Talk:Health 2.0

Medicine C‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open Access Low‑importance

Health 2.0 is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Health and fitness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Might

Might Potts HWW (2006). "Is e-health progressing faster than e-health researchers?" Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(3), e24[1] be of value to this article? Bondegezou (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: CareFlash.com

CareFlash.com is in my opinion one of the best medical social networking sites... it provides a free service for caregivers to create an online comunity around a loved-one that is sick. I think it'd be an improvement to this article to add it to the Community Driven Social Network area. What do you think? Thanks, Klostermankl (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think CareFlash.com is very interested. What's needed is reliable sources discussing CareFlash.com or, indeed, any of the other services currently listed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If CareFlash had it's own wiki page, would that be notable enough? I know that ther are articls out there from businesswire.com, the Houston Chronicle and another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klostermankl (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are such articles, then they would probably be reason enough to mention it here. I'm not certain what the notability criteria are for articles about websites: try WP:WEB. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to take a look at the article you can at User:Klostermankl/CareFlash at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Klostermankl/CareFlash. It's in my sand box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klostermankl (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New reference(s)

I think we definitely need to include this new paper by Hughes et al. on Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0. Bondegezou (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some material citing Hughes et al., but as a major review article, there's more of value there. Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another article of possible use: [2] Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Health 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125164502/http://www.manhattanresearch.com/ttpwhitepaper.aspx to http://www.manhattanresearch.com/TTPWhitePaper.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]