Background edit
As could be expected, a number of editors - with various points of view - are creating, editing, and very often disputing articles related to health. Since it is possible, though arguably not advisable, that readers consult Wikipedia on topics that relate to health care decisions, it is important that health-related controversies be treated in a consistent way.
The imperative edit
Wikipedia policies and guidelines adequately prescribe the kind of editing behavior we should expect from each other, but there is still a lot of unpleasantry on controversial issues within health topics. While it is acceptable, and perhaps good, that there is disagreement and dissent, we need a shared framework for creating really good articles from them.
Why a project? edit
Well, for several reasons:
- We do have a unified purpose, which is to inform the Wikipedia readership. Sure, we differ on what are the most salient facts and assertions, which sources to believe, and what conclusions are valid in light of everything else; but I think we can all hold ourselves up to that standard.
- This is a vast and complicated field. Any one editor, if he/she is honest with himself/herself, can contribute meaningfully to more than a few areas of interest, but we still want consistency across the whole area.
- Accuracy and precision are valued in the fields themselves, and this should be reflected in Wikipedia. Or to put it more bluntly: nothing discredits Wikipedia more than bad health-related articles.
- A good health-related article is very difficult to write. Editors who have dedicated themselves to a particular topic put in a lot of time to craft it well - the more we can minimize unnecessary conflict and contention, the better.
What would the project include? edit
A list of guidelines, suggestions, templates, tools, etc., should seek to resolve:
- Application of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view, including consideration of:
- How we characterize a controversy without engaging in it
- How we deal with majority, minority, and fringe points of view
- How we avoid rhetorical fallacies creeping in, keeping each other honest
- How we differentiate among types of controversies, i.e., ethical, medical, philosophical, etc.
- What it means to "write for the enemy" on these issues
- Application of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, including:
- How we characterize and use sources and other resources
- How we distinguish among the relevant sources, of which there are many in this field
- Application of no original research
- How to hold each other to high standards in the service of better articles, rather than engaging in personal attacks and other bad behavior
- How we deal consistently with certain attributes that are characteristic of this field, including (but not limited to)
- The evolving nature of the field - there is constant news of new findings, new hypotheses, etc.
- The diversity of points of view on virtually every area, ranging from the mainstream to the "out there."
- The confluence (and sometimes confusion) of science, ethics, public policy, politics, religion, etc., that can be found in the field
- And not least, the emotional content of these issues, from all points of view
Also, it would be helpful to keep track of articles that need help in various ways, whether it's an outright request for comment or moderation, or tags, or a lot of instability. Or, more benignly, that more expertise is needed to complete it.
--Leifern 17:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)