Page 1 of 1

James Heilman (Doc James)

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:45 am
by CrowsNest
The good Doctor definitely seems to have a strategy for ensuring Wikipedia becomes the preeminent global medical resource.

In the below links, he is both a cited author and a quoted interviewee on the subject of Wikipedia's medical content. ... study.html

Experienced critics will spot rather easily what the problems are with that study and the resulting media coverage.

Unfortunately we only get to see it after it is published.

What has to happen at the very least, is a recognition on the part of academia and the media, that even though he isn't paid to edit Wikipedia, in terms of professional reputation and indeed personal ideological goals, he absolutely has a conflict of interest here.

Re: James Heilman (Doc James)

Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:13 am
by Graaf Statler
There is a other problem with the good doctor. A ideologic one.
Once the doctor wrote I don't want to pay for Elsevier content (A important Dutch publisher of scientific, technical, and medical information). And the good Docter is a devoted fan of Jullia Reda as you can see on his twitter. Doc James was heavy involved in the article 13/17 discussion, and edited this article constant whit a absolute pro- Pirate Party bias. So, the question is, what is the source of all this wiki medical info?

Is that real free source stuff where we are talking about, or is this medical info by the wiki community free declared stuff, and that is the big question. Is Doc James really that good doctor, or is Doc James just governing by shitsstorm to borrow a few words from Alex Voss and just spreading protected material as fee content?
Because this should be unacceptable and the highest chefs of the EU have given there opinion about the use of protected material by copyright, and the European Parlement too. And states always overrules everything and for sure shitty American foundations.