adrianctn

Wikipedia - editing the pages of the psychiatric medication

13 posts in this topic

Hello, 

 

I would like to gather the help of the community to modify the pages of all psychiatric medication on Wikipedia - to reflect what we know to be true: that these drugs are dangerous and have debilitating side effects. 

 

This is important because Wikipedia is used as a source of medical information by millions of people worldwide. 

 

I have started with the page on Prozac, with a minor edit. My edit is underlined. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoxetine

 

 

"Fluoxetine, also known by trade names Prozac and Sarafem among others, is an antidepressant of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class.[1] It is used for the treatment of major depressive disorderobsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), bulimia nervosapanic disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. It may decrease the risk of suicide in those over the age of 65, but significantly increases the risk of suicide overall, by causing severely altered mental states[5]. Fluoxetine has also been used to treat premature ejaculation, but it causes permanent impotence and sexual dysfunction in some individuals[6]. It is taken by mouth.[1]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's already been changed again.

 

I had to laugh at the following section:

"The side effects of the fluoxetine discontinuation are uncommon and mild..."

Hmm, ok then!

 

Drug companies have their people rewrite this stuff faster than we can :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good idea. Be sure to back up any changes with links to appropriate papers from verified medical journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while this has been a long time coming, i also advise people to integrate new content into the present format in order to reduce the chances of people trying to reverse the changes.  for example, the changes mentioned in the first post here did not follow the "positives, then negatives" formatting of the paragraph they were introduced into.  even people who agree about the known risks may revert an edit if they think it was a poor fit stylistically.

 

i consider this a fairly important campaign for informed consent.  perhaps members of SA with enough time or cognitive functioning on their hands to work on these sorts of issues can collaborate to most effectively amend such articles to be more accurate and more scientific.  if such a collaboration takes place, i would be interested in contributing to the degrees i am capable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to help with something like this, but I would want to do it in collaboration with others to ensure my edits were grammatically correct, fit stylistically, backed by research and didn't disappear into oblivion the minute I hit "save".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good idea. For the future generations! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Pharma monitors and changes the drug pages regularly, why not make a Surviving Antidepressants.org page on Wikipedia and start collecting data there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is not really how Wikipedia works--SA is not relevant to Wikipedia and it would not be working within the Wikipedia format to put drug information on the SA Wiki even if it was deemed 'notable enough'.  however, i suggest that anyone making edits saves the text of those edits as to more easily revise them or undo inappropriate reversals by other parties.  i think they have an edits log, but i am not sure what information is saved across months.

 

because there is edit moderation and a section for discussing proposed revisions, too much activity on a page might get it locked down.  this would be a positive thing--special interest parties could not as easily propagandize if alterations require mod approval or whatever goes on there.  so, if someone wants to campaign for information integrity, i do not think it is a lost cause, simply an uphill battle that requires strategizing and collaborative action.

 

pharmaceutical corporations and other special interest groups have far more resources, but we can be just as tenacious.  that means we should focus on bottlenecks where all their extra resources do not help them as much, for example.  additionally, and in step with this Wikipedia idea, focusing on offering information rather than changing pharmaceutical behavior will likely yield more tangible results in many contexts.  theyve been using the same tricks for decades now, regardless of legislation and penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

pharmaceutical corporations and other special interest groups have far more resources, but we can be just as tenacious.  that means we should focus on bottlenecks where all their extra resources do not help them as much, for example.  additionally, and in step with this Wikipedia idea, focusing on offering information rather than changing pharmaceutical behavior will likely yield more tangible results in many contexts.  theyve been using the same tricks for decades now, regardless of legislation and penalties.

Just curious, and forgive me for being so clueless but could you give us an idea of what one of these bottlenecks might be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is not a clueless question at all, especially given how vague the comment was.  i feel wikipedia edits are a greater bottleneck than television spots or magazine space, to give an example.  while more resources can mean having an easier time monitoring and editing pages, there is ultimately only one published draft allowed (exclusivity) and there is generally more weight given to the strength of academic backing (equal opportunity) than pure cash contributions or whatever else.

 

that is not to imply that all arguments truly get a rational and balanced treatment during "edit wars", but such areas are places where the massive difference in resources between individual advocates and pharmaceutical corporations and industry entities is minimized.  a "bottleneck" means resource flow/investment is restricted, as opposed to completely cut off.

 

bottlenecks are an area of increased weakness for them not only because more balanced representation can be made with regards to individual investment on the part of people such as us, but also because the visibility is increased when you cut a datastream down by 90% or more.  areas with a lot of traffic, with greater 'clout', and with a heightened interest in higher quality content are more potent places to look for and utilize bottlenecks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that that's not how Wiki works concerning topics, but there's nothing against creating a SA page that discusses withdrawal effects of psychiatric drugs, discusses tapering methods and directs people to SA.org.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i may be wrong in saying so, as i have not made an account there myself, but i think there is something against creating an SA page on there and putting that stuff in it.  there are limitations on what sorts of articles can be created, and how those articles are to be formatted.  how important or even how scientific a topic or issue is takes a back seat to supposed social relevance and a formal organizational scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I did this before for a time as fast as you can put things on wiki it will disappear.  There is a memorable bit from the effexor page this post brought to mind I have decided to share it with you folks here.

 

"It is sad and scary that this article is on the first page of google search results for Effexor. If you are looking for any accurate information about this medication, stay away from this page, and the wikipedia pages of any other psychopharmaceuticals. Many of the people editing Wikipedia are seriosly mentally ill, whether psychotic, delusional, or paranoid. By editing Wikipedia their paranoid delusions, previously shouted on the street to strangers, become respectable.

While there are plenty of reputable people editing Wikipedia, at any given time you have no way of knowing whether the version of the page you are reading is written from the POV of a doctor or an untreated mental patient. It may be reasonably accurate for an hour, then full of misinformation and bias the next. While an article on, say, calculus can usually be considered to be accurate, articles on psych medications tend to attract the genuinly insane- people who have been prescribed these medications and need to warn the world of the evil doctor-conspiracy to control their minds."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Venlafaxine/Archive1

path to this is the original page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venlafaxine&action=history

this link

Do it if you like however I do not think changes you make to wiki will stay not for long anyway. Good Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now