For context, these were found in queries to list all the anonymous edits from known CDC IP addresses (they accessed my blog from this IP, so I checked wikipedia and voila...): From "webcache1" from webcache2
-------------------- -- Niels Posts: 7 | From Corona del Mar, CA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
old text: "- The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission. Even short-term attachment can result in transmission of the disease. Also, improper tick removal can result in early disease transmission so it is very important to remove a tick properly."
new text: " The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission. The tick must be attached for >48 hours for transmission of the disease. Also, improper tick removal can result in early disease transmission so it is very important to remove a tick properly."
-------------------- -- Niels Posts: 7 | From Corona del Mar, CA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how those ticks know exactly when the 48 hrs is up!! THEN they let the germs flow through to the host.
Thanks for posting this. The Wikipedia war has been going on quite awhile.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96222 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
CaliforniaLyme
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 7136
posted
Thanks for the heads up*_)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------------- There is no wealth but life. -John Ruskin
All truth goes through 3 stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer Posts: 5639 | From Aptos CA USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
sparkle7
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10397
posted
Just goes to show you that you can't trust alot of what you read on the internet. It's best to cross-reference everything. Even then, you don't really know...
Sometimes, you have to rely on your intuition.
Posts: 7772 | From Northeast, again... | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia has been known to have a POV problem concerning controversial topics. That said...their colloidal silver article has become somewhat respectable.
Posts: 731 | From Humble,TX | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
CDC wikipedia has sure gone to crap over the last 5 months or so. The truth despisers are out in force I wish God would give those people a dose of there own medicine.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
quote:Originally posted by brentb: Wikipedia has been known to have a POV problem concerning controversial topics. That said...their colloidal silver article has become somewhat respectable.
their colloidal silver article has become somewhat respectable.
Its sliding under the radar brent give it time.
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
posted
But wikipedia's morgellons article sucks. On a disease that is linked in the literature to Lyme disease, they simply write-off everything those doctors say and disparage ILADS and Dr. Stricker w/ ad-hominem attacks in the process. Check out the lyme-denialism among most of the editors: (see end part) Quackwatch and Morgellonswatch being lyme denialists
what's happened is that the quackwatch folks and morgellonswatch have taken over the morgellons page, and have managed to bully off the truth. The article IMHO is strongly slanted towards making Morgellons patients look delusional. Basically the same "all in the head" diagnosis that people get for chronic lyme. THe odd thing is that after I noticed they chased off Ilena Rosenthal ( http://breastimplantawareness.org ), I sent her mail asking "what's up with those people" and she informed me of the quackwatch connection. So in case anybody wants to know how i ever got asociated with the great ilena rosenthal on wikipedia, defender of internet freedom of speech ( Barett v. Rosenthal ), by taking on quackwatch. Alas, quackwatch refuses to allow the truth regarding a lawsuit they lost to her to be printed on wikipedia, and instead have her banned. It is true irony that she's banned for attempting to correct libel on wikipedia against her, when she won a case to allow potentially libellous speech on the internet as part of free speech.
It turns out that if you even talk to a banned user on wikipedia, or forward a mail from that banned user, you are considered a proxy for that banned user, and banned yourself. If you end up in your "please unban me" message printing Ilena Rosenthal accusation that half the people editing the Morgellons page work for quackwatch, and those people have been instrumental in getting you banned, then you end up getting really really banned. :-) And then to boot, they somehow invoke a process called "Oversight" which allows corrupt administrators to delete anyting they want -- usually to coverup their corruption -- even though wikipedia is claimed "safe from takeover" because the truth can be found in old revisions and diffs stored on the site. Basically, the place operates like a mafia-run factory attempting to squash union organizers or whistleblowers.
-------------------- -- Niels Posts: 7 | From Corona del Mar, CA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
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.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[toilet]](graemlins/toilet.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic