User talk:Tom harrison/BADCITES

Here are some more, some of which are already blacklisted here, which is why I had to nowiki them:

Mercola.com http://www.mercola.com/ CureZone http://curezone.org/ Gary Null's Natural Living http://www.garynull.com/ Dr. Clark Research Association http://www.drclark.net/ Quackpot Watch http://www.quackpotwatch.org/ The Bolen Report http://www.bolenreport.com/ Save Dr. Clark http://www.savedrclark.net/ Red Flags http://www.redflagsweekly.com/ DORway http://www.dorway.com/ Aspartame Victims Support Group http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/index.html International Advocates for Health Freedom http://www.iahf.com/ Orthomolecular Medicine Online http://www.orthomed.org/ WHALE http://www.whale.to/ DoctorYourself.Com http://doctoryourself.com/ National Vaccine Information Center http://www.nvic.org/ Vaccination News http://www.vaccinationnews.com/ AidsMyth http://www.aidsmyth.com/ Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients http://www.tldp.com/ TALK International http://www.talkinternational.com/ Burzynski Clinic http://www.cancermed.com/ DrWhitaker.com http://www.drwhitaker.com/ Educate Yourself http://educate-yourself.org/ California Citizens for Health http://www.citizenshealth.org/ Progress in Medicine Foundation http://www.treatmentchoice.org/ NewsTarget.com http://www.newstarget.com

-- Fyslee / talk 19:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. I wonder if you meant "sites" rather than "cites" when you wrote BADCITES? While they are bad sources to use as cites (citations), they are bad sites (websites), as in unreliable sites. -- Fyslee / talk 14:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BADCITES is for "bad citations." You're right, it is all websites now, but I'd like to expand it (and welcome others doing so) to include books, magazines, fake journals, etc. It is striking how junk science is always easily available on the web, but if I want a reliable, authoritative reference I have to use interlibrary loan. This reflects the promotional vs. scholarly motivation of the authors, I guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. The lack of verifiability from third party sources is a big problem with these sites, many of which consist of conspiracy theories and such unreliable speculations. The journal of a deceptively named organization is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. It should be added to the list. Generally none of these URLs should be used as sources or links in anything other than articles about themselves. -- Fyslee / talk 14:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]