Edited to add - Probably won't make any difference since it's the same page/link. Can you get to any other wiki pages?
Terry
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
If anyone wants an original copy, I kept one from back in the end of 2006. Some new data will need to be added but the core of the data is there, including all references.
I record everything I come across, because I don't trust anyone to maintain the integrity of information.
Anyone who wishes to receive a copy may do so, -- it's perfectly in-line with the truth before the IDSA began their campaign to edit.
Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :
You would think that people with professional degrees and careers would not have time to sit around doing this kind of stuff. Nothing professional about this behavior. Wonder if they are doing it on company time? But then the "companies" have been so corrupted, who knows what they allow nowadays.
Anyone who thinks universities and govt health agencies are the place to get accurate information and honest behavior never had chronic lyme.
Posted by Starfall1969 (Member # 17353) on :
I personally can't stand wiki, for much of anything important.
I have seen entries with false or incomplete information, and it just kind of irritates me that virtually anyone can go in and edit.
That is how it works, right? That's what I was told.
But yeah, it is irritating, to say the least, taht people are getting false informatioon about Lyme now from wiki.
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
In my prior post I mentioned I had an accurate version of the original article we had from 2006. We can reestablish correct data using this template. If you visit Wikipedia, you'll find the IDSA has completely absorbed our data, so let's get started.
Since we're starting from scratch again:
Teamwork:
We should put a team together to re-establish the original post. Each of us should pick a section and then one person should be responsible for the final edit to make sure all references are correctly linked to the correct citation, and that the table of contents and grammar are accurate. The key isn't to erase everything and replace it, but rather to reincorporate the correct data that "balances" the circumstances.
Individual Responsibility
Each person may choose two sections here. I will list the Table Of Contents for the original 2006 Update, and you can choose the one you want. I will also post the 2009 Table Of Contents which you will also choose a section that corresponds to your first. If a section is unique to only one version, such as the 2009 version has a section for "Documentary" -- you can choose to do just one alone.
Accuracy, Ethics, Credibility
It will be your job to accurately re-update the data using the old information and to then compare it with the latest IDSA altered data. You may keep some IDSA data if the facts support it's relevancy in the debate. Have integrity and support all facts with sources from both sources of the IDSA and ILADS. Ethics is crucial. Do not bias your data, because trust me, others will be reviewing what you write and it must reflect truth and facts.
2006 Version
Here was the original table of contents of the NOVEMBER 7th Update on WikiPedia Topic Lyme Disease.
Contents * 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Acute (early) symptoms that may occur ........o 1.2 Chronic (late) symptoms
* 2 Transmission ........o 2.2 Transmission by ticks ........o 2.3 Congenital Lyme disease ........o 2.4 Other modes of transmission
* 3 Microbiology ........o 3.1 Strains ........o 3.2 Genomic characteristics ........o 3.3 Structure and growth ........o 3.4 Mechanisms of persistence
* 4 Diagnosis * 5 Prognosis * 6 Treatment
* 7 The Lyme controversy ........o 7.1 Two standards of care ........o 7.2 The CDC case definition ........o 7.3 Testing ........o 7.4 Long-term antibiotic therapy .....................*7.4.1 Evidence from controlled studies .....................*7.4.2 Evidence from uncontrolled studies .....................*7.4.3 Implications for treatment
* 8 Prevention ........o 8.1 Proper Removal of Ticks
* 9 Ecology
* 10 Epidemiology
* 11 History
* 12 References
* 13 External links
2009 Version
Here was the original table of contents of the 2009 Update on WikiPedia Topic Lyme Disease.
Contents
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Stage 1 - Early localized infection ........o 1.2 Stage 2 - Early disseminated infection ........o 1.3 Stage 3 - Late persistent infection
Choose Corresponding Section of 2006 ver. with 2009 ver.
This is a review: Once you choose your content page section for the original 2006 section, you must then choose a corresponding section from the 2009 contents. Your job is to connect them, organize them, extract useful data to make them balanced and useful to readers who may come to Wikipedia as their source of information on this disease. Again, you may add new updated information to your section that is not available on the section I give you, but it must be cited, credible, and honest.
Example of sections chosen and what to post once you've made your decision.
REMEMBER, all updates are posted on another thread. Here is the link:
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Acute (early) symptoms that may occur ........o 1.2 Chronic (late) symptoms
"I chose the corresponding section for the 2009 version:
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Stage 1 - Early localized infection ........o 1.2 Stage 2 - Early disseminated infection ........o 1.3 Stage 3 - Late persistent infection
As you can see, one person would cover all these sections and edit them. You may choose bigger sections like these, or a smaller section for those who don't feel they can manage bigger sections. A smaller section might be:
"I chose Prognosis from the 2006 version"
* 5 Prognosis
"I chose Prognosis from the 2009 version"
* 7 Prognosis
Who Is Keeping Track?
We are. There will be a main editor, but it's up to each of you individually to work on your individual section and to them contact the editor once finished. Do not post your actual entire section here when finished, you will go to the webpage at the very bottom of this article to update us and to post which sections you chose. When you finish your version post it to Wiki, and then post the title of your section on a thread called "Wikipedia Battle In Full Swing" -- you'll find the link at the bottom of this post.
Let's Begin
So who wants to begin? Take your time with your update. Write it out in Word, Notepad -- or whatever you wish, and keep a copy of it until you're ready to finalize the data. Once finished, you can PM the person here who decides to handle the editing process. This way the changes are done incrementally on the Wiki page, not all at once, which would send a signal. I realize by discussing this here publicly, that it may raise a red flag, but suffice to say it's the best course of action.
Summary
*1: Choose your contents section from the original 2006 data. *2: Choose a second section from the content section of the 2009 data. *3: When you finish choosing your content section go to the thread titled "Wikipedia Battle In Full Swing" -- you'll find the link at the bottom of this post. *4: Fuse the two contents sections you chose from 2006 and 2009. Fuse them together using credible sources and intelligent writing. Do not speculate. Your data must rely on studies, and resources supporting both sides of the debate. *5: Contact the primary editor by PM and revise the data until it reflects accurate data that helps our cause while also being ethical and objective. *6: Once your section has been revised with the editor, notify us with a quick note that your section has been posted. Members should not attempt to continue revision at this time.
Most Important: Lead Editor
Who is up for the challenge of handling the entire editing process? Your job will be to work with each person who comes to you with their individual section. You will read and review both copies of the original 2006 and 2009 Wikipedia entry, and to be reasonable and ethical about it's application when the individual hands in their version.
Scientific Journal Background
My choice for an editor would be Oxygenbabe by default if she were still here and still willing. Someone with a scientific journalism background would be most helpful, though anyone confident in meeting the challenge can accept.
How To Review Copies Of 2006 Version and 2009 Version
To receive the original copies of the 2006 version and the 2009 version:
This thread will be where you document which sections you chose and all information will go here: Anything having to do with the Wikipedia team project should go to this post below.
[ 03-25-2009, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: METALLlC BLUE ]
Posted by TerryK (Member # 8552) on :
I don't rely on wiki to be accurate either but I know there are many people who don't know that it can be edited by anyone and that the info should be suspect.
Apparently organized editing by a group of people is not allowed and our side of the argument lost because many of the posters who were adding a more balanced view were banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyme_disease
Terry
Posted by lakes592 (Member # 18905) on :
I wish we had some hackers on or side...Wiki...IDSA site...Could be a good time. Aww wishful thinking. j/k Posted by Cold Feet (Member # 9882) on :
Well, my friends, Wiki has anticipated your "community" action and frowns upon you all working together. It's OK if you are the IDSA, working behind closed doors, making financial deals, dictating their lies...
...but it is not OK if you "recruit" Wiki editors publicly and transparently on Lymenet.
This is from the discussion tab of the same Wiki topic:
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
I'm so disgusted with Wikipedia that I don't trust anything there anymore. Factual material about some contemporary homeopaths just disappeared, for instance. Personally, though I understand the outrage and the fact that so many people don't realize it's a free-for-all as to what get published, I think any effort to correct anything there is just futile.
What about concentrating on another site like Citizendium.org? This is the OTHER site started in 2006? by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia. Supposed to be more reliable, requires real names for all contributors, doesn't allow real-time editing, articles are `approved', etc. I don't know, just suggesting.... There's very little about Lyme there at the moment.....
Then someone named Tim Vickers deleted it. By syllogistic reasoning, it's true what's been shared here on so many posts through the years:
- open discussion on Wikipedia is a threat to the very ``definition'' of the Lyme disease problem; - people do monitor Wiki entries doggedly and obsessively; far worse (meaning more collective energy) than the very people they alienate (patients); - something is really, really wrong with this whole situation.
Folks, don't stop trying to change the ``real'' definition of the problem. Adding an eternal link is not a violation of the Wiki policy! Who are these nutty zealots that seek to control this public discourse?!
Apparently, certain posters are "blocked" after posting something controversial -- so much for the Wiki approach of "democracy."
Fascinating. Scary. Sad.
Posted by n.northernlights (Member # 17934) on :
Here is the history of the wiki page on lyme, and one can scroll down to see who edits it, amongst them this tim vickers. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyme_disease&action=history Someone keeps putting back erythema chronicum migrans. Good.
Posted by pryorka (Member # 13649) on :
It's very possible Tim Vickers is associated with IDSA. It's strange that the guy can be so "accomplished" but somehow all he does is edit wikipedia all day. If you read his user page it certainly sounds like he's involved with infectious disease doctors here in the U.S. But that's wikipedia... any idiot can write anything. The babesia page is a real shame because I tried to add that it can be spread by blood transfusions and blood donations...Tim Vickers didn't like that either... I hope he catches it.
A professor of mine always told us he'd give us a zero on any paper that referenced wikipedia....now I know why.
Posted by JKMMC09 (Member # 15795) on :
It's horrible how "they" have taken over the Wiki site, that many people refer to for info.
Here is what the site looked like before... great info..
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)