Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
HighThis page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Using Wikiversity as reference in Wikipedia

A corresponding discussion in Wikiversity is found at: Wikiversity beta:Wikiversity talk:Scope of research/En#13. Wikiversity as reference for Wikipedia?. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about using Wikiversity pages that have undergone the process of Wikiversity:Peer review as references in Wikipedia can be found at: Talk page of "Identifying reliable sources". I think that it can, in summary, be said that a peer review in Wikiversity does not in itself qualify as being a reliable source, so will apparently be decided on a case-by-case basis. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary of the above discussion is far too generous to Wikiversity. Wikiversity-based sources are considered no more reliable than other wiki-based pages, and in general material on Wikiversity should be treated with the same level of trust (i.e., generally very little) as any other self-published source. The reliability and robustness of Wikiversity's 'peer review' process is untested. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it acceptable to wait until we can re-evaluate the reliability of Wikiversity's peer reviewed works. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems recent discussions have basically come to the same conclusion, that inclusion in Wikiversity does not in itself make a source reliable for usage in Wikipedia:
Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usage up until now

I'm about to suggest at discussions above that every usage of Wikiversity articles as sources in Wikipedia first needs an entry at this talk page. To make the current cases conform to this rule, I'm listing them below. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference ranges for hormones in menstrual cycle

The article Wikiversity:Reference ranges for estradiol, progesterone, luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone during the menstrual cycle is used as a reference for the corresponding diagrams found at:

Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differential diagnosis

The article Wikiversity:An epidemiology-based and a likelihood ratio-based method of differential diagnosis is used in the article Differential diagnosis to explain the corresponding methods. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference range

The article Wikiversity:Establishment and clinical use of reference ranges is used in the Reference range article to describe their establishment and use. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allogeneic component in interspecific pregnancy

The article Wikiversity:Allogeneic component to overcome rejection in interspecific pregnancy is used in the Interspecific pregnancy article to generalize the mechanism of an allogeneic component to overcome rejection in such pregnancies. It is also used in this article, as well as in the Immunosurgery article to explain the method of immunosurgery. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using steroidogenesis article as reference

I propose using this Wikiversity article as a reference in the suggested diagrams, since this is the current file usage as seen at the image description page. Linking to the Wikiversity article asserts that the image has undergone peer review, and avails for a more detailed description of the development of the article than can conveniently be done at the image description page in Commons. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no... Wikiversity article's are not considered reliable sources... no matter how "peer reviewed" they might be. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you thus saying that it is better to have no reference at all when displaying these diagrams? Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia should not be using diagrams at all unless they can be reliably sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are you thus saying that we should delete the diagram from all the Wikipedia articles listed above? Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the WikiProject Medicine is the target at which the rest of this discussion should take place: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#.22Nomination.22_of_steroidogenesis_article_in_Wikiversity_to_be_used_as_reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location for "nominations"

(Header was added by me after entry below to separate from previous discussion) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, when not conducted on the relevant article talk page, should be conducted on the reliable sources noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a separate discussion on the proper location of these discussions, since I think this page is the optimal place, and I believe there are others who think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine would be the optimal place for issues relating to that subject. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I split this section into a separate one now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the 'optimal place' to hold discussions about matters concerning reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. We have a noticeboard specifically for that purpose. Nothing decided on this talk page will alter the fact that, per Wikipedia policy, we do not accept Wikis as sources. If you wish to propose that the policy be changed, do so at the appropriate place. Meanwhile, per policy, any Wikiversity material cited on Wikipedia will be rejected as unreliably sourced. This isn't open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to copy the entry of RexxS at corresponding entry at WikiProject Medicine: "That's not strictly true. WP:Identifying reliable sources #Medical claims shows WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as the {{main}} page for that specific context. And MEDRS is quite clear:
  • "See the reliable sources noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources or ask at relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology."
Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - but it doesn't alter the facts that (a) this isn't an appropriate place for such discussions, and (b) that, per policy, Wikipedia doesn't cite Wikis as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is the wrong place, and local Wikiprojects can't override consensus at RSN. That's established. This talk page is to discuss this article. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is the wrong place for the discussion. It seems WikiProjectMedicine has become the most active discussion in this case, but I promise I won't make a nomination like this one without also leaving a note at the reliable sources noticeboard. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?

Discussion about an article on Wikiversity that really doesn't belong here - it has no bearing on Wikipedia content AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods
Peer review

Since Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is not yet acceptable as a reference itself, its main function is now to be an entry point for texts and images that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right. I think that qualification is best discussed even before publication in this journal, and therefore I will now make entries on this page for new submissions to the journal, starting with the most recently peer reviewed submission, Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods:

  • I support the inclusion of this article in the journal. As mentioned in the peer review, I think it can be used to make a list article in Wikipedia, adding to the collection of such lists at Medical eponyms. I don't think such a list in Wikipedia needs to be restricted to pediatric conditions and findings. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the sources are primary in nature. Thus hard to say how much traction some of these terms have received. Also would drop the "pediatric" bit. Some of these terms are used in all ages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion about this article is located at:


Why is Wikiversity content being discussed on Wikipedia? We aren't going to cite this article, per long-established policy, and any Wikipedia article on the subject of 'medical conditions and findings named after foods' would need to comply with normal Wikipedia policies - most obviously, evidence from published reliable sources that 'medical conditions and findings named after foods' was a notable subject. This cannot of course be demonstrated by simply compiling such a list - we need in-depth discussion of it as a topic in reliable sources. Which frankly I have my doubts will be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


We concur with AndyTheGrump that Wikiversity content in this particular instance is best not discussed on Wikipedia. We however do not concur with the other views because Wikipedia already has pages that cover food-related medical terms, for example, Blueberry muffin baby, Cherry-red spot, Maple syrup urine disease, Mulberry molar, Port-wine stain and Prune belly syndrome (the subject is notable). In addition food-related medical terms are subjects in well respected journals such as the The Lancet[1] [2] which is a published reliable source. There are further numerous examples of food-related medical terms appearing as a subject besides the cited examples.
The article/table already appears in a published reliable source, the Malta Medical Journal[3], meaning it can be cited.
Wikipedia guidelines do not proscribe primary sources as Doc James might have implied. It is stated that, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible". Because this discussion as higlighted by AndyTheGrump pertains to Wikiversity, primary sources are preferred according to the December 2014 ICMJE recommendations which are followed by virtually all the reputed journals in the world, "Authors should provide direct references to original research sources whenever possible." The terms mentioned occur predominantly but not exclusively in the pediatric age group, it is not unusual to classify these terms by medical specialty[4]. LK and GM Part (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware that Wikipedia has articles on individual medical conditions etc named after foods. That is beside the point when discussing the notability of lists however. A Wikipedia list of such medical conditions would require evidence that 'medical conditions named after foods' had been discussed as a group in reliable sources to the extent that it met our notability guidelines. The Wikiversity article cites one such source Food for thought: Palatable eponyms from Pediatrics, [1] but I'm not sure that would be sufficient on its own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response AndyTheGrump. As you highlighted yourself, this discussion is about Wikiversity content. We are debating the inclusion of the article into the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine and not into Wikipedia. Like you, we are not sure why this discussion should be done here because it is not consistent with widely accepted standards for peer-review. You seem to imply that we provide only one source of such lists, which is not true. LK and GM Part (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ Baeza-Trinidad, Ramón; de La Cuesta-López, Mirian Ruiz (2014). "Chocolate-coloured serum in methaemoglobinaemia". The Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62011-0. ISSN 0140-6736.
  2. ^ Mestres, Carlos-A; Toshani, Abdulhafiz; Hemdan, Abdulsamee; Alewa, Alewa M; Bernal, José M (2011). "Hydatid pericardial tamponade: a grape soup". The Lancet. 377 (9780): 1862. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61154-3. ISSN 0140-6736.
  3. ^ Kipersztok Lisa, Masukume Gwinyai (2014). "Food for thought: Palatable eponyms from Pediatrics". Malta Medical Journal. 26 (4): 46–50. ISSN 2308-4103.
  4. ^ Masukume, Gwinyai (2012). "Food for thought". Croatian Medical Journal. 53 (1): 77–79. doi:10.3325/cmj.2012.53.77. ISSN 0353-9504.

|}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aerococcus urinae case

Article: A case of Aerococcus urinae
Peer review: Wikiversity:Talk:A case of Aerococcus urinae

As mentioned in the peer review of this article, I took the photos for this article, and therefore I may be too directly involved in it to have any kind of vote in favor for it. The purpose of this article is to provide images for the Wikipedia article on Aerococcus urinae (which doesn't have any images yet), as well as providing more information about the actual case for anyone who wants to know more about the origin of the images. I doubt I would have gotten these images if it wasn't for Wikiversity Journal, much so to the fact that it is much easier to get other people involved by suggesting to make a "publication" rather than to make an "upload to Wikimedia Commons for possible inclusion in Wikipedia", and as such I think it's a good example for how Wikiversity Journal can benefit Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is clear - we don't cite Wikis as sources. Please stop misusing this page as a platform for promoting your own content. The only appropriate subject for this talk page is material directly relating to the Wikipedia article on Wikiversity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I choose to post article submissions in Wikipedia at all is to make it easier for Wikipedia users like yourself to keep a watch of what is going on. I find it acceptable to keep discussions about article submissions in Wikiversity alone, but they will affect Wikipedia, so it would make Wikipedia users having to frequently check their Wikiversity watchlists too. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Mikael Häggström. Appreciate the post. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post Mikael Häggström. I don't see any issue with discussing anything which may be even remotely relevant to Wikipedia here. We constantly discuss Wikidata etc. over at WP:MED. Also I think AndyTheGrump misunderstands the question at hand. The guidelines are not so set in stone, and I think they are misinterpreting what "wiki" means in this context.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's nevertheless not optimal to have these discussions at a page that is in fact intended to function as a rather technical guide to e.g. link to Wikiversity. I like the idea of having a subpage at WikiProject Medicine, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Wikiversity_Journal for these discussions. It would allow for easier overview of the submissions to the journal. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Wikiversity_Journal page is now up, this discussion is continued there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiversity"