 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From others

In response to the answer to 5.1:
Sorry to butt in here, but the above is a continuation of Dana's personal attack, and can only be considered as "POV pushing" (in light of his note below). This totally misrepresents the situation, and shows that he still fails to understand even the basic mechanisms of the methods on which he asserts his authority on; against scientific evidence, clear logic, and easy to follow mathematics and evidence. Saying someone is mentally retarded in some way is clearly rude and uncivil. His argument is flawed and his failure to accept this (which is not an attack on homeopathy) does not reflect well on him. Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

DrEightyEight has now made a totally unfounded assertion, and I ask that he provide evidence that I ever called him "mentally retarded." If not, I consider this statement to be uncivil, inaccurate, and worthy of displinary action. I just wrote him a note at his user page about a slur that he made against a new editor, professor Martin Chaplin at [[3]]. It seems that he is not only slurring editor and mixing them up with others, but he is now making accusations against me that are simply untrue. As I noted at 88's page, we should all be honored that Chaplin has begun to edit on wikipedia. I want to remind 88 to not bite the newbies. Dana Ullman Talk 04:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Dana, your comment that you referred to was calling me mentally retarded. I didn't mix any editors up, but two controversial scientists in the real world. You really do need to improve your behaviour Dana. The editor "Martin Chaplin" had already broken the probation rules twice, so I warned him with the template rather than giving him a block --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a diff? —Whig (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And how would you give someone a block? You aren't an admin. —Whig (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[4] This is where Martin Chaplin first complained. —Whig (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
So what's the point here? Lara❤Love 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was providing context so it can be seen what Martin Chaplin was complaining about specifically. —Whig (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I had already thumbed through his contribs, so that didn't occur to me. Thanks for the clarification. Lara❤Love 06:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'm allowed opinons on talk pages. My small dispute with Martin Chaplin, before he was an editor here, has nothing to do with the misrepresentations of Dana Ullman --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I could not help but notice that you did not reference me calling you "mentally retarded." Please do so or accept consequences. Lara, your classroom hasn't yet taught me how to place complaints against editors who are uncivil or who commit other anti-wiki policies. Dana Ullman Talk 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:AN/I would be a good spot to alert to gross incivility. However, Dana, at this time, you're not really in a position to be calling people out for uncivil comments and actions. Everyone needs to calm down. Maybe join a wikiproject unrelated to Homeopathy and edit something else for a while. This bickering is getting no where. Lara❤Love 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I think you can find a better reliable source for homeopathic information. I am fairly certain Chaplin's site is not going to qualify, because it might fall under selfpub. The journal Homeopathy is a great reliable source for homeopathy information, no? And, it has already been used in other articles as such. Baegis (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[Baegis]] and others, Chaplin is widely published in major RS, and I think that we can feel confident that he will alert us to his own published work as well as many other people's RS publications. His site can provide great references, confirm notability, and provide 3rd party confirmation. I await his participation. I'm glad you also recognize that the peer-review journal, Homeopathy (published by Elsevier), is RS In fact, that July 2007 issue is a classic. Dana Ullman Talk 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
LaraLove, I'm a tad confused. DrEightEight claimed that I called him "mentally retarded," and when asked him to verify that statement, he has been totally silent. I hope there are some consequences for making such an exaggerated and unfounded statement. What would have happened if I had claimed that from him? I personally want to move beyond the silly issues, and deal with substantative stuff, but I find that several editors delete good v and rs information and skew other information that should be positive about homeopathy into a negative, and then, pretend to have thin skin when their ideas are critiqued (I made a special point of differentiate my critique to his ideas, not to him). Dana Ullman Talk 05:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dana, I didn't respond out of respect for Lara and as I didn't think the discussion had any further value. The comment below this one does a good job of explaining things to you. Your threatening attitude also made me decide it wasn't worth the effort; please don't threaten people with "consequences" for not doing your bidding. Lara, please accept my apologies for butting in to your talk page again, and that Dana is causing you so much trouble --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you called him "mentally retarded in some way" (he never claimed that you used the precise expression "mentally retarded", as far as I'm aware) when you posted this: "Hmmmm. You're two tacos short of a combo plate. That is as diplomatic as I can be based on your POV pushing (without substantiation or verification).You're over the edge. Thank you for proving this."(my emphasis) You actually referred to this yourself in your answer to question 5, although not entirely accurately: your recollection of it was evidently a bit off because it was in a discussion of Gully, not dilutions, and it was clearly describing him rather than his ideas (if it had been describing his ideas it would have said "your ideas are..." rather than "you're..."). For reference, it's in the January 2008 archive of your user talk page, under the heading "Outside view"; you posted it at 15:09, 28 January 2008 Brunton (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny, "two tacos short of a combo plate." I wouldn't ever think that it meant someone was actually mentally retarded. You know, if it were taken in good humor then it might have been responded to in kind. Taking it seriously just kind of makes the point for itself. —Whig (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Brunton: Your ideas are two tacos short of a combo plate, sir/madam. :) —Whig (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
See Dana, that's the problem. His website is just that; a website. It is only a reliable source for his own views. Just because he is published in some other journals, does not make every one of his writings a reliable source. Though it is hosted on a university server, professors are granted significant leeway in their additions. It would be similar to me hosting a website using the space I am given by my ISP. The views that I put forth on my website, though hosted by my ISP, may not reflect their views. I think this is an area where you are confused. A person is not a reliable source for anything beyond their own views, except in very, very rare circumstances. The RS part comes from the reputation of the journal more so than the author. Much in the same manner, your website is a reliable source for information regarding your work and your views. And again, peer-review does not automatically confer an air of reliability upon a journal. There are creationist journals that are published and peer reviewed (not comparing homeopathy to creationism, but for the sake of the comparison). Peer review and inclusion in a mainstream journal is much more notable than peer review and publication in a smaller journal that caters to the outer edge of science. Do you understand what I mean here? I am more than willing to help out here, because the issue of reliable sources in regards to scientific matters differ slightly when compared to reliable sources in pop culture or other areas. I've never questioned Homeopathy as a reliable source for homeopathy. Baegis (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
LaraLove's response to DrEightyEight's comment/complaint above.

Dana's answer to question 5 seems pretty basic and focuses more on himself than you. He didn't use your name. Neither I nor anyone else here probably cares much about who made the arguably accurate comparison. The comment he made about Taco Bell was funny, but could be taken as uncivil, so it was a good example. He basically answered just as I asked him to. Perhaps you should not take everything he says so personally. I mean, he's made a few comments like that, each of which made me chuckle, but I can understand it's not as funny to those whose comments he's directing them at. So, in my opinion, he's basically just acknowledged this. Lara❤Love 15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)