Saturday, January 20, 2024

A #Netflix documentary, #Youtube reviews and a more #NPOV @Wikidata reaction

I really enjoyed watching "You are what you eat", a Netflix four part documentary based on research of the differences found between a vegan and an omnivorous diet in identical twins. The results of this research can be found in a paper called "Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins". 

The documentary has several story lines, one is about the research itself, another informs about participants in the study and finally we are informed about the industry that produces our food. The chosen participants are a vehicle for the story, there were chefs, athletes cheese aficionados and people from other cultures (seen from an US-American perspective). What people eat is produced so we are informed about the food industry. The picture painted is not pretty but based in facts.

On YouTube there are several "reviews" and now some reviews as well. All of the "reviews" are really disappointing because they express expectations that are not realistic. The program is NOT about only the science and it is NOT giving equal weight to the production of fish or meat. The results of the research are favorable to a vegan diet and the documentary provides information on what is available when less or no meat is eaten. It is why we learn about the quality of vegan cheese and meat products. Great cheeses and a biltong that is not meat based are explored by participants of the study. 

I found the YouTube "reviews" disappointing because they came across as hatchet jobs. When they consider the documentary biased, it finds its basis in the bias of the reviewer and not necessarily on the results of the research. When it is said that these reviews were requested by "so many people", it feels like that people in the agro business exposed their hand. 

Wikipedia has the article on the documentary and it has an article on the principal author of the paper. They have an appropriate neutral point of view.

My Wikidata reaction is that I added the paper to Wikidata, I added many of its authors and many of the papers cited as references and to be brutally honest, seen from within Wikidata it looks awful, it is one dimensional, it is unusable. However thanks to tools the full impact of available information becomes available. Scholia is my preferred tools for science. This is the Scholia for the paper.

Saturday, January 06, 2024

A Scholia for "water fluoridation"

Some topics are poisonous. People have a set point of view; hell or high water they will budge from their position. Even Wikipedia with its "neutral point of view" makes no dent in their preoccupation. So why argue?

Wikipedia is known for its references to sources and Wikidata is great at connecting these sources together. Particularly scholarly papers with a "DOI" may link to authors, cites works and works citing a paper. When a paper is of particular interest, you can expand the information in all these ways.

So I did not get into an argument about "water fluoridation", I included papers mentioned to Wikidata. I linked some papers with "water fluoridation" in its title to the subject. I attributed papers to authors including one by the Surgeon General of the United States..

Everything that was done on the subject is reflected in the Scholia for the subject. It suffices for me as my participation in an endless argument.

Thanks, GerardM