https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_07_April_2021
I could not believe the deterioration of this page, thanks u/fddayiga6f for bringing this to our attention. I think we all need to contact our state associations and ask them to petition wikipedia until this article is updated. If the associations can dedicate teams to keep the page updated and truthful then we should be able to overcome the trolls. Please let me know what you think...
Well done! You make a good point on the page about lobotomies. Some people are just stuck in the (not so distant) past with their viewpoints of us.
Wiki is privately owned and outwards stated to be anti chiro. You’ll never win this fight against their science as religion mods/owners.
It’s been brought up many times in many ways. There is no petitioning/winning this argument with them.
They feel they’re infallible.
Well the site is open-ended and open-sourced, so users get to determine what is put on the site and what stays on. It's just that the bears are overpowering the bulls right now. If it was flipped and our side was more engaged, we would win by having a better sourced, better written wiki and keeping it on there from trolls editing it. That's what I mean by "petitioning."
As I said, it’s been attempted and the page was locked from edits for years.
So the more you try, the worse it gets. It’s a lost cause
As someone who worked hard to have that page changed a few years back, I can tell you it is not as easy as you may think. They will find a way to prevent you from putting anything there.
““Lobotomies were performed in the thousands from the 1930s to the 1950s, and were ultimately replaced with modern psychotropic drugs [2].” That is egregiously recent for a profession that is supposedly “based on science.” Chiropractic on the other hand, while in the past it has described itself with terms that some users are deeming “unscientific,” it at least was not hurting people in any similar way. “
Wow. That’s setting the bar quite low.
I'm reading through the other edit requests. My god, what the hell. Great edit request by the way.
I saw a conversation on an ACA forum a few months ago and they’re not willing to spend resources on fixing the Wikipedia page because it’s not going to us the recognition/public opinion that Medicare parity will (apparently, that’s their argument, I heatedly disagree but I’m also not an expert, I mean Medicare parity would be nice for docs/clinics/etc. but I don’t really see how that’ll change public opinion a great deal unless it’s well publicized). Hopefully state associations will care more?
I see it both ways. The ACA probably would further argue that most chiropractic patients are ones who have seen/heard of a success story from a friend or family member which primes them to come in, or they are desperate and chiropractic is their last hope. In those cases, a Wikipedia article isn't going to deter their trip.
But the people who are hyper-obsessed with diagnosing themselves over the internet and take the time to do (what they think is) the proper research before trying something new, are likely a little more skeptical after reading that page. It's certainly not an endorsement of chiropractic.
At the end of the day, I guess we never will know how many patients we're missing out on because the Wikipedia page detracts from what we do as a profession. Which is a shame. I wish we had a stronger team in place to counter the anti-chiro efforts on Wikipedia, but I think they're too deeply rooted.
Medicare parity means other payers follow suit. Want to get paid more than .26 cents on the dollar vs an MD PCP? Medicare parity gets you there. Imagine getting a 10-50% bump on all paid codes and fees a just because your RVU goes up.
Also the aca has no power over Wikipedia so the argument is moot lol
Wow I can honestly say I haven't ever read the Chiropractic page on Wikipedia, and it's an absolute disaster. I can't believe there's so much focus on the past, and there's so many opinions being played off as facts. This page is an embarrassment to both our profession, and Wikipedia for allowing it. I've considered donating to wiki, but will never until the fix this page.
A few years ago I helped create a WikiProject for Chiropractic on Wikipedia if anyone is interested in joining. A couple guys from this subreddit joined in hopes of turning the main chiropractic pages into something more resembling the truth of chiropractic today - basically what's written in OP's post.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia as a whole has a very large bias against the profession, and every and any edit I made (keeping in mind neutral tone and objectivity) was tossed when it hinted at even a glimmer of EB practice for chiro. They seem hell-bent on keeping up the guise that chiropractic is purely pseudoscientific and has no basis in helping patients.
Eventually I stopped contributing, mostly because I had a practice that was growing and I didn't have time to edit pages on Wikipedia, but mostly because it seemed that a small group of MDs would track my edits and refute them at all costs.
The truth is, a large and growing majority of the profession is evidence-based. But you'd never know that if you read the Wiki article on chiropractic. If you're interested in joining a group of like-minded Wikipedia editors, feel free to join that WikiProject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chiropractic
I was part of that too! Are you Semmendinger?
Eventually I stopped contributing, mostly because I had a practice that was growing and I didn't have time to edit pages on Wikipedia, but mostly because it seemed that a small group of MDs would track my edits and refute them at all costs.
My exact reasons for stopping as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_8_April_2021
What is this? This is so strange... Like, is this the guy that I have to convince to get changes made to the wiki? What is even the best way to respond to this, I have no idea... this isn't as easy to use as reddit where I can just reply...
Of course, it's ridiculous to have to argue the meaning of "pseudoscience," it's not like every medical doctor is performing a random controlled trial w/ every prescription of antibiotics just to prove that it was an isolated variable that cured the patient lol
If the associations can dedicate teams to keep the page updated and truthful then we should be able to overcome the trolls.
It's not that simple. Wikipedia has guidelines dictating pages. Not everyone can edit the way you may expect.
The people controlling the page are experienced wiki editors, that have taken "Ownership" of the page. There are guidelines against this, but it is what they have done. I'm not saying there is nothing that can be done, but getting more people on the issue will not necessarily be helpful.
