One would think that given the twin hazards of WP's popularity and knack for erroneous bullshit that this would be a no-brainer, since it is so obviously the sensible and right thing to do.

If subjects are to be protected from misinformation that can cause them emotional harm and damage reputations, then surely misinformation that can cause physical harm and damage health, should be subject to the same restrictions!

But as with so many ancient and proven practices in meatspace, Wikiland doesn't do The Hippocratic Oath (just hypocritical oafs). When the idea is breeched on the head-oaf's talkpage, the result is the usual SNAFU of hand-wringing and lawyering, followed soon by dismissal and automated archiving.

One foul day, you just know, that some poor fool is going to the hurt locker (or possibly the morgue) due to Dr. Wikipedia doling out dangerous disinformation. Another case of natural selection, perhaps, but still wrongful harm, especially if the fool in question IS a doctor who is lazy and stupid enough to consult Dr. Wikipedia for advice.

Warning: Wikipedia can be hazardous to your health!

As you can see from the comments by the wikipediots, WP:BLP does not exist to protect the subjects of articles, but only as another weapon in the never-ending MMORPG at the project. Holding it up as some kind of "high" standard is a slap in the face to all the victims of this vicious bit of wiki-nastiness. (Yes, vicious: just read some of those comments!)

That Wales and crew has not stepped in to stop this bullshit is the problem. That they will refuse to generalize this to poor medical information, or other sources of direct and immediate harm to people is predictable (and, of course, reprehensible).

The most you will get from them is what you have already gotten: "Drink the Kool Aid and all will be well!"

As always, the only forlorn hope of getting Der Jimbo & his crack cabal to do anything on the matter is the threat/rumor/possibility of legal action against their rock house.

One need not be a friend of P to see that after BLPs, this will be the next big flagged rev battleground.

Yeah, watching the schizophrenia article has been like building a sandcastle too close to the surf...and that's even with semiprotection...

Well, medical error already kills more Americans per year than other leading preventable factors such as cars, guns, street drugs, and venereal disease, and I don't see that situation improving in the near future. Adopting "Do No Harm" as a BLP mantra was an ironic move at best, and I said so several times.

The basic important facts in the infobox such as chemical formulae and the LDâ‚…â‚€ aren't likely to change on a regular basis and could easily be enforced by bot, and like you I've noticed a great many drug-related articles are already semi-protected for other reasons (not that that does much good in the long term).

I still support the application of flagged-revs with no limitations based on subject matter (read: any article at the request of any editor, or upon one user's own volition if so empowered)—I just really doubt it will ever happen on the English WP.

But if it does, biographicals and pharmaceuticals would be only a fair start. There are other less obvious cases where bullshit could be dangerous to those who believe it. For example, I understand you're into 'shrooms…

"Do no harm" meet "immunity."

True.
But how much effort would it take to make a warning template bearing a legend to the effect of -

"Wikipedia is a not a reliable medical or pharmaceutical reference source. Do not use or cite it as such!"

Then program a bot to tag it on all med/pharm articles.

Not a bad idea. However, I see two problems. Firstly, a bot might not be clever enough to spot all the relevant articles. Secondly, some damfool editor is bound to remove it from articles he owns on the grounds that his articles are fine.

Of course, there could (should?) be such a template on every single article on WP.

Such a statement is already in the "general disclaimer"; most Wikipediots think that this is ample warning to the public.

You simply will not get Wikipedians to accept any visible admission that you can't crowdsource expert knowledge; that contradicts one of their core beliefs.

Still, a warning box with a skull and crossbones would be good for a few yuks. Someone should apply it to Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health (T-H-L-K-D).

All it would take is only one rogue admin, with enough sense and ethics, to get the snowball rolling and the world would be a slightly safer place.
(glares at Doc and Lar)


This certainly matters more than whether the article on Exar Kun has enough futn0tz0rz.