Re: wikipedia in the clutches of pharmaceutical companies?

[Guest guest]

Oh, I figured it out now. After getting a little more familiar with

Wikipedia, I realized you could see the history of each page edit and

a " talk page " for each page. It turns out both the cholesterol and

statin pages are moderated by some Dutch doctor who's practicing in

England. The cholesterol talk page is almost entirely filled by

people saying how there is a need to include references to Uffe

Ravnskov and the widespread oposition to the lipid hypothesis, and

people saying that they've just done so! Which means that it is

probably a regular thing for pieces of information contrary to the

lipid hypothesis to be added or removed from the Wikipedia article.

On the statin talk page, there is a doctor saying that from extensive

communications with doctors and patients, he's concluded that the

myopathy problem with statins is between 75-100% but that he thought

it best to only say " higher than normal " in the article! He even

entertained the idea that the article should entirely omit the issue

in the absence of a published study, but that it would be " unfair to

the reader " to not mention it at all!

It really pisses me off that they took my CoQ10 inhibition stuff out.

Everything I put on I cited Medline-indexed citations, and there is a

flow chart right on the page showing that statins inhibit CoQ10, but

it isn't mentioned in the article! How can they consider this

deletable, when the flow chart shows it right on the page??? Only the

flow chart is too small to read easily, and uses the alternate name

" ubiquinone " instead of CoQ10.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Which indicates to me that someone is WATCHING the statins/cholesterol

>page. It really looks like the whole thing is done up by some

>pro-statin schmuck, and I'm wondering if someone's paid to sit there

>and edit the page or something!

Yup. I forget the details (and the terminology) but awhile ago I read

about how Wikipedia works, and there are editors for various sections who

kind of monitor and control the content. The idea is to prevent the

encyclopedia from getting cluttered up by mistakes and garbage information,

but of course that's always a matter of perspective, and sometimes the

truth is considered junk.

-

[Guest guest]

>> Which indicates to me that someone is WATCHING the statins/cholesterol

page. It really looks like the whole thing is done up by some

pro-statin schmuck, and I'm wondering if someone's paid to sit there

and edit the page or something! <<

No, that is just how Wiki softare works. People who are interested in an entry

set it up to email them if changes are made, they look at them, and they alter

or delete them if they want. The link to your site probably will always get

removed, as it's somewhat against their guidelines for you to have posted it (I

could argue either way on that but ultimately I think it will always get

yanked).

Go back and try again. Someone might get tired of you putting it back and will

modify it instead of deleting it, or you can try modifying it to be more

" mainstream " but still ultimately subversive, and see if that sticks better. <G>

Wiki is a process. I myself don't have the knack for it, which is why I blog

instead of Wiki-ing. But some people live for it.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

On 8/26/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> No, that is just how Wiki softare works. People who are interested in an

> entry set it up to email them if changes are made, they look at them, and

> they alter or delete them if they want. The link to your site probably will

> always get removed, as it's somewhat against their guidelines for you to

> have posted it (I could argue either way on that but ultimately I think it

> will always get yanked).

I looked at the guidelines, and I don't see how it is in any way

against the guidelines.

Besides, every single deletion was performed by a certain doctor who,

by looking at the discussion and history pages, watches a few pages

like a hawk to weed out anything that isn't biased in favor of the

lipid hypothesis.

> Go back and try again. Someone might get tired of you putting it back and

> will modify it instead of deleting it, or you can try modifying it to be

> more " mainstream " but still ultimately subversive, and see if that sticks

> better. <G>

Well, it seems that the last time, the link to my site stuck, while

the little bit about CoQ10, referencing the flow chart that is right

next to the damn paragraph, got removed. I think the link to my site

originally got removed because, according to the history, he just

reverted it back to the page version of such-and-such a time, rather

than making individual deletions, since I changed so much over the

span of the page. I guess we'll see how long it sticks, although a

link to WAPF has been there.

> Wiki is a process. I myself don't have the knack for it, which is why I blog

> instead of Wiki-ing. But some people live for it.

I don't see how they're comparable. I was editing Wikipedia to

generate relevancy points for my site and maybe some traffic.

Blogging is more comparable to sending out a newsletter, which is what

I do with my site.

In any case, the Dutch Doctor who is an administrator of Wikipedia and

essentiall controls the cholesterol and statin pages entirely, is

clearly a rabid opponent of any dissent on the cholesterol issue, and

made disparaging comments along with his edit history about the

" detractors " who " ignore 100,000s of reports, " asking why " Ravnskov "

and the detractors are always known by name.

The guidelines of Wikipedia require a neutral point of view. The

administrator of those pages clearly has an agenda, and the pages take

an unambiguous and consistent stance on controversial issues. That's

not a " neutral " point of view.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>> I don't see how they're comparable. I was editing Wikipedia to

generate relevancy points for my site and maybe some traffic.

Blogging is more comparable to sending out a newsletter, which is what

I do with my site. <<

Well, they aren't relevant if that is why you were participating in Wikipedia.

People who " wiki " as a form of hobby or recreation do it for the same reason I

blog: To get inside people's heads and change their minds about things. To

spread a message. That is the shared element I was referring to.

I suppose there are people who blog to increase hits to their websites or make

money or network or whatever, and I'm sure there are folks who participate in

Wikipedia for that reason too. But that hadn't even crossed my mind when I was

writing earlier. When I blog or, on the very rare occasions when I've made

contributions to Wikipedia, my sole motivation is to make a point or share

information in order to change how people see an issue.

Increasing hits to websites wasn't even remotely on my mind, and in all honesty,

- is that REALLY why you posted to Wikipedia? Weren't you trying to shed

some light on this subject?

As to the Dutch doctor, even if this guy is a trusted user... I forget what they

call that on Wikipedia, is it an administrator?... you may be able to override

him if you are persuasive and persistent enough. Wikipedia only has like three

paid employees, everyone else is just an obsessed volunteer. You could become an

administrator if you wanted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

For those who have no idea what we're talking about, I like this article from

Wired about Wikipedia:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

On 8/26/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

> Well, they aren't relevant if that is why you were participating in

> Wikipedia. People who " wiki " as a form of hobby or recreation do it for the

> same reason I blog: To get inside people's heads and change their minds

> about things. To spread a message. That is the shared element I was

> referring to.

Well that's essentially what having an information website does

anyway. It seems pretty clear to me, though, that to make any

transformation in someone's paradigm, it's necessary to introduce a

large base of content hitting at a single theme from varying angles,

which is what a website can do. A couple sentences in an encyclopedia

entry can only cause a paradigm shift insofar as it redirects people

to larger collections of content based around a certain paradigm, I

think.

> I suppose there are people who blog to increase hits to their websites or

> make money or network or whatever, and I'm sure there are folks who

> participate in Wikipedia for that reason too. But that hadn't even crossed

> my mind when I was writing earlier.

I think both blogging and Wiki-ing are pretty normal traffic-promoting

tools of webmasters. I'm sure the sheer number of hobby bloggers is

much larger, but I suspect that >99% of blogs generate negligible

traffic, and then less than 1% that play any significant role on the

net are the ones done by people who take blogging seriously as a

traffic-generating tool. As for making $$$, I would think commercial

links would be deleted on Wikipedia very quickly.

> When I blog or, on the very rare

> occasions when I've made contributions to Wikipedia, my sole motivation is

> to make a point or share information in order to change how people see an

> issue.

>

> Increasing hits to websites wasn't even remotely on my mind, and in all

> honesty, - is that REALLY why you posted to Wikipedia? Weren't you

> trying to shed some light on this subject?

I don't see any conflict. I made posts that used external citations

to Medline-indexed studies, and, where appropriate, Dr. Ravnskov's

website, THINCS, and my site. In general, the addition, I think, was

based around providing value to the reader, but was also seeded with

links that would help generate paradigm shifts (basically impossible

internal to Wikipedia), and would also help generate traffic for my

own site, which is reasonable compensation for the time I took to make

the valuable contribution (or to build my site!).

Obviously, the only way to generate any traffic to my site would be to

provide something valuable, and not centered around promoting my own

site, which is what I did.

> As to the Dutch doctor, even if this guy is a trusted user... I forget what

> they call that on Wikipedia, is it an administrator?

Yep.

>... you may be able to

> override him if you are persuasive and persistent enough. Wikipedia only has

> like three paid employees, everyone else is just an obsessed volunteer. You

> could become an administrator if you wanted to.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Yes, I was thinking of doing so. However, you need to apply, and I

don't think they accept you unless your postings have been

consistently conflict-free. I'm not sure if that means not deleted by

other administrators. It might be wise, if I wanted to do so, to post

new pages on obscure chemical intermediaries in cholesterol synthesis

or something, so I wouldn't be stepping on toes.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Chris

> Masterjohn

>

> Which indicates to me that someone is WATCHING the

> statins/cholesterol page. It really looks like the whole

> thing is done up by some pro-statin schmuck, and I'm

> wondering if someone's paid to sit there and edit the page or

> something!

I don't think it's necessary to posit a conspiracy to explain this one. True

believers are every bit as diligent as--and far more numerous than--paid

shills. And I gather that there are a number of Wikipedia articles that are

heavily politicized and have been hijacked by one faction or another to

promote their views. You could try taking it to dispute resolution, I guess,

though I'm not sure how helpful that would be, and I suspect that they might

frown on you linking to your own site.

[Guest guest]

On 8/27/05, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> I don't think it's necessary to posit a conspiracy to explain this one.

> True

> believers are every bit as diligent as--and far more numerous than--paid

> shills. And I gather that there are a number of Wikipedia articles that are

> heavily politicized and have been hijacked by one faction or another to

> promote their views. You could try taking it to dispute resolution, I

> guess,

> though I'm not sure how helpful that would be, and I suspect that they

> might

> frown on you linking to your own site.

Yes, you're right. The person controlling those two pages is a doctor

by profession but a Wiki-holic by hobby, and has created dozens if not

hundreds of pages and edited more. He essentially controlls those

pages himself.

The Wikipedia guidelines say it's fine to link to your own site, as

long as you consider whether or not someone else would have linked to

it had they been the one putting the links in.

Also, the second time I edited the page, the administrator kept the

link, and modified the description a little. I think he probably

would have kept it the first time, but I made so many changes that he

just reverted the page to its original form.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com