|
hi there Anonymous User 80.60.71.117,
I believe your heart's in the right place but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia's Copyright Conditions. You can't just copy someone else's text into Wikipedia that's usually illegal, and even if it wasn't, you should give the reference you got the text from. Since it was such a large chunk of well-formed writing, I had a hunch that it had been pasted in from elsewhere. I found the text at
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mcs.html
- The Wikipedia article in general appears to me to be heavily based on the "quackwatch" source. Quackwatch is, to my understanding, neither an accredited research institute, nor an accredited body of health professionals, nor a publisher of peer-reviewed research articles. Its sole function appears to me to be, as the name would suggest, to debunk alternative health practices. Although its authors claim to follow scientific principles in their investigation, I find it impossible to know if that is in fact the case without looking at other sources. A source that aims simply to discover the truth rather than discredit another would, I think, be preferable. I would have thought that an article that looked at both sides of the issue and treated them with equal fairness would be better suited for Wikipedia. I know from first hand experience of them that many MCS sufferers will have a different account of things from what the Quackwatch article claims. In short, that is why I marked the article as having disputed POV. Hippogriff
but you probably found it at the pdf at the same site which you added to the list of links here.
I've posted a short message on your user "talk" page, but seeing you're new here, I'm not sure if you'll read that. You've done this same thing on several other pages as well.
Zuytdorp Survivor 15:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I've reverted the edit made by 80.60.71.117. As the previous article was not a violation, we can't just delete it, and there is currently no way of deleting individual revisions. Angela. 18:55, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see the old article back. It needs work, but it has value. Thanks, Angela! heidimo 15:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hi Angela, I think you misunderstood me. When I said "deletion" I was following the instructions on the copyright pages which instructed me to move the last good copy to Multiple chemical sensitivity/Temp - which I did - and then if no-one protested - to get the original page with the copyvio history deleted and the /Temp page put in its place. I got no comments on this copyvio at all (heidimo ?? ) so I wanted to move the /Temp version across. I know how to revert versions.
Zuytdorp Survivor 23:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hi ZS, I thought you were handling the situation and didn't see a need to comment on it. I think you were right in acting on the copyvio. So, are you going to move the temp version on, then? Maybe it's better than the cur
rent version. heidimo 02:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That's okay. The /Temp version seems to have been removed so I can't check it but I suspect that Angela's revert would have been to the same revision anyway. I kinda hoped that the anonymous user would come back and rewrite the
copyvio stuff but it didn't happen. Oh well.
Zuytdorp Survivor 04:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you read that, but the "last good copy" should never be moved to the temp page. This would be violating the GFDL as it removes attribution of the original authors. The temp page is only to be used if you want to completely start a new article, not for moving existing content to. The whole copyvio process described at Wikipedia:copyright problems is only for pages that need to be deleted. This does not apply to pages which have previous non-violating content. Angela. 01:36, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Ahh okay I understand now. I guess this comes back to not being able to delete individual revisions. If we were threatened with suit for copyright material being in our revision history we'd have to do something so major but while we're not, it's a good idea to try to always preserve the authors. I'll reread GFDL now. :) Zuytdorp Survivor 04:29, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- If we were threatened, then a developer could delete the revisions concerned. See also . Angela. 06:43, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
Grrr Anon User is back again, making multiple changes - adding an NPOV dispute message when there has been no discussion on this page. Still has apparently not learnt about Talk pages - how to contact?
If there has been no actual dispute then you can just remedy the bias yourself. If you think there would be heated reaction to such changes, come here and discuss it first. That's what you're supposed to do! I suspect I'd agree with this user's views but they're not being very co-operative at this stage.
Zuytdorp Survivor 14:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- ZS I suggest reverting it. heidimo 17:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- What of 's edits; do you think they're NPOV?
- I do not think those edits are NPOV. It looks like the same POV that's been hammering many articles on Alternative medicine topics lately. heidimo 20:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmmm it's tricky. Certainly everyone who knows something about an issue has an opinion. I don't really know much about MCS - followed one of the anon users here - but I'm starting to get a bit of an impression. I don't think 175's edit seems very biased. I'd like him/her to give a reference for the air & water test, and I plan to remove the sympathetic magic reference which is not a correct comparison. Sympathetic Magic is described as "looks like so cures like" - most commonly: phallic-looking vegetables allegedly curing impotence. Zuytdorp Survivor 23:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Exactly. You may be interested in the new project on Alternative medicine, which is attempting to deal with similar problems. Perhaps this article could be added to the list, when the list is ready for additions. I will probably bring it up, since I'm already signed on to the project, and watching this article. heidimo 15:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Non-standard header
This article has a bunch of stuff preceding the standard start of the article. This is not standard Wikipedia format, and I suggest removing it. Anyone with any experience with the Wiki ought to know that discussion of the article should go on the discussion page. If people violate that policy, we can revert it. Comments? heidimo 17:07, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Agreed.21:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
|
