Talk:Why do we need Wiki4CAM?

From Wiki4CAM

I don't find these examples provide any evidence that editors are biased against CAM. There is some evidence that the editors aren't strong believers in CAM, but that's a different matter.

I'm a massage educator, and I am a supporter of CAM therapies to some extent. I don't blindly believe that techniques work just because someone tells me they do. It seems to me that these examples of "bias" are really examples of people who are reviewing the research evidence that they are aware of. Much of the writing on this page seems to me to be evidence of a bias of support of CAM therapies. Here's a good example of bias - "Anybody found posting any anti-CAM data will be quickly removed."

Surely if you are aware of evidence to support the use of CAM therapies and if "nearly every person using search engines (like Google) to find information about any CAM therapy, lands up at Wikipedia because Wikipedia pages usually rank in top 10 search results for nearly all CAM therapies", the best thing to do is to write up this evidence on Wikipedia?

Can we please throw out this "us & them" mentality? It doesn't help CAM and it doesn't help the world. We all know that many CAM therapies which do not yet have sufficient evidence to support them have value. It's up to us to create this evidence so that the value is seen by the mainstream medical profession. That's all that is needed. The recent adoption of transcendental meditation & mindfulness meditation is a good example of this.--David McQuillan 16:42, 30 October 2008 (CDT)

David, if you had been involved on the homeopathy talk pages at wikipedia, you would have realized the way CAM is being handled at wikipedia. Many of the editors and admins of that section are members of websites and groups like quackwatch, randi.org etc and discuss a lot of wiki editing at their own platforms. This happened to wiki4cam too. Lot of efforts were made to sabotage this project and most of the plans hatched at such quackery monitoring websites. That was when we decided to write A note for skeptics. We are NOT in favor of the 'us and them' mentality and we would be happy to modify the sections that you have referred to. But the question is, will this action reduce the level of attacks on CAM? Will it change the fact that most of the CAM therapies are being attacked as quackery, especially by people who have very little knowledge of CAM. Anyway, we do plan to modify the article in near future to make it less negative. We don't want to harbor negative energies here. Regarding your example of being biased for CAM. Technically, yes we are biased but actually, we are just being a bit protective at present so that our energies are not spent in fighting those people, who enjoy disrupting meaningful activity. CAMwikiAdmin 00:23, 31 October 2008 (CDT)