The Internet gets too much split up into little bubbles by commercial and governmental activity, Wikipedia started as a mostly foam-free effort. We are working on restarting it. Midgley (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP is in general A Good Thing. Reference books should usually accumulate annotations as time goes on, and being able to make them directly, and share from others' made, into the text is on the whole a significant improvement. The licence applied to ganfyd is the first effort I know of to merge the huge advantages of WP with satisfactory conditions for a professional resource. Time will tell.
3 March 2006. Edward_Jenner is a good article. This is the result of an amiable effort by several people who want to write an encyclopaedia and was both fun and worthwhile. This is quite distinguishable from the efforts of the entryist anti-vaccination cabal who wish to avoid mention of their activities and are distinctly unWP:CIVIL about it.
and now I see it is marked as an inactive project. Hmm. It is done. The notability: People page doesn't include doctors, perhaps it should be merged in. Midgley (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Improvements by afd
Contact field microscopy was a hoax. Deleted. Royal Rife remains. Assemblage Point - a hoax with coloured lights - is gone. Abrams is better after some research. Bioresonance damped out; Richard Schulz deleted.
To categorise me as interested in alternative healthcare rather than a WPedian opposed to quackery was not entirely helpful. There is no such thing as alternative healthcare, there is healthcare that works and healthcare that doesn't, and like the rest of my profession I rapidly adopt the bits that actually work, and try to discard the ones that don't. Most of the alternative health articles I get involved with on WP are arrant quackery, ripoffs, attempts to publicise fraud for profit and the like.
Not just about ensuring SPOV, NPOV or reverting vandalism, but citing & verifying to defend against trivial, but highly vocal, minority viewpoints who often eloquently argue & post large number of references, most of which are selectively misquoted, do not draw the claimed conclusions or are anecdotal reports rather than null-hypothesis statistically-vetted duplicable-research.
I don't know how to make fancy pictures to put in an award but you deserve one for your efforts at making the Kaiser Permanente article more neutral. Thank you. Kato 13:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
And now knowing more about dustjackets of books than I intended
