User:Postpostmod/sandbox

The problem of minority views being labelled as "fringe" (as in lunatic) and then derided is a real one. I think it's very common, and I think it violates the NPOV pillar. Setting up the Moon/Cheese example as a strawman is too easy and dismissive. In real life, there are plenty of minority views that are both notable and reasonable. Many of them are demonstrably more factual than the "mainstream" story, which often inclines toward lowest-common-denominator appeal, or represents outright manipulation by marketers, ideologues, etc. (examples on request).

A more instructive example would be, say, the history of a war of conquest, written by victors who have a strong financial and cultural interest in making themselves feel good about what happened. They don't feel that they're "lying" - but the story they tell should be suspected, simply because the authors are so deeply attached to it. It would be surprising if the victors were, en masse, committed to telling an NPOV story about a recent (or worse, ongoing) war, given that they're humans and not Vulcans.

If a group of individuals were committed to producing an NPOV story (and that's what we're supposed to be doing at WP), the way to do it would be to launch a slow and deliberate search for unvarnished facts, while consciously striving to recognize and compensate for our inevitable biases. It would require extensive interviewing of bystanders and losers of the war, and a sincere and vigorous search for evidence that supports their version of the story, even if we're biased against it. Otherwise, we'll never attain NPOV.

I've been working on this, and what I'm finding is that the conventions of drama (that is, entertainment value) usually trump NPOV. In telling a simple story, you need at least one good guy (or group) and one bad guy, and you have to set them up in conflict with each other. And one side has to win. People are left unsatisfied by a tie or a stalemate. (Think of spectator sports, and how the rules are engineered to ensure that ties are broken - often by rather arbitrary means.)

There's an essay somewhere in WP, making the case that WP articles should be "boring". In other words, the dramatic conventions requiring "good (correct) guys" vs "bad (incorrect) guys" don't apply, when plausible minority narratives need to be presented. That may be counterintuitive, to people who edit and read WP with a fixed POV that the majority view is almost always "correct" in a permanent sense, rather than a contingent one. In my experience, "consensual reality" is a mixed bag, and is not extremely reliable.

Searching out the real facts behind popular stories can be extremely interesting, and plausible stories can be held in a provisional matter alongside alternatives. But that's the hallmark of mature scholarship, which is a minority POV. You might even say it's "fringe". ;-)

I like the idea of separate articles for minority views, which would allow for detailed treatment of the rationale and facts supporting the view. But I think in many cases, a group of editors who believe in the "one, true (majority) view" would either delete it as a POV fork, or ruin it by inserting propaganda for their view. And they would succeed, simply because they are the majority. Feeling enriched, rather than threatened, by multiple points of view seems to be quite rare. But I keep hoping to be proved wrong on that.

Best regards to all, happy editing, Postpostmod (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, 

I had a great time birding in southeastern Arizona. We saw 92 species, 46 of which were new to us. I'd never really visited the desert before. The scenery is so different there - it's like going to the moon, for someone used to a much moister climate. 

Maybe you didn't notice, I've conceded. The paragraph will stay in, having been fully supported by WP:MED, which has control over the article. I would think that this thread is just about done. 

I have to admit, I'm scratching my head over your latest comment. 

You seem to forget that you are the one who inserted the polarizing paragraph accusing patients of stalking, death threats, etc. into the article, and I am the one who wanted to take it out. Who is setting up the doctor vs. patient, black-and-white conflict in the article? It's not me. 

The same goes for "disparaging and patronizing". I guess that stuff is supposed to go only one way, and that way is not toward you ;-). On that subject, I read a funny book on my trip, called Lamb, by Christopher Moore. The setting is two thousand years ago. One of the characters invents sarcasm, and then is disappointed when his friends start using it back at him. He says he imagined it being used for good, not for evil, and one of the friends says something like, "you mean you didn't imagine it being used against you." But even so, I'm sorry if I sound like that. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. 

Also, you seem to be trying to associate me somehow with doctors who prescribe antibiotics for colds. The "whiney patient who wants antibiotics for a cold" trope has been repeated so widely, that it's becoming a mere talking point. I think it has surrendered its status as an aid to serious discussion. Of course, it refers to a real problem. But I don't see that the "common cold", which is self-limiting, and caused by viruses, for which there's no biological rationale for treating with antibiotics, is relevant here. Have you forgotten the difference between viruses and bacteria? or do you think I have? The comparison makes no sense. Especially since I haven't said one word about antibiotics in any of our long discussions about the problems with the IDSA guidelines regarding the standardized test. A  person not committed to WP:AGF might think that you're simply "energizing your base". 

As to what I say to doctors I meet socially, I usually ask them a few sympathetic questions about how they're finding the practice of medicine these days, and the sad stories start pouring out. They blame different combinations of factors, but a surprising number have a lot of simmering frustration and anger quite close to the surface, sort of like House, or Cox in Scrubs. There seems to be something really wrong there.

With regard to not copying the thread over, yes, fine, let's put a link for now, and then maybe copy it after it's been archived, so it doesn't get edited in two places. I think most casual readers don't even quite understand that there is a discussion page, they think everything happens by making edits in the article. Getting them over to WP:MED and an understanding of your gatekeeping role and its mechanisms would further strain their attention, when what they're really trying to do is to understand the disease.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I'm sure everyone involved means well, and is doing what they think is best. Happy editing, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/chartstables/incidencebyagesex.html

incidence

Hi MastCell,

From the Grann story:

When I called the public-relations firm that he had recently hired, the spokeswoman told me that he was afraid for his life. "He's been getting death threats," she said. "These people won't leave him alone." Initially, she set up a luncheon for the three of us to get together in New York...

About PR agencies and the NYT:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/p-r-professionals-bane-or-boon/

About PR agencies and the press in general:

http://www.propublica.org/article/pr-industry-fills-vacuum-left-by-shrinking-newsrooms/single

About "Pseudo-events":

http://www.nku.edu/~turney/prclass/readings/events.html

Best regards, Postpostmod (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks,

(I wrote the following lengthy response in my sandbox a week ago, then decided you all seem to prefer to cut to the chase. So I made my little edit instead. But now I guess I'll post this so it will be in the record. Someday people will wonder how this all played out. It belongs in the thread after MastCell's comment of xxxx):

Oh dear. I had hoped to avoid critizing Dr. Steere. In my view, the main reason not to repeat the accusations against the patients in Wikipedia, is simply that they were reported in a piece of "creative" non-fiction which is obviously very biased toward propagating one POV. (i.e. that Steere is both a scientific hero and an innocent victim of crazy people). But you won't read Dr. Steere's papers to get the other perspective. You're ignoring the evidence.

To be fair, I don't think he knows what he's doing. I think doctors were begging him for a standardized test and cure, and he obliged them. Trouble is, the test is insensitive, and the cure doesn't work.

Also, I had hoped to avoid lengthy prose. This probably seems way too long and complex to a digital native. (Did any of you read Nicholas Carr's The Shallows?).

I'll answer you each individually.

Dear WhatamIdoing,

You refer to "undisputed facts". The protests are a matter of public record. But the death threats? Not so much. How would one go about disputing Steere's accusation against the patients? The idea that the death threats were "multiple" and "serious", as you say above, is not supported by physical evidence. Only the one email was shown to Grann, and since no one investigated where it came from, it is essentially a nasty email from an anonymous source. The "multiple" idea is mere assertion, from Dr. Steere, seconded by his PR agent, who was of course paid to get it in the press.

I agree, I wouldn't like to get such an email. (Although I did once find a dead rat on my doorstep after displeasing a former employee who came from Siciliy, and I did wonder for a second - only rat I've seen in the 20 years I've lived here. But I didn't call the police or the press - I just told myself not to be melodramatic. :-) )

I certainly deplore the illegal, reprehensible email. It sounds like a teenage fan of Schwartzenegger to me. No one should send such a thing to anybody

There's no evidence presented of "stalking" in the legal sense. In this context, it's another example of trying to produce bias by using emotionally loaded prose.

I didn't do the public protests. But I think it's a good moral act to perform them. The first thing good people do when they're affected by something this bad (i.e., a systematically-decreed misdiagnosis), is to ask, How can I prevent this from happening to others? Granted, when this involves questioning icons of the mainstream medical establishment, the chances of success are slim. But one has the duty to try.

There isn't much private citizens can do, except demonstrate and educate. How else are children, nature-lovers, and gardening grandmothers to be protected from the same fate as the patient in PMID 17429088, for example?

I'm sure the hiring of the rent-a-cops, assuming it happened, was less expensive than the PR agency. I won't call it a pseudo-event, but one does have to consider the possibilities. I think we can all see that Dr. Steere is very media-savvy. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a skill that most scientists and doctors don't have.

If you would critically read the few papers I've referenced, you could see that I'm neither ill-informed, vengeful, nor unduly "internet-armed", as the latest cliche goes. It's all there on PubMed.

Finally, I agree with you 100%, that a "normal person" would be "appalled at the criminal behavior". That's what I meant to say above, that your reaction is typical.

Therefore, the Grann article, and Wikipedia's description of it as if it were factual, is seriously prejudicial against the patients.

It will distract both normal people and their family doctors from realizing that LD is both very serious, and very under-diagnosed, contrary to Steere's disease model.

I can't tell you how many children I see playing in the grass in shorts and flip-flops, in this highly endemic area. The 5-14 yo age group has the highest rate of infection.

They all wear bike helmets, though. Safety is a matter of education.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on this. I think you're doing a great job overall. I hope you and yours are well, Postpostmod

Axl, I do appreciate your responding. First a couple of factual notes: I didn't mention any article from 2009. And I never used the word "unreliable", although your putting it in quotes makes it look like you think I did. I'll bold what I think are the most relevant words, since my style may be too elaborate for easy reading.)

I did imply that the Grann article is not an appropriate source. It is in a magazine, which must be considered on a contextual basis, according to WP:RS. The prose is too emotional to grant it the status of a "news" article. I think you're confusing the NYTMagazine with the NYT newpaper. At best, it's a bid to entertain via a sensational human interest story. That a PR agent hired by Steere was admittedly involved does not look good.

Regarding purple prose, I realized I should not use any slang expressions here, because it might not mean the same thing in other countries as it does in the US. I'll give you an example of what I mean about the tone of the prose:

You said:

"From the first reference:-

"[H]ordes of patients had started to stalk him. They showed up at his public engagements, holding signs that read "How many more will you kill?" and "Steer Clear of Steere!" They depicted him in the media as a demon, worse than the spirochetes, the tick-borne bacteria that they claimed inhabited their bodies.... Egged on by advocacy groups, they infected his sterile world, trying to destroy his reputation and career."

The reference does not imply that these "hordes of patients" are a minority. If anything, Wikipedia's article avoids such value-laden terms. Axl ¤ [Talk] 8:21 am, 2 April 2012, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)"

I agree with you that Wikipedia avoids such value-laden terms. I think it's right to do so.

Could you tell me what you think the purpose of that rule is?

In other words, if it's too "value-laden" for Wikipedia, why are we accepting a magazine article that uses such language, as if it's a factual report?

If anything, MastCell's summary dignifies the accusation beyond its origin. It takes a questionably derived "fact", removes it from the context that would allow people to recognize the questionable nature of the source, and presents it as if it were an "undisputed fact". Sure, this tactic often works in a PR sense - but do you really want to do that?

Sorry I have to argue with you. Best wishes, Postpostmod

MastCell, What can I say? I know you can do whatever you want with the article. It's my responsibility to try to improve the article. It's not my responsibility to get upset about the (predictable) lack of results.

Well, that's quite enough. I'm off to Arizona to bird the famous San Pedro Reserve and Ramsey Canyon. Along with a companion, who has been attacked by demonic spirochetes, threatening him with a slow and painful demise. But he has been snatched from the jaws of death by a good doctor who braves the hordes of desperate, IDSA-armed medical boards eager to take away his license.

(See how silly that kind of language sounds, when it comes from the "other side"? ;-)

I know you're all doing the best you can. I even think that about Dr. Steere, believe it or not.

Sometimes we say about a scientist that "he just doesn't have it", "it" being the talent to do research that uncovers actual facts about nature. It must be frustrating to get oneself into a powerful position and then not quite have the talent to back it up.

Best wishes to you all,

Other controversies:

pandas and pans: http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/web.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/magazine/22OCD.html?pagewanted=all
Hi, MC, I'm glad to hear you're not wedded to the Grann article.  Are you wedded to the language of death threats, stalking, etc? I think the evidence for these crimes is too thin. Especially considering that Steere hired a PR agent to get stories favorable to his image, into the press.  I believe the part about the protests; that's been reported independently, several times. There are witnesses.  Therefore, I think it's fine to say in the article that there have been patient protests.  Did you read the NYT article I suggested, by staff writer David France? It's in the actual newspaper, and so is presumably subject to stricter journalistic criteria,  than a human interest story by a free-lancer in the Magazine, which has more of an entertainment function. I don't think there's much difference in staleness between a 1999 and a 2001 article, in 2012.  Or maybe we could have them both in there, under the Media heading instead of by themselves in their own section.  Then we aren't distracting people from the real issues with a dramatic and juicy headline. 

Hi, to all of you at WP:MED. Thanks so much for all the good work you do. It's encouraging to see this kind of pro bono service from the medical community. 

I need some help. In some parts of the Lyme disease (LD) article, patients and caregivers are blamed for the difficulties introduced by the LD controversy. I don't think that's a good policy, for either the patients or the medical field. I've shown previously in the LD discussion page, and elsewhere (diffs upon request, or see my user contributions) that the patients' complaints are justified by demonstrable and consequential errors in the mainstream science, that so far have resisted the usual self-correction process that keeps medical science moving forward. I'm not suggesting that we describe in detail the evidence that the science is bad, just that we remove the biased assumption that the patients MUST be either wrong or badly motivated. 

I wonder if there's anyone at WP:MED who would be willing to collaborate in editing the article so as to correct for the (understandable) bias of the medical community against the patients and caregivers.. I don't mean to introduce a bias against the doctors, even those who have originated and propagated the regrettable errors. 

I'm not "editing boldly" in this situation, because the debate is so polarized that even good edits might be construed as an attack on the article by "patient advocates". I've decided to be a single-issue editor so far, because as a scientist I don't feel comfortable passing along opinions that I haven't personally verified by checking the science in the primary literature. I'd be glad to help check science in other controversial fields on request, though - it's been intriguing following the chain of evidence back to its origins, and not as laborious as one might think, thanks to Pubmed. 

I do understand WP policies, including MEDRS, SYN, and OR. 

Thanks for your attention, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doc, thanks for joining in. And hi again, Axl. I'll break this up for easy reading. 

The paragraph Axl identified is the main thing I have in mind. The problem isn't about references. 

I think It's unseemly to give encyclopedic status to such emotionally loaded material. We don't have tear-jerking stories from patients in the article, though there are plenty in the press. 

There are several emotional rants denigrating Lyme patients in the medical journals. 

And there are many factual descriptions of patient pain and disability in the medical journals. 

We need to write about the controversy, it's part of the subject. People have strong feelings about it. But there's no reason for us to actively provoke emotional reactions in the reader. 

Could we just remove the problem paragraph - the ref is from 2001, anyway - and make sure it isn't replaced by something worse? 

There's at least one other place I think needs some tweaking, but let's leave that out for now.

In brief, I'm asking that the article refrain from dissing the patients.  ;-). 

Thanks for your time, best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to pump up anybody's adrenaline. But it does show why it's not a good idea to use such colorful language in an encyclopedia. It's kind of like "death tax" and "death panel": generates lots of heat, not much light. The purple prose is the main thing that makes the Grann article suspect as a source, in my view. Along with the fact that Steere hired a PR agent to get himself into the press (see the article - it's kind of buried in there, after the quote from Polly Murray, who discovered the cluster of patients in Lyme and called in the CDC).

If we want to have a media article in there about the controversy, how about the article published in the actual NYT (not the magazine), here? It's more informative about the cause of the controversy, and doesn't malign either the patients or Dr. Steere. It does treats Steere, like the patients, as fallable, albeit highly influential. Maybe that's a good thing. But then, I'd think so; I'm a democrat. ;-)

It doesn't seem like anyone's interested in why the science remains under scrutiny, particularly the current diagnostic testing scheme. I admit I'm puzzled by the lack of interest in this question. To me, it's the most interesting part of the subject - the rest of it is all hand-waving and hearsay. If anyone else would like to exercise due diligence, the papers about the testing I discussed with MastCell are PMID 18532885 last diff in thread and PMID 8903216 last diff). The one on the LD talk page is PMID 17429088 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MastCell&diff=prev&oldid=443400654 last diff. And the one I was going to do next is Jiang et al. 2010 PMID 21112481, last diff, which presents the Chinese CDC's independently derived criteria for Western blot analysis. You don't have to take my word for any of this, though - just get the papers and think about what the data really show, and don't show. If the conclusions aren't supported by the rest of the paper, that's a problem, in science if not in Wikipedia.

Hi, MC, I'm glad to hear you're not wedded to the Grann article.  Are you wedded to the language of death threats, stalking, etc? I think the evidence for these crimes is too thin. Especially considering that Steere hired a PR agent to get stories favorable to his image, into the press.  I believe the part about the protests; that's been reported independently, several times. There are witnesses.  Therefore, I think it's fine to say in the article that there have been patient protests.  Did you read the NYT article I suggested, by staff writer David France? It's in the actual newspaper, and so is presumably subject to stricter journalistic criteria,  than a human interest story by a free-lancer in the Magazine, which has more of an entertainment function. I don't think there's much difference in staleness between a 1999 and a 2001 article, in 2012.  Or maybe we could have them both in there, under the Media heading instead of by themselves in their own section.  Then we aren't distracting people from the real issues with a dramatic and juicy headline.