1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

READ FIRST: Welcome to the MEpedia subforum!

Discussion in 'MEpedia' started by JaimeS, Aug 9, 2018.

  1. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,865
    Location:
    UK
    Inara and Andy like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,865
    Location:
    UK
    Hi @JaimeS and @JenB. I have a dilemma.

    I applaud the effort and intention that has led to the creation of MEpedia. I have used it myself sometimes to find a reference. And that I think it its strength - as an accessible source of links to other existing resources and short pieces on key personalities and events.

    While I have some misgivings about the intended broader scope of MEpedia, I'll leave those for another thread.

    My dilemma is this: since this subforum opened I have started to look more closely at MEpedia and am coming across things I could criticise or suggestions I could make. However, I am reluctant to do so because I have observed that when people make suggestions they are, understandably, invited to learn how to edit MEpedia and make the alterations themselves.

    I suspect that I am not alone in drawing a line at taking on another task for my already overstretched ME brain. I simply don't have the head space to hone accurate input for MEpedia or for learning another bit of technology, however simple it is. For my health and because I have caring responsibilities too, I have to restrict my contribution to the ME world to helping out on this forum.

    My question to you both is, do you welcome suggestions and constructive criticism of the content of MEpedia from people who are not willing or able to actually implement those suggestions, or would you rather restrict it to people who can actually carry their ideas through to MEpedia pages?
     
  3. JenB

    JenB Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    440
    It is very unlikely that any constructive criticism about specific pages posted here would get implemented unless in the context of a conversation (like the thread @Hip started on non-cytolytic infections) where someone is explicitly asking for feedback and taking responsibility for implementing the changes. We simply don't have the capacity. And if it's about more than one page (i.e., if you're seeing multiple things across many pages) I think it would be hard to follow.

    An intermediate step is to hit the "Discussion" tab on the relevant pages and add any comment/feedback there. I think feedback given there is much more likely to be implemented because now it's part of the work flow. Whenever I am editing a page, I go and look at what's been written on the discussion page. (I also frequently paste links on the Discussion page when I read something interesting but don't have the time or capacity to immediately add it to the page.) So if you don't have the capacity to edit a page, but you do have the capacity to critique it, that's where I'd paste the critique. There's no guarantee the change will be implemented immediately (unless you do it yourself) but that's one way of at least making sure that is is logged and available to a future editor.

    It's hard to say at this early stage, but I think a great use of this sub-forum is a one page per thread approach where people gather around and try to improve a page. Some folks may only offer suggestions which is fine as long as there is at least one person who is willing to implement them. Or to discuss new editing projects, e.g., "Let's start a project on the autonomic nervous system" that might lay out all the pages that should be created and/or improved and divvy up work. I posted about the Epi page (which I've already done a fair amount of work on) because I was explicitly looking for more people to contribute to it and help me finish it, but did not volunteer to make those changes myself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2018
  4. Hip

    Hip Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    726
    As a complete MEpedia novice who has only been dabbing in editing in recent weeks, I found the feedback from @Graham very useful, and I've already implemented changes based on his suggestions. (He even wrote a charming limerick about the subject of the article, at the bottom of this post!)
     
  5. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,865
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks, @Jen, that's very helpful.
     
    Joh, JaimeS and mango like this.
  6. TiredSam

    TiredSam Committee Member

    Messages:
    10,482
    Location:
    Germany
    When I was a child and our black and white telly broke down I assumed it must have been clogged up with dead cowboys.
     
    Indigophoton, Graham, Barry and 3 others like this.
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Given we strive for accuracy avoidance of ambiguity, I think the following needs a clarification:
    "Since 2006, Professor Crawley has been awarded £2.3 million in grants by various bodies to study CFS/ME and is the second highest funded researcher (into CFS/ME) in the UK."

    My bold to show suggested edit. Not sure if, in this context, it should be ME/CFS or CFS/ME.

    https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Esther_Crawley

    Although Ref 4 does not explicitly spell out the context of its rankings, it is nonetheless very obvious.
     
    MSEsperanza likes this.
  8. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    9,574
    Location:
    UK
    from #MEAction email
    Check out the Updated, Expanded, Revamped MEpedia!
     
    ahimsa, RedFox, Sean and 5 others like this.

Share This Page