Sunday, 25 August 2013

Wikipedia, I'm sorry I have to moan

Please do not get me wrong but Wikipedia supervision has perhaps gone a (tiny) step too far. I know people could write bullshit on here and put others at risk, but surely Wikipedia is no longer a joke in our day and time. In fact, Wikipedia has become so important to our day to day life that when it was down some months ago, panic spiraled in the environment of loser-ass scientists I used to work with. If anything, this highlights the vulnerability of Wikipedia users, whereby a simple error in the number of a molecular weight could leave a scientists with months' worth of meaningless data. However, being a trained scientist myself, with glowing recommendations from my friends and some of my fellow scientists (it's hard to like them), I am a good one. So here's my tale.

Having spent long hours looking into the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication for the treatment of arthritis (something I trained in over 5 long years), I came across a naturally occuring alcohol-rich chemical (no, can't make you drunk) found in a plant named Devil's Claw (EFSA # 3770) which is a precursor for an active ingredient with bioavailable Cox-2 inhibiting ID50 values. In other words, 'this alcohol gets degraded into something that can work like ibuprofen'-ish. Of course, it is more likely to work on joints because it is an alcohol, not an acid like ibuprofen. Well, the thing is, after investigating a human-friendly way to activate this compound, I came across another widely available supplement, this one used in body building shakes. Perfect, I thought.

Having worked out how this compound stays in your blood, compared to, say, a daily dose baby aspirin, ibuprofen's cousin and a drug most old people take to keep them alive and pain-free. I posted this on wiki (highlighted, picture). On second thoughts the EU says take half of my stated dose every day instead of 2 days, but hey, minor.

So Scrap-ipedia, since now I cannot be arsed doing the referencing again, I believe you owe me a thank you for the effort. I will, nevertheless, give this a go, along with my ma, as we both suffer through the pain of arthritis, probably unlike your reviewers.

Regards
me

3 comments:

  1. Hi - someone posted a link to this on the Talk page of the Wikipedia article, which is here. Here is the article to which you added information on your discovery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-steroidal_anti-inflammatory_drug.

    I am the person who deleted the material you added.

    Why did I do it?

    Wikipedia has "5 pillars" that govern how it operates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

    The second of those, is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, which means: " We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

    You can already see, that the content you added is not allowable content. There is no way to verify that it is true and there is no reliable source for it as your discovery is not published anywhere.

    More importantly, for any health related information, there is an even higher standard for sourcing content, as described in the guideline called "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)", which is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEDRS

    Think about it for a minute - if it was permissable for you to include your discovery in Wikipedia, based only on your own authority... where would that ever end? Anybody could add anything. Wikipedia would become a garbage dump. And it would become useless for anything health-related as all kinds of quackery would enter in.

    I hope one day you get your discovery into clinical trials so everyone can find out if harbagoside with galactosidase is a safe and effective treatment. And that those studies are published, so that they can be included in WIkipedia.

    Best regards, jytdog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would but I can't be fucking arsed to be frank. I have more fun stuff I like to do in life better than I like running around measuring the temperature of old hags with freaky swollen joints.

    Big no on the thank you then I take it.

    Best regards, hotdog.

    ReplyDelete