Is a philosophical perspective on health possible?

[Chris Day]

I think there is a simple solution here.  If users do not want others to edit their content as they build an article then write them in their own sandbox.  Milt has successfully used this approach.

[Matt Innis]

By all means have expert decisions, but that requires expertise in all of the relevant disciplines. By all means have expert authority, but let's agree what that means.

If there is something in the article that fits into the Health Sciences or Chemistry workgroups, then by all means put the name on the checklist and state your case and it will be respected as any editorial comments would be.  Otherwise, everyone else is an author.

Having said that, we could work to decide if we want to allow editors with specialization of expertise more say among the article editors for that specific section or sentence.  I.E. Paul Wormer could have more say about the 'memory of water' than a homeopath in the homeopathy article, but Dana Ullman would have more say about homeopathy in the 'water' article.

[Matt Innis]

I think there is a simple solution here.  If users do not want others to edit their content as they build an article then write them in their own sandbox.  Milt has successfully used this approach.

I'm not sure this would have helped homeopathy or Alternative medicine.  It's the fact that the public sees the article that motivates participation.  Maybe sections could be removed until their issues are resolved, but this still can just be 'played' by those that don't want citizendium to have controversial articles on things like Intelligent design, etc.  In other words, if I don't like what it says, I can just keep complaining until that section is removed and keep complaining until everyone gives up on trying to fix it.

[Chris Day]

I think there is a simple solution here.  If users do not want others to edit their content as they build an article then write them in their own sandbox.  Milt has successfully used this approach.

I'm not sure this would have helped homeopathy or Alternative medicine.  It's the fact that the public sees the article that motivates participation. 

My sense is that comments are often not welcome when the article is in an embryonic form.  A development phase might make things more ready for external comments that cannot then be dismissed with "we're still writing" type comments. I think you'll agree that wrangling over undeveloped content can be frustrating.

['docmartin' (Dr Martin Cohen)]

By all means have expert decisions, but that requires expertise in all of the relevant disciplines. By all means have expert authority, but let's agree what that means.

If there is something in the article that fits into the Health Sciences or Chemistry workgroups, then by all means put the name on the checklist and state your case and it will be respected as any editorial comments would be.  Otherwise, everyone else is an author.

Having said that, we could work to decide if we want to allow editors with specialization of expertise more say among the article editors for that specific section or sentence.  I.E. Paul Wormer could have more say about the 'memory of water' than a homeopath in the homeopathy article, but Dana Ullman would have more say about homeopathy in the 'water' article.

Yes, I entirely agree with Matt here, and we have had in 'Alternative Medicine (theories) the explicit argument that looking at theories, paradigms, methodologies, which is surely a proper role for philosophy, is somehow no longer philosophical but 'medical'.

I originally intended the article to have 'joint supervision', as it were, between Philosophy and Healing Arts which still seems to me the proper and pragmatic solution. But as Matt says, within the article some sections will deal with philosophy and some with specific approaches in medicine. It appears in practice that editors must defer to each other, or they assert authority beyond their proper range.

Having said that, the concept of ''lead editor'' becomes important - is it primarily a philosophical page or a Healing Arts page? The Philosophy editor may want the article to examine ideas and theories, whereas the Healing Arts Editor may want to describe current practice and the latest research developments. We have seen this sort of conflict on several pages, notably Homeopathy, where I wanted to introduce a few lines on the development and origins of the homeopathic theory that 'like cures like', but a Healing Arts editor asserted that their undoubted expertise on current homeopathic practice legitimately could be extended to particular historical matters on which they acknowledged they were - I quote their own terms - "not an expert".

Instead, in place of not only of my research, but those of two authors and one other editor, this bold claim is made to the introductory paragraph: "The underlying concept of homeopathy is "like cures like"— [is] a principle described by Hippocrates more than 2,000 years ago..." but now Hippocrates is a figure who appears to be coming within the scope of expertise of a philosopher, and I suspect this claim is at best 'misleading'. Indeed, Mazhar Hussain and Robert Wilkinson flatly state in their book ''The Pursuit of Comparative Aesthetics'' that "Nowhere in the speculations of Hippocratic medicine, or in Alkmaion, Pythagoras or Herakleitos, is there such a doctrine as 'like cures like'."

The danger of allowing editors to rule in matters outside their sphere of expertise is that the articles may finish up with information in them which is not only partial but misleading. Whether or not this is the case with Homeopathy is, I hope, still up for review, but this time the principle will have to be that suitably ancient one: ''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'' Who will watch the watchers..." Who ''will'' edit the editors?

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

If there is something in the article that fits into the Health Sciences or Chemistry workgroups, then by all means put the name on the checklist and state your case and it will be respected as any editorial comments would be.  Otherwise, everyone else is an author.

Done.

Yes, I entirely agree with Matt here, and we have had in 'Alternative Medicine (theories) the explicit argument that looking at theories, paradigms, methodologies, which is surely a proper role for philosophy, is somehow no longer philosophical but 'medical'.

It is not an exclusive matter of philosophy, but of multiple disciplines. Alternative medicine is centered on Healing Arts. When, however, comparisons are drawn to conventional medicine, then Health Sciences and probably Biology become involved.

When speaking of social and cultural acceptance of alt med, this gets into Sociology, History, and possibly Religion.

In my opinion, the article tries to be everything. There is indeed an existing article that does focus on at least some theories of alt med, Vitalism.

The second paragraph of vitalism reads:

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices propose that disease reflects some imbalance in those vital energies that distinguish living from non-living matter. In the Western tradition, these vital forces were identified as the humours; eastern traditions proposed similar forces, such as qi in acupuncture and prana in Yoga.

Why is this previous work not referenced? What does it lack with respect to philosophy? Why must there be a new article, which I find to have no clear definition of scope yet making assertions in areas from the Enlightenment to the cost-effectiveness of alternate medicine and the history of preventive medicine?

The existing Complementary and Alternative Medicine unquestionably can be improved, but I would note that the article under discussion even uses a different definition of Alternative Medicine.

[Larry Sanger]

I think there is a simple solution here.  If users do not want others to edit their content as they build an article then write them in their own sandbox.  Milt has successfully used this approach.

I'm not sure this would have helped homeopathy or Alternative medicine.  It's the fact that the public sees the article that motivates participation. 

My sense is that comments are often not welcome when the article is in an embryonic form.  A development phase might make things more ready for external comments that cannot then be dismissed with "we're still writing" type comments. I think you'll agree that wrangling over undeveloped content can be frustrating.

I think Chris' advice (about starting a "privately owned" article on a personal subpage) is very good.

But as to articles in the main namespace--huh?  Just comments are permitted or not?  Nobody owns any article here--I don't care if you're the sole author and it's a brilliant piece of work, or you're just in the process of developing an article.  You don't have the right to complain that others edit "your" article in a way that you disagree with, if you submit your work to CZ for community editing -- because then it ain't "your" article.  So, whatever else we say about the articles under discussion, please don't let us conclude by saying that collaboration on main namespace articles is not permitted, because it most certainly is.

It might help to bear in mind, not as a solution but as a very broad explanation, that the ultimate source of most of our problems working together comes from people with very different ideas about how to approach a topic trying to collaborate on articles.

Again...I'm off to do stuff with family and can't take more time now.  Sorry!

[Hayford Peirce]

But as to articles in the main namespace--huh?  Just comments are permitted or not?  Nobody owns any article here--I don't care if you're the sole author and it's a brilliant piece of work, or you're just in the process of developing an article.  You don't have the right to complain that others edit "your" article in a way that you disagree with, if you submit your work to CZ for community editing -- because then it ain't "your" article.  So, whatever else we say about the articles under discussion, please don't let us conclude by saying that collaboration on main namespace articles is not permitted, because it most certainly is.

This seems to be a problem that arises over and over whenever new people join the project. When Nick Gardner, a very valued contributor, joined a few months ago and began an initial article on the Crash of 2008 or whatever, we had exactly the same discussion. The same suggestion was made: that he write some, or most of his articles in a sandbox before presenting them to the slings and arrows of the rest of us. After some back-and-forthing and a few contributions from Larry, as I recall, Nick realized that this was indeed the CZ way of doing things and stated his acknowlegement of this very graciously indeed. I wish that a template or some boilerplate or something could be drawn up so that any newcomers here who arrive with preconceived ideas of how they think things should be run, could be shown this and, hopefully, a lot of wasted time could thereby be saved.

['docmartin' (Dr Martin Cohen)]

This seems to be a problem that arises over and over whenever new people join the project. ... I wish that a template or some boilerplate or something could be drawn up so that any newcomers here who arrive with preconceived ideas of how they think things should be run, could be shown this and, hopefully, a lot of wasted time could thereby be saved.

Let's be clear here: this thread started because a page with multiple contributions from across disciplines which was 'nearly ready for approval' was filled (over Christmas, when, Like Larry, I would rather be doing different things!) with contrarian points from people who stated in the Talk page their disapproval and opposition to the 'concept' of the page. That is why this thread is about 'is a philosophical perspective on health possible?'.

Here is a page that has stated for over a week that no contributions are wanted. It is not by me, it is by  Howard who has just agreed to 'archive' one of his other personal essays...

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Integrative_medicine

[Matt Innis]

This seems to be a problem that arises over and over whenever new people join the project. When Nick Gardner, a very valued contributor, joined a few months ago and began an initial article on the Crash of 2008 or whatever, we had exactly the same discussion. The same suggestion was made: that he write some, or most of his articles in a sandbox before presenting them to the slings and arrows of the rest of us.

I don't see that Martin and Pierre-Alain would have written anything different in user space.  Once they brought it out, I suppose it wouldn't be as hard to make them delete it, but is that what we want to do with all our controversial articles -- Martin write one/delete it -- Howard write one/delete it?

Homeopathy is getting close to approval because some dedicated and hard working individuals who do their best to make sure neutrality is paramount have put blood sweat and sleepless nights into it.  The approval process will give everyone the satisfaction we are looking for -- credibility and stability.  That is when everyone can take a break.  Yes, it would be easier to take it out of mainspace, but what purpose would that have served?

When I look back on homeopathy, I wouldn't change too many things.  Ramanand started everyone thinking.  Howard had important things to say, and though I had to {{template}} several authors and editors a few times, they were able to adjust their methods.  It wasn't easy (it was downright bleak at times), but no-one gave up.  Yes, everyone had their moments, but hoefully the end product is worth it.  I'm personally going for a glass of champaign on approval day!

Should a philosophy editor such as Martin have input on homeopathy, or medicine... if it mentions Hippocrates, I think so.

Should Martin be allowed to start an article about Alternative medicine from a philosophical perspective... absolutely.  Should it replace the CAM article.. absolutely not.  Can they be integrated... sure.  They have to.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

This seems to be a problem that arises over and over whenever new people join the project. ... I wish that a template or some boilerplate or something could be drawn up so that any newcomers here who arrive with preconceived ideas of how they think things should be run, could be shown this and, hopefully, a lot of wasted time could thereby be saved.

Let's be clear here: this thread started because a page with multiple contributions from across disciplines which was 'nearly ready for approval' was filled (over Christmas, when, Like Larry, I would rather be doing different things!) with contrarian points from people who stated in the Talk page their disapproval and opposition to the 'concept' of the page. That is why this thread is about 'is a philosophical perspective on health possible?'.

Here is a page that has stated for over a week that no contributions are wanted. It is not by me, it is by  Howard who has just agreed to 'archive' one of his other personal essays...

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Integrative_medicine

There are multiple misrepresentations here. First, I have not agreed to archive anything anywhere, and I have not written anything I'd call an essay.

Second, I apologize for forgetting to remove, from integrative medicine, Note, however, emphasis and duration in the quote

At the moment, the article page is in the midst of some merges both of material from other article and talk pages, as well as sources provided directly. Feel free to comment on the talk page, but I would appreciate it if there were no major edits on the article page while it's being constructed. This should be no more than a day or two, but, since the article does use features of clusters, it could not be constructed in a sandbox. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now, that article has active comments from Pat Palmer.

But I should also mention, given all of Martin's heat about "out of scope" for what charitably can be called a wide ranging article, the first paragraph of integrated medicine. Mr. Cohen has been claiming "authority" to decide what is, and is not, in scope for an article, but I am apparently too illiterate to figure it out. Let me offer the lead paragraph of integrative medicine (italics in original)

This article is not intended to get into controversial matters of whether some complementary methods should or should not be included. Instead, it focuses on the current state of integrated medicine, and the complementary methods in common use.

I thought that was fairly clear. If it's not, let me point to the rest of the article as a trend. It describes what some real programs in integrative medicine are doing, at obscure institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, Columbia University School of Medicine, and Duke Medical. The CAM definitions are being edited, but source to U.S. and U.K. government definitions.

To support that article, I have been writing at least stub articles on all of the CAM disciplines mentioned. Those stubs are sometimes from the National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings, or, for some that didn't have definitions there, are sourced to an associated website (e.g., professional association).

So, please chastise me with scorpions for neglecting to remove a request for a day or two, with active comments on the talk page. Put me on the rack, your Worship, for writing, in the intro paragraph, what I thought was a very specific statement of scope -- which nothing says could not be questioned on the talk page -- and having sourced authoritative examples of integrative medicine programs. Scourge me and rub salt into the wounds, for going out and trying to fill in CAM redlinks.

In the process of being such a bad citizen, I have appreciated editorial suggestions, on an article close to approval, that some quotes that I thought were clear in context needed explicit sourcing for Approval. In the process of not playing nicely with others, I've  put in a couple of Approvals, in  a case asking for a clarification, which simply needed a link to another article by the same author.

Since I be only a rude crude engineer, I guess I don't understand things as well as one whose contributions to CZ make me sit in lotus, awed at the grandeur of his productivity.

Professionalism and family friendliness prevent me saying a few other things that cross my mind, but perhaps I can sublimate if I go research and write an article on the code duello.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

This seems to be a problem that arises over and over whenever new people join the project. When Nick Gardner, a very valued contributor, joined a few months ago and began an initial article on the Crash of 2008 or whatever, we had exactly the same discussion. The same suggestion was made: that he write some, or most of his articles in a sandbox before presenting them to the slings and arrows of the rest of us.

I don't see that Martin and Pierre-Alain would have written anything different in user space.  Once they brought it out, I suppose it wouldn't be as hard to make them delete it, but is that what we want to do with all our controversial articles -- Martin write one/delete it -- Howard write one/delete it?

Homeopathy is getting close to approval because some dedicated and hard working individuals who do their best to make sure neutrality is paramount have put blood sweat and sleepless nights into it.  The approval process will give everyone the satisfaction we are looking for -- credibility and stability.  That is when everyone can take a break.  Yes, it would be easier to take it out of mainspace, but what purpose would that have served?

[/quote]
I'm not sure I'd agree that is why everyone put blood sweat and sleepless nights into it. There were proposals to put it into cold storage. I agreed with that and still do.

I'm not at all convinced that the controversial articles should suck up as much effort as they do, when CZ is still trying to reach critical mass.  As long as they are there, I feel I have to work on getting them to be as clean as possible, so I feel comfortable in inviting colleagues, and promise they will find a better environment than Wikipedia.

There are times where an article is best restarted. I can think of any number of things in writing and fine art when my standards of quality meant either starting over, or perhaps deciding it wasn't the right thing for me. If I can't be my own toughest editor, who can be?

[Hayford Peirce]

John D. MacDonald had, I guess, a rather unusual contract to write three Travis McGee novels, which would all be brought out at the same time, in 1963 or '64. (He'd never before written about a series character.) He wrote the first of the three, read it over, and literally consigned the MS to the flames.  Thought it had the wrong tone. So he sat down and wrote another one.  And then the next two.  And they were all published simultaneously to great success.  And Travis went on to make him rich and famous.  So there's something to be said for doing things right....

[Matt Innis]

They didn't have to collaborate, or should I say, they didn't have the luxury of collaboration If we put it in cold storage, what makes you think we won't have to do this all over again?  Homeopathy is not going to change.  We're just putting off the inevitable, waiting for tomorrow to do what we could do today.  Approval is just a resting place.  Changes will still occur, but the urgency will diminish because the changes are not in mainspace until it is reapproved - which still takes three editors.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

They didn't have to collaborate. If we put it in cold storage, what makes you think we won't have to do this all over again?  Homeopathy is not going to change.  We're just putting off the inevitable, waiting for tomorrow to do what we could do today.  Approval is just a resting place.  Changes will still occur, but the urgency will diminish because the changes are not in mainspace until it is reapproved - which still takes three editors.

Triage.

Or, if you prefer a non-medical example, the Pareto Principle, originally economic but true in many disciplines, certainly software development, not irrelevant here. 20% of the effort produces 80% of the product, and 20% of the product requires 80% of the effort.

Homeopathy is not going to change. But how many non-controversial articles were not written, or approved, given all the time taken to fight neutrality battles there? We are competing with Wikipedia in several ways,  which include number of articles, quality of articles, and more congenial environment? There are limited resources here. Are they being used effectively to create a great world resource, or to push edge agendas?

I discovered, a couple days ago, I found we didn't even have an article on nursing, which is decidedly not a static field. We don't have one on healthcare economics, if you want something controversial that affects millions just in the U.S.  I had considered inviting some nurse colleagues to write here, but how do I explain that their profession wasn't important enough for anyone to care? What happens when someone goes to a hotly active article that talks about the history of public health, gets fundamental facts wrong, and then is criticized for bringing irrelevancies and actual sources rather than secondhand sensationalism? I am embarrassed to invite them, and I am seriously starting to question my involvement.

I could have a long list of things I'd like to write, but my conscience will not let me see blatantly partisan and inaccurate information flourish. Good people are leaving and others muttering about it.

"But it won't get approved"

I keep hearing that. First, how many people that arrive here know that there is such a thing as approval? One might say, "well they see disclaimers on drafts"  As I realized very recently, draft only appears if metadata is defined. So, if they arrive here via a search engine, and don't see the front page and go find out what "approval" means, they come directly to articles that can be quite inaccurate. This isn't just a matter of health issues, by the way -- there is one political area where an individual put in a lot of orphan and partisan articles, but that I never saw, in an area where I am an editor, because they weren't linked. Being heavily linked is one of the key advantages of wikis.

Second, it's chicken and egg. I've stopped trying to polish a great many articles of mine, stopping at the OK level, because there are no discipline-specific editors to approve them, unless I self-approved.

"They didn't have to collaborate"

No, Matt. I didn't have to collaborate. But I like the idea of Citizenship. I don't have to vote.  If I see something bad going on in my community, I can assume it's someone else's problem.

No, people don't need to collaborate here, and they don't need to speak up when something starts to be in the early stages of being a problem, because it wasn't affecting them. Somebody once wrote about that. He said

When they  came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they  came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.