#Wikidata - Never heard of "R Andrew Moore"?

When quality in scientific papers, papers that are to be used as sources in Wikipedia, is important, it is relevant to include the papers published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

For one author, R Andrew Moore, I invoked the QuickStatementsBot and he added Mr Moore, added some 131 links to publications. It was a subset of what could be done but hey I already felt I was living dangerously.

When you then have Scholia look at Mr Moore for missing information .. there is a lot. But there is so much information.  In the diagram you see his co-author graph, and you will also find that Mr Moore published 123 times for Cochrane.

There are many publications and arguably we may want them all when we are to share the sum of all knowledge. Not all publications are equal and  Cochrane is special because it reviews what is published elsewhere; their bottom line is not commercial, their motto is Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. It is what aligns best with what we aim to do.

As I learn how to add authors who published for Cochrane, I will do maybe one a day. When other people take an interest, slowly but surely meta data on research gains relevance in Wikidata and with a little help of our Wikipedia friends we will provide better information.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikimedia and #Cochrane - sharing resources and sharing results

Jane Falconer, a medical librarian, wrote a real interesting blog post. She writes about the importance of reliable information to front line health professionals and stresses the importance of systematic reviews that are conducted according to recognised and tested methodologies.

The big problem: what to include in the systematic review, and what to exclude in projects like are PRISMA and Cochrane. This is the same problem we face when we seek sources for Wikipedia articles and, the Wikimedia solution to provide sources is the "The Wikipedia Library Card Platform".

Cochrane and the Wikimedia Foundation are partners and one scenario I can see is one where this partnership is intensified. When Cochrane shares its results with Wikidata, they can have all the data of Wikidata anyway the quality and the relevance of the Wikidata data improves. When Cochrane volunteers may share the Library Card Platform, it would bring a major contribution to the volunteers at Cochrane. The relevance of the data at Wikidata will improve substantially. This in turn will help us verify the content of medical information and the quality of the sources in all our Wikipedias.
Thanks,
     GerardM

#Wikidata - There is no such thing as a free lunch

Mrs Adriane Fugh-Berman wrote a paper called "Why lunch matters: Assessing physicians' perceptions about industry relationships". There is no such thing as a free lunch and arguably this is exactly what Wikidata is offering to the bio-medical industry.

All the bio-medical papers find their home in Wikidata and there is no mechanism, there is nothing to indicate the many erroneous papers, there is nothing to indicate that specific substances have been banned from use as a medical substance. When Wikipedia is to use Wikidata for information it will be so bad.

Mr Martin Keller is a psychatrist whose reputation was for sale. "His" paper Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial has been thoroughly debunked.

At Wikidata there seems to be the notion that facts like this are an affront to its neutrality. It is why there is no mention on the item for Mr Keller; "significant event" "ghostwriting author" was removed.

The problem is that without sufficient debunking potential for ghostwriting authors, their products and their ill effect, there is no possibility to establish the veracity of the bio-medical facts that have been imported in Wikidata. It is vital to the integrity of the Wikidata project that the Mr Kellers of this world are seen for what they are: frauds.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - the conflict of interest in medical information

According to the clinical evidence handbook only 12% of the 2500 most prebscribed substances and treatments by doctors are not proven effective. There is a massive conflict of interest when unsubstantiated facts are allowed in Wikidata. Arguments like "it is NPOV" are used to defend the practice or "it is harmful for patients" when they can find out that a substance is no better than a placebo but does have negative side effects.

When an external source knows about a substance, it is fine to link to that source. This is not the same as importing the data wholesale particularly when the data is so obviously categorically problematic.

The Wikimedia Foundation has a responsibility and it is not in indicating what substances are prescribed. When we are to include information it is not on the basis that it has been approved for use but on the basis of that it is actually proven to be beneficial. An error rate of 12% on such vital information is not acceptable.
Thanks,
      GerardM

#Wikidata - Should it include #medicines

A Dutch article indicates that only 12% of the 2500 most prescribed medicines deserve the label "proven effective". It cites the British Medical Journal; the findings are in the Clinical Evidence Handbook.  The article describes a practice where pharmaceutical companies churn out "papers" that are to prove efficacy; papers published by what are effectively marketing companies.

At Wikidata a bot is registering chemicals that are registered as being recognised as a medicine. Arguably, when only 12% is effective it is better not to register such notions. It is potentially harmful. It also suggests that medicines mentioned in Wikipedia need to be checked against the Clinical Evidence Handbook.

In the article it is mentioned that it is a common practice for "scientists" to lend their names to such publications. It contaminates everything such "academics" stand for and it deserves a mention in both Wikipedia and Wikidata.
Thanks,
       GerardM

RNA Biology

The magazine RNA biology announced that they are requiring researchers publishing research on families of RNA molecules in the journal to write a Wikipedia article summarising their findings. The notion is that the paper in the magazine is original research and the Wikipedia article that will also be peer reviewed, will be a summary.

There are several problems:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia with different subjects linked by hyperlinks. It is not a collection of summaries of scientific articles. This means that information that is relevant in one research paper is likely to find a home in many Wikipedia articles. This makes a traditional peer review, where the review takes place before publication, problematic if not impossible.
  
• The proposed Wikipedia article is a summary of a scientific paper. Scientific papers do not provide a neutral point of view and they should not be neutral. For Wikipedia NPOV is essential and people get banned for pushing their point of view.
• The subject matter is so specialised that a typical Wikipedia admin will not be able to judge it. This allows for a lot of misunderstandings and conflict.
• Writing a scientific article and writing a Wikipedia article requires different skills. Wikipedia serves the general public and its articles should reflect this. A different vocabulary, a different style of writing is required.

I think there is a need for more discussion before this actually starts happening.
Thanks,
GerardM

NB the article that proposes this is a paid for article in Nature, there is also a press release about this.