Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of people who think themselves world experts in something is truly enormous. Wikipedia needs to be maintainable by people who aren't topic experts. They can't just go around anointing people that sound expert-y to them, as that would introduce far more bias, western and otherwise. Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.
> Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere. Citation needed.
A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
61–70 of 118 posts
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, if someone wants to experiment on themselves, why not let them? Nobody is harmed if it doesn't work, and we can make quick breakthroughs that might be otherwise impossible due to ethics/etc.
Why not let athletes use steroids? It's unsafe. And people might consider risking their health if they feel it could make/break their career. Better to have a strong stigma against self-experimentation to avoid that.
Most of the cases where self experimentation becomes a viability are cases like in this article. Where funding doesnt exist. There is no competition because there is no funding for the topic. If he hadnt done it, nobody would have. Also, for some people the aim isnt personal profit but actual progress.
I think your take is overly zealous, if you are really worried you could make it a requirement for grants. Which it already is.
edit: Maybe for a different framing, picture it more like climbing a mountain. You do it because its there, it is that simple. All the rest (sponsorships and the like) is just ways to get funding to get you up there. You were already going to go, more funding just makes it saver. And as unhealthy as it is, i think society should not get involved further as me not dragging anyone else in with me. After all, how is this any worse then eating or drinking myself to death. Or giving myself a heart attack (to come back to professional athletes)
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of people who think themselves world experts in something is truly enormous. Wikipedia needs to be maintainable by people who aren't topic experts. They can't just go around anointing people that sound expert-y to them, as that would introduce far more bias, western and otherwise. Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere.
> Wikipedia's job isn't to push forward the frontiers of knowledge. It's to summarize the stuff you can look up elsewhere. Citation needed.
To push forward the frontiers of knowledge is literally not the point of an encyclopedia, by definition. Even if it was, how could you see frontier pushing happen with volunteer editors ? With more unsourced/trust me bro/self describes experts editing online? I kind of doubt that
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, ha…
And that's a good thing. Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability over completeness. Are there downsides to that trade-off? Absolutely. But i would rather that over trusting random people on the internet to know what they are talking about.
Yeah while I don't personally like the extreme over reliance on just secondary sources to the point where it leads to driving out actual experts, I can't imagine how bad it would be with just even less strict sourcing rules in general. Actually I can, that was pretty much wikipedia until the big clean ups that happened at the end of the last decade and I'm glad we are past that... interesting early stage.
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, ha…
True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently.
> True for the England wikipedia, but the mods for the wikipedias in other languages enforce the rules differently.
To sometimes very very mixed results (at best).
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#66Not a hero, but a fool.
Imagine what would the repercussions for the field be if the surgery went a little worse since it seems so badly planned from the outset? More restrictive regulation against the practice? All major funding either pulled outright or forever tainted with the stigma arising from this endeavor ?
I don't know what it is about HN that this forum praises seemingly stupid pursuits such as a neurosurgeon choosing to operate on himself without (a) Validating the approach better and (b) Having a backup plan in case things went bad (No person in the US to come and care for him etc) and (c) Using antiquated electronics in the eyes of the very experts he was entrusting with the operation.
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#67The headline is quite a bit of clickbait. And the frame of the article is aimed at clicks and keeping the reader hooked by creating the impression he had made some monumental mistake.
He had some brain swelling shortly after the surgery. Thats it.
Still great to have posted it, amazing guy
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#68Not a hero, but a fool. Imagine what would the repercussions for the field be if the surgery went a little worse since it seems so badly planned from the outset? More restrictive regulation against the practice? All major funding either pulled outright or forever tainted with the stigma arising from this endeavor ? I don't know what it is about HN that this forum praises seemingly stupid pursuits such as a neurosurge…
From the start it was done for show. He paraded himself around at least one neuroscience conference while still healing from getting the implant.
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not let athletes use steroids? It's unsafe. And people might consider risking their health if they feel it could make/break their career. Better to have a strong stigma against self-experimentation to avoid that.
"Why not let athletes use steroids? It's unsafe." That's not the reason. Athletes do unsafe things all the time, with the blessing of their sport. Boxing is unsafe, American football is unsafe, skateboarding is unsafe, skiing is unsafe, extreme sports are unsafe, etc... The prohibition on steroid use has more to do with fairness and ensuring a level playing field, so no athlete has an unfair advantage over another. S…
> The prohibition on steroid use has more to do with fairness and ensuring a level playing field, so no athlete has an unfair advantage over another.
This is somewhat circular logic - it's only 'unfair' because you've defined it that way. IMO the idea that there is a level playing field is somewhat of a myth to begin with, there are plenty of other ways to gain "fair" advantage like better training and nutrition, and access to those things is clearly not equal across all competitors. I think you could probably argue the current situation is less fair than just allowing them considering how many top athletes likely use steroids anyway and just haven't been caught.
That's not to say that I think we should allow steroids in sports, just that "a level playing field" doesn't seem like much of a justification to me. I think the simpler reason is that lots of sports already have rules to make the sport safer for their athletes, and banning steroids/drugs simply falls into that same category because it has a clear risk of spiraling out of control. Yes, sports are unsafe, but they're also generally designed to not be so unsafe that competitors are dying all the time due to going to extreme lengths to try and win.
Re: A neurologist who hacked his brain and almost lost his mind (2016)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are mods who would delete that in a heartbeat if they saw it.
Which is why Wikipedia is so western-centric. I could be the world expert in my field, say... coconut picking. I haven't published any papers about picking coconuts, and neither is it a subject that the newspapers want to write about. If I wrote wikipedia entry about picking coconuts, it would be immediately deleted because personal experience isn't a citable source. I need to tell some other fool about what I do, ha…
I'm sure they recognize that weakness but also that it's necessary. Wikipedia can't be "The source" of information, that would change its fundamental premise.