"FACT CHECK" flag?

thenewme, thank you for your post.

Instead of flagging individual messages, do you think it would help if every talk page had a link to the BCO general site search instead of just the talk search? Then responders could refer readers to BCO information if needed without judgement.

Hillck, that would be a solution and it doesn't sound to hard to incorporate.

Ciindy - great idea!  Can't imagine what Patzee's post has to do with thenewme's suggestions...

eta: Mods:  Maybe this whole thing would be solved if you separated the alternative and complementary sections.  Do a "holistic/alternative" forum and a "complementary" forum with a good description of each, and then immediately begin to ban anybody who posts flame-bait on either side.  Maybe after a few bannings, people will let each other live with their own beliefs and stay in their own areas.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU - many of us have been asking for that for a LONG LONG time....

petjunkie wrote:
I really wish that more posters here could just take a step back, breathe, and realize that they can't control what other people may choose to believe about cancer and treatments. Agree to disagree and move on. . . come here for support from like-minded people and ignore those who you don't agree with. Neither side is ever going to change the other's minds.

1Athena1 wrote:

To be sure, there are egregious statements like the ones thenewme quotes in her OP HOWEVER, if we were to fact check properly, we would find that many of us make errors, misstatements, confusion of words, terms, etc... There has to be a place where people can speak freely without being held to expert standards or even standards where they are expected to be correct every time.

Beautifully put, thank you to both. My head is spinning this morning from lack of sleep, my cold, the death of my MIL yesterday and the grief of my husband and in-laws. I can barely concentrate.   I missed the OP but can guess the gist of it, so thank you for stating those points so well.

CoolBreeze - Your whole post is sensible, I agree wholeheartedly with it. like, like, like.
Sorry about your SIL, my thoughts are with you. Death shakes us up and flattens us for a while, then we reassess our own life.

Will separate Alt forum from comp forum, and do some other things to help. Cannot promise to be or handle anything beyond our means. We wish we could provide ONLY medically-reviewed, research based information on the discussion boards  --- truly! But WE do not create the content. YOU do -- our extremely diverse group of members. WE (Breastcancer.org) create our core content with the expert medical reviewers, editors,etc. That is all we have the ability to do. We can NOT control all the all content posted on our discussion boards, or the medical validity of every assertion. Please try to understand the purpose of the discussion boards, of what a small team is able to handle, what our Terms of Use and Rules of Conduct outline (and you agreed to upon joining).  Again, we sincerely appreciate the points that are being brought to the surface here, and understand your concerns. We sincerely mean this. But, please explain how this is even possible, and if you sincerley understood this as the mission of the discussion boards (that is, that we medically "validate" all information posted). Please review the Terms of Use that you agreed upon when registering for our discussion boards: http://community.breastcancer.org/help/rules

Thank you moderators for listening and responding. I think anything is worth a try as it can always be reversed if it's not working out.  I don't envy you your job as I see complaints from all sections and I'd like to thank you for providing such an excellent service that's been a lifesaver for so many. 

You said...

We wish we could provide ONLY medically-reviewed, research based information on the discussion boards

I'm sure much of that information was at some stage awaiting trials or validation and it would be unreasonable to expect us never to discuss unproven treatments or remedies. By definition, everything on the "Clinical Trials, Research..." forum would fall into the "not for discussion" area.

I'm wondering if you meant exactly what you said?  Please clarify. 

Dear Mods,

I think the suggestion I made (on the first page) would work.  But I'd be interested to hear what you think.

It wouldn't require you to try to vet the information on the boards or link it to a discussion in the core content pages, it would allow those who have concerns to register them, and it would only lead to a reminder that this is a discussion forum, and that anyone who intends to rely upon "factual" information presented in the forums should vet that information.

It need not be linked to a particular member, just to a particular post.

I'm sorry thenewme may be leaving.

I appreciate what CoolBreeze is saying about not relying on a Discussion Board for medical information.

I appreciate what the Mods are saying about the difficulty of reviewing 2500 posts daily.

But I would like to present some food for thought -- a paper published in 2006 that used to be quoted a lot when I first joined BCO in 2007, which found that a great strength of an internet breast cancer discussion board was that misinformation was quickly corrected by subsequent posters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1444809/

Esquivel A, Meric-Bernstam F, Bernstam EV. Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis. BMJ. 2006; 332(7547): 939-942.

The authors concluded: "Most posted information on breast cancer was accurate. Most false or misleading statements were rapidly corrected by participants in subsequent postings."

It has been very sad for me to see that, lately, posting of corrections or even of differing opinions is often characterized as "bullying."  I think it's unfortunate that the potential strength of a large community's collective intelligence is not being recognized, and even seems to be discouraged.  There are people posting here who do know a lot. And, to name just one example, almost every woman here knows more about the symptoms of inflammatory breast cancer, and the fact that a clear mammogram and ultrasound cannot rule out IBC, than some general practitioner MDs. 

Ann, You're right about the self-checking and I also really appreciate that the women here are so well informed about BC in all it's forms.

The problem with some of the "factual" corrections is that judgemental terms crept into them and sometimes blatant insults too. I'll be keeping a watch for them in our new Alternative forum which I see has now appeared under the Complementary forum.  I will also be challenging grossly inaccurate information posing as fact. I suspect there are many alt gals who don't appreciate the extreme views. I'm sure we can work out an improved forum once the dust settles.

5pm eastern Australia time. 

Joy and SusieQ -- OT, but do you remember what I said a few weeks ago -- that I'm a nightowl and therefore "keep Australian hours"?  Case in point!  lol

thanks to AnnNYC, Joy, and SusieQ for your contributions.  I've learned a great deal from you and information you've posted. Wish that word "bullying" could be "flagged" as it is an attack.

Also want to THANK Kathy044 - I feel strongly, as you do, that a person's words should be attributed to the person who wrote them, and not quoted without that information. Best, as it takes up so much space, to use just a few words, and link to the proper location.  Other wise it really does turn into the "telephone game" where we aren't given the original context. Thanks for posting the full information.