Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Rosacea/Websites and Organisations

Rosacea/Websites and Organisations
Nothing but a silly collection of external links. Our books should provide all they can and not rely on external resources. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 05:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE: Rosacea - Wikipedia should stay active and be updated.  I will take the reigns on this if necessary.  Dr. Nase will update this section.  It is the only list on the Internet of the best sites detailing rosacea causes and treatments, a very frustrating and confusing disorder.  Rosacea Sufferers and Physicians need a format like this, with the best external links, to find the best information as most sites on rosacea are purely sales sites with no inherent value.  Dr. Nase   http://www.drnase.com This comment was added by 99.9.224.63, 01:39, 30 August 2010, note added by Abd (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr Nase, while I understand that it may be important for you to have a list of sites related to rosacea, Wikibooks (by the way, we are not Wikipedia; that would be our sister project) should be self-contained, and should not rely on excessive external sources. As Wikibooks is not a personal web host, but a collection of books, mostly textbooks and manuals, you may want to try to find another website that hosts such a list instead. Thanks, Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Some time ago I attempted to look into this issue due to a small edit war on this work. I even got some emails pointing out that there was some partiality on the edits, especially in removing negative information about Dr. Nase. My view on the issue is that there may be issues with promoting some of the links and I have kept an eye on it regarding edit conflicts and suppression of information. As a counterbalance to the "anonymous" post above, I invite anyone to take a look at (http://debunkingnase.org/index.php?title=Moving_On_%3F or http://rosacea-support.org/nielson-disciplined-over-nases-misrepresentations.html) to get a broader view on the subject and possible problem with maintaining at least some of the promotional links like New Rosacea Treatment by Dr. Nase: Rosadyn. --Panic (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this. This kind of page can be problematic, for sure, but a book on a health topic may well include a list of resources like this, and an on-line book would certainly include a list of "external links." I have many published books that do, and the modern ones include URLs. The question is how to vet and present the links. Links to significant Rosacea organizations, including Rosacea discussion/support sites, clearly belong. What becomes more questionable is links to fringe or unaccepted treatments, and what might be less charitably called "spamming." Again, is this covered in the book? If it is, then the link belongs, even if the coverage is sparse. In other words, the content of this page should largely be driven by the book, not by independent efforts to add promotional links, as an example. I have no opinion about Dr. Nase. The issue is the book, and book content. Many books on topics like this will include descriptions of alternative or even generally rejected treatments; the latter -- if the publisher of the book is reputable! -- will present that information in context, and not just drop unexamined information on the reader. The page belongs, if not all the content on the page. This should be an ordinary editorial decision, not an administrative one. I will discuss further on Talk:Rosacea/Websites and Organisations. Yeah. I see some real problems in History. --Abd (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I did extensive cleanup on this, moving questionable links to the Talk page for review and comment. I didn't quite complete this, there may be one or two questionable sites left. And one link that I took out might be just fine, Australian Sciences; I hope others familiar with the topic will look at this. --Abd (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thenub314 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This position is confusing. The posts and opinions Kayau expresses, that you say you agree with, are all related to the content of a single page, and only one page was nominated and discussed so far. At first I thought you used "text book" but intended to write "text book material" or a variation, but then you refer to structure, and that the page always had. So I read it a proposition to delete the complete work, as only then the part "grow into one" makes sense.
 * I must disagree with that proposition. I've examined the work, and it is better that a stub and we rarely delete those. More, at least one of the book's editors seems to be participating on the RfD, so criticism must be kept constructive. I hope you can make you position cleared regarding the problems with the book, so that your comment may serve to improve it. --Panic (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Panic, good call. I have been a little shy on time/sleep and that post was just simply nonsense.  Thanks for calling me on it. Thenub314 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the whole book is pretty poor. But I agree it is more than a "stub," and that it can be improved. It's not necessarily going to be easy, given how the book has been used and possibly abused as a promotional vehicle. The line between promotion and helpful contributions can be tricky. However, Dr. Nase has definitely been overinvolved, both making sure that his books and web sites are represented (on more than one page!), and removing reference to the very serious controversy. If some resource is clearly controversial, it should either be removed, or left with reference to the controversy. It seems Dr. Nase wants it kept, but the controversy suppressed. Which, in fact, seems to be much of the nature of the controversy itself, now that I've been reading about it. Deciding what should be in a "textbook" can be a difficult editorial decision; to fix this book is going to take the participation of some neutral editors -- I hope I'm neutral -- and some people knowledgeable about the field (including rosacea sufferers and other experts), as well as those with a conflict of interest. Those with a COI, which Dr. Nase clearly has, however, should confine themselves to discussion and suggestions, and absolutely avoid revert warring. We all should avoid revert warring, to be sure, absent necessity.
 * Generally, WMF policy requires neutrality, that applies here. Promotion isn't neutral, unless it is neutrally presented. "Dr Nase claims ...." Etc. If Dr. Nase wants to write a book containing original research, that is not necessarily required to be neutral, he could do so, on Wikiversity. There are still restrictions, which I won't detail, and someone else could put together a competing resource. Here, though, it is inappropriate, and will be resisted. --Abd (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Admin attention needed. The IP that signed above as Dr. Nase has been restoring his links to this page without discussion. This bears watching, and perhaps the page should be semiprotected. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Today I put some work into making this page a better resource of external links that isn't promotional. I think any controversy do not really belong on that page at all. External links are intended as references to allow people to verify information. Other pages should maintain a neutral tone and ensure a balance perspective, this is especially true for any controversial aspects. --dark lama  15:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Darklama, I appreciate the work you did, but your description of the function of external links is limited. References are provided for verification. External links are provided for readers to find more information, and a very common function of a "Resources" section of a book, typically at the end, is so that people can connect with others interested in the topic. (Hence the mailing lists, which are never "reliable sources," but, if you really want to learn about a topic, deeply, with your information being up-to-date, subscribe to a mailing list with some experts on it! Or go to a conferencing site with the same. (And carry plenty of salt with you, because you will also see a lot of Bad Information.) External links are not inherently restricted to only non-controversial resources, but a good and well-edited book may present controversial resources as being just that, with caveats. The problem in this case is that Dr. Nase wanted his promotional listings (worded like ads) but not any mention of or linking to material criticizing him. They would go together, not one without the other. Basically, to include controversial external links, there should be consensus on how they are presented, otherwise they must be excluded. If we care about the readers, though, we will find ways to include important ones, and Dr. Nase's work is important, or at least notable. (Which means that people researching the topic will find it. Then what?) --Abd (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My description of the function of external links may be limited, but that is nonetheless the general intended purpose of external links here. Wikibooks' books are intended to be self-contained by including all the information a reader should need and external links shouldn't be used as a substitute for information missing in a book. Any "Resources" section of a book is for collecting external links that can be used for verifying information in the book, as a way for people to get specific specialized help since Wikibooks is not a help desk, or because the links are directly relevant to the topic. Links to a non-profit may qualify as being useful in all 3 cases, for verification since they are bound to have information that could be used in the book to explain the topic, for people to get specific specialized help since that is their purpose, and because non-profits are often important players in a field in which a topic might be discussed which tends to make them directly relevant to the topic of a book.
 * OTOH books do have a scope which limit what information should be included though. However Wikibooks' books tend to link to other books on Wikibooks that cover other elements of the topic that is outside a specific book's scope. Those links might be included in a "Resources" section as well, or somewhere else in the book. --dark lama  12:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be a waste of reader time to give them external links to material that is already in the book, generally. However, our books aren't complete, and more complete resources may exist, some of them with information that would never be appropriate for wikibooks, such as a list of medical practitioners specializing in rosacea. Any book on the topic, though, commercially published, would include a reference to a source for such a list. Now, would this be in a "textbook"? Strictly, no. But people aren't reading about rosacea simply to learn about it in some abstract way, they may be reading because they, or a loved one, have rosacea. If Wikibooks are only for textbook use, i.e, academic usage, then that reference to a list of practitioners wouldn't and probably shouldn't be there. However, who will be reading our textbooks? Should we consider the actual readership or only some desired readership, literal students of the topic? And we aren't even close to providing that textook! What we have is a popular work on rosacea, clearly written for a popular audience.
 * But what about, say, an academic society studying the topic? What about a mailing list covering the topic? In fields where I have sufficient expertise to teach, I'd want my students to connect with these resources, which are often interactive. Interactivity can't be presented in a textbook, but it is how one will truly learn a subject, by asking questions, by reading answers to questions, and, indeed, by making mistakes and seeing them pointed out. What I've learned from mailing lists is probably an order of magnitude greater than I'd have gotten from a textbook. And a textbook can and should point to these resources, if the goal of the textbook is education, not monopolization of the process! A good textbook will guide the student to a position from which the student can transcend the textbook.
 * It has been argued that our books can be updated quickly with new information. That isn't actually true, first, for practical reasons, we don't have the labor to do it, but, as well, "new information" is often controversial. Someone studying the field will want to know what the controversy is about. Covering the controversy is possible, but, again, can take enormous editorial resources, because that coverage is almost certain to involve or create disputes. Until we have those resources, we do our readers a service by pointing outside to places where they can learn about these things, and if we do our work well, they won't be easily misled. We, then, just cover in our text what is reasonably uncontroversial, and we use external links to point to places where controversy will be covered. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am keeping the reply to be about this page, and not about links in general. I contend that it is factually inaccurate to claim that popular (as in popular science) commercially published books would contain a list of medical practitioners specializing in Rosacea.  First such a list would clearly become out of date fairly quickly (as people die, retire, etc.) and would have obvious geographical issues, so would not be appropriate for a "dead tree book".   To take a specific case, the book [|Rosacea: Your Self-Help Guide] contains no such list.  And while it does discuss insurance, it does so only in general terms without mentioning specific companies.  There are, in my opinion, legal reasons to not include such a list in a dead tree book.  But these do not apply to a wiki as far as I understand. Thenub314 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim you've denied, Thenub, wasn't made. Rather, such a book could very well include a URL for a place to find such a list (and I've seen this, routinely, in modern books). And that's what is at issue here. You are completely correct about a list of practitioners not being appropriate, in general, for a print book, nor for our book.
 * I must have misread, my apologies. For what it is worth, I would disagree about the appropriate of such a list in Wikibooks, we would suffer from many of that practicalities that would make such a list not a great idea in a dead tree book.  Being a wiki we also leave ourselves open new possibilities as well, such as unscrupulous and unlicensed medical practitioners using us as an advertising platform.  Not to mention that such a list doesn't fall under the scope of a typical textbook.  What I think would be a much better idea and very appropriate would be to link to a list maintained by the appropriate professional organizations (Such as the American Academy of Dermatology in the current case, and its overseas counterparts). Thenub314 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Any neutral and complete book on this topic would be likely to include a link to the National Rosacea Society, as the book page presently does. From there, one looking for practitioner information can easily find it, linked from the Physician Finder, which, in turn, links to the American Academy of Dermatology, as suggested, and to two other specialist resources. Further, if one is interested in some experimental or fringe treatment, or the implications of the latest research, rosacea support groups operate fora where anyone may ask questions or find material in archives. In a good (neutral) forum, one would find the desired information, and also, probably, be warned about potential problems. I have found such support groups to be invaluable, with my own medical issues, and what I've learned has allowed me to ask intelligent questions of my medical practitioners and to probably find more effective treatment. And, sure, it also exposes me to quite a bit of nonsense. If I want nonsense, I can find it anyway, anywhere. A good resource, such as a major and active mailing list, is likely, at least, to give me all sides of an issue, something that our own book cannot possibly do, for all the obvious reasons. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete I believe it should be deleted, not a good page...full of links - Tannertsf (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)