| Revision as of 09:13, 11 October 2015 editMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,259 editsm among← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:57, 26 October 2015 edit undoMiddle 8 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,259 edits noteNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| That said, of course I understand the concern, and respect ] and ] generally. | That said, of course I understand the concern, and respect ] and ] generally. | ||
| (I'm on long-term leave from my practice, but may return at some point. If and when I retire, that should moot the question of COI.) | |||
| :''See also: ]'' | :''See also: ]'' | ||
Revision as of 16:57, 26 October 2015
- Do practicing acupuncturists have a conflict of interest (COI) when editing acupuncture-related articles?
I understand the argument that they do: they stand to benefit from the positive depiction of acupuncture. On Misplaced Pages, opinion on the matter is divided, with an RfC on the general question of CAM practitioners finding no consensus, leaning toward "no".
In the "real world", there is evidently no precedent for a CAM-specific COI. I'm aware of no journal, editorial board, or academic department with such a policy. The Cochrane Collaboration produces what we consider to be among the highest-level MEDRS's, and they consider CAM professionals to be no more (and no less) conflicted than any medical specialist.
That said, of course I understand the concern, and respect WP:ADVOCACY and WP:PAG generally.
(I'm on long-term leave from my practice, but may return at some point. If and when I retire, that should moot the question of COI.)
- See also: User:Middle 8/Privacy