Benutzer:MBq/Cochrane Wien2015

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie
Zur Navigation springen Zur Suche springen

Material für meta:Meta:Cochrane-Wikipedia Symposium 2015

de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Medizin[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

„Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education.“

de.wp is different[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Categories[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Multihierarchic category tree (we use enumerated and faceted classifications, but both of them are strictly hierarchic organized) vs free tags/keywords. Precise distinction of theme- and object-cats (example: Kategorie:Rhein). The root cat Kategorie:!Hauptkategorie contains systematics by place, time, and things. It's more complicated than the english tree, and it connects all articles in a predictable manner. (Makes playing 5 clicks to Jesus too easy.) Some users have specialized on categorizing and formed a wikiproject, which maintains the basic tree and supports categorizing the special subjects, if needed.

Apart from that, the distant branches look very much alike. Compare en:Category:Medicine to de:Kategorie:Medizin.

  • Category:Rhine
    Category:Rhine
  • Kategorie:Rhein
    Kategorie:Rhein

Criteria of notability[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

We use a very very differentiated system of notability rules that have been thoroughly discussed for individual institutions, markets, professions, associations, and so on. Most editors use this system primarily to exclude self-promotions, vanity articles, and advertising. (All geographic objects, and even remote scientific items are readily accepted. And there seems to be a notability bonus for state-owned companies like hospitals.) Generally, we focus on public interest, en.wp focuses on reliable sources. Compare "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" (en) to "Die Entscheidung für oder gegen die Aufnahme in eine Enzyklopädie richtet sich auch danach, ob Personen, Ereignisse oder Themen mit aktuell breiter Öffentlichkeitswirkung nach sinnvollem Ermessen auch zeitüberdauernd von Bedeutung sein werden" / (inclusion depends on whether people, events or topics with current publicity will also keep an outlasting importance) (de).

Since reliable sources are written by people that are interested in the subject, but not personally involved, the difference is smaller than it seems. If any, differences seem to come from our different living environments. Compare the articles in en:Category:Radiologists to those in de:Kategorie:Radiologe.

Translations[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Many users engage in translating wikipedia articles they take from our other langugage versinos, i.e. from en.wp to de.wg. This is a very appreciated work. In translating other authors' texts, we have to comply to our licenses CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Both licenses demand that every author is named next to the article, and his contributions are assigned to him (no matter real name or nick).

WMF and most chapters believe they can observe this requirement by placing a permanent link to the translation source in the translated article's history. This is exactly what our new and shiny translation tool [2] does.

In german wikipedia, we want to have a complete history of the foreign, i.e. english source article inserted in our article's history. The history should be "imported" prior or after the translation. It is a tedious task fulfilled by a few specialized Sysops and pretty confusing for new users.

As far as I know, we are the only community with this strong requirement. Others reserve the import function for articles originating from other, not WMF-owned projects.

Sometimes our standard is disputed [3], but nevertheless has remained unchanged for many years. At least it does no harm, beside consuming the importers' time.

Contestations[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Can we trust each other?[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Are Cochrane reports the best possible source? Compare Villar et al. 2002 [4], Lenzer 2013 [5]

Mass deworming[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

http://www.evidenceaction.org/dewormtheworld/

6 Cochrane reviews
  • #1, 2000: "There is some limited evidence that routine treatment of children in areas where helminths are common has small effects on weight gain, but this is not consistent between trials. There is insufficient evidence to know whether this intervention improves cognitive performance."
  • #4, 2012: "Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small."
  • #6, 23. July 2015: "There is now substantial evidence that this does not improve average nutritional status, haemoglobin, cognition, school performance, or survival."
Reactions
  • Givewell 2015: "While we think that replicating and challenging studies is a good thing, it looks in this case like there was an aggressive media push... The new Cochrane review continues to exclude the studies we see as key to this question... We think it’s a particular mistake to analyze the evidence in this case without respect to the cost of the intervention."
  • Givin what we can 2015: "Our previous recommendation on has not changed significantly since we made it. At this stage we will continue to list the Deworm the World Initiative as one of our ‘Promising Charities’, while investigating the implications of this Review further."
  • World Bank 2015: "The WHO recommends mass treatment once or twice a year in regions where worm prevalence is above 20% and above 50%, respectively... Our analysis suggests that the WHO recommendations are justified on human rights, welfare economics, and cost-effectiveness grounds."
Wikipedia

Mammography screening[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

5 Cochrane reviews:
  • #1, 2001: "The currently available reliable evidence does not show a survival benefit of mass screening for breast cancer."
  • #5, 2013: " The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years."
Reactions
  • UPSTF 2009: "The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women 50-74 years."
  • WHO Position paper 2014: "In well-resourced settings, WHO recommends 1 organized, populationbased mammography screening programmes for women aged 50−69 years."
Wikipedia

Participation[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Licenses[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]

Since our content is produced by unpaid, voluntary contributors, we strongly desire it is, and remains free accessible to all inhabitants of our planet. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."(J. Wales 2004) Speaking frankly, we'd like you to consider, and probably adopt this idea in your project. [6]

„Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms.“

„Click on 'quick price' to get a quote.“

Abgerufen von „https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:MBq/Cochrane_Wien2015&oldid=240276432“