I've never wanted to debate about that. I said:a world of no wrote:how about statistics and info i've seen stated on wikipedia have differed enough from medical text/peer review/whatever medical references to make a difference between life and death. every medical institution differs slightly, but it's all strictly reviewed and updated constantly to still fall within the range of safe practice. wikipedia is not, which is why it's not fucking medically viable for patient care.Necrometer wrote:It's nice to see that you have nothing to back up your "there's a reason..." rhetoric. You've now suggested that there must be a reason, though you've never had an interest in finding out what that reason might have been.
if anyone should understand this you should, ross. there's a fine line between safe and death in medicine, and you want to debate whether medical information found on wikipedia is viable, reliable information for making life and death based decision?
- I bet doctors are less reliable than Wikipedia
- ...especially if they're going to use a source that isn't for medicine often enough that it causes that source to be blocked from hospitals
- you previously used "there's a reason" rhetoric then followed up with "i started working in medicine where it was all tons of "nope... shit's not reliable, so it's blocked/forbidden." and then you start to truly wonder about how real world "credible" it is as a definitive reference" which wasn't very illuminating re: a reason
I don't think doctors should be using Wikipedia or WebMD as a final source in life/death decision-making. That doesn't make Wikipedia any less of a meritocracy compared to the direct democracy approximated by Reddit.
Certified Poster
It's easy to hate Reddit, and there's metric tons of stupid shit on it (the comments sections are often as bad as anywhere else on the internet),