Talk:Dana Ullman

So what are the chances I could interest the general RW community in getting this article in better shape. Ullman's internet trolling history is documented in a lot of places and is very high profile. There is also his involvement at citizendium and the The Huffington Post. I am sure there is more, I would need to research it, and always have meant to but it keeps slipping through the cracks. tmtoulouse 19:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody else will, I can hack away at it when I find some time. A quick google search turns up more than enough stuff to start from, and it doesn't look like research will be too difficult. 19:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If anybody else is interested in helping tackle this, I have a brief page of references I've gathered here. 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I documented Ullman's work on Wikipedia, with extensive reference.s. It represents literal weeks of work. It needs cleaned up, but covers almost everything you'd need to talk about for his trolling, with extensive documentation. It does need a bit of editing to make it snarkier and a bit less pedantic - the situation in question - getting Ullman banned from using Wikipedia to advocate Homeopathy- is a somewhat different purpose, but it remains the best documented expose out there, and RationalWiki's welcome to use it.
 * While there maybe good material its very far from usable in its current form, maybe we should subpage it and work on formatting it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Subpaged to Dana Ullman/On Wikipedia. I think it works much better as its own sub-article. 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your call. Just wanted to start this moving, and I had all this research already done, so... 86.162.109.61 (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is it? (me = ignorant) Convertible (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree that it is not article worthy in its current format in our article, I say leave it in for now, and I'll move all of it into a sandbox on one of my user subpages (probably User:Gooniepunk2010/sandboxey and work on formatting it. 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be good to work in a summary of it. If I weren't horribly sleep deprived (damn neighbours), I'd probably do so myself. 86.177.157.103 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Started building a short version of Ullman's tactics, with proto-snark that should become funnier once I get the basic framework in. It might take a day or two, but I think that there's starting to be a decent basic analysis coming together.
 * NEarly done! 86.179.219.80 (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that. Outstanding job! Thank you. 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! Been wanting to do something like this for a while, really =) Now, there's probably going to need to be a little tightening up; possibly lose a few of the redundant quotes (or put them in the footnotes), and we could use coverage of some of the other aspects of his career, but I do think this gives a much better idea of Ullman, at the very least. =) 86.179.219.80 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you think there's too many quotes? I mean, some of them are justified - Dana_Ullman uses the conflicting quotes as a big part of its snark - but some of the sections might benefit from moving some of the quotations to the references, and just summarizing. It's because I did the research, I think: there's such a strong inclination to show your work, and a big chunk of this is actually new research, albeit with some pretty strong hints as to where to look. 86.179.219.80 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mwahahah! Done except for polishing it up! 86.179.219.80 (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article rating???
What do people think about this article's current rating on our brainstar system? I think it's thorough enough for "Gold" or "silver," but would like more input first. 00:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added in a little more background, and think it's definitely silver, and could reasonably go gold - but then, I would say that as the primary author of most of its material, wouldn't I?
 * I think it could use more eyes, perhaps a little copyediting by someone that isn't me. We might also find a few things in the Wikipedia article worth taking ETA: Not really. - it has some quotes and biographical elements that might be useful - though I doubt that'd add more than a small paragraph at most to what we have. In any case, while I do say it myself, I think this compares well to other cover stories: It's a notable crank, plenty of information about them, and provides a good insight as to denialist techniques. Homeopathic irrationality is definitely on mission. Aconite (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this back to "bronze" level for the time being, because I think it needs a shit ton of copyediting after I re-read through this. Do I think it could go back to "silver?" Certainly! But for now, it just doesn't have "silver" quality to this user. Specifically, this article seems to have too much first-person commentary to me, instead of a third-person article tone. 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. You'll note I have always said other people should probably copydit it, though I stand by the research. =) Aconite (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cover story
Please do not archive this section

I think this compares favourably to other cover stories in quality; it has loads of references, is a useful resource for learning about crank techniques, as well as the crank himself. As it details a notable crank, it's pretty clearly on mission, and the explanation of the techniques he uses is at least somewhat generalizable.

If anyone sees anything missing, I'm happy to do the research to pull it in, but I think there's a firm foundation here which should do the site credit. Aconite (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead-in is far too much of a hatchet job to go as a cover. The opening sentence is long and almost entirely uninformative because of how much it goes onto slag Ullman off following the "tireless advocate of homeopathy" bit (which should be the end of the opening sentence). As, IIRC, this has been altered and rollbacked at least once already, I'm reluctant to make that change myself. But, personally, it's certainly something that I'd want to see addressed before I even considered it cover worthy. 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, I've cut it. Aconite (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty decent article, and incredibly well-sourced. I did get a bit lost though in the large amount of quoting being done. Would it be worth removing some of the direct quotes in favour of summarising the discussions? Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 21:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would definitely be worth it, but I'm too close to the research to do it. If you see good points to summarise, please do! =) Aconite (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll fiddle with it over the next couple of days to see what can be shifted in to a more traditional essay format. Definitely well done overall. Enjoyed reading that article. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dana_Ullman could certainly use some tightening up. I'm just not quite sure where.Aconite (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. That looks pretty messy. 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MPH
While it's not a clinical qualification, I wouldn't call an MPH administrative. In this case, it's especially ironic, because a large part of the curriculum is statistics, epidemiology, and decision science. A number of physician residencies, especially in public health (duh), are set up so an MPH can be earned along with the clinical science and board qualification. I guess he goes out of his way to forget it when he "proves" things.

Perhaps you were thinking of the Master's in Health Administration or Master's in Public Administration (healthcare concentration?)Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's been in the article for a very long time; I presumed it was right. I'll do some research and try to get a better short description. Aconite (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I put that in. Perhaps I misread the course description - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes these things vary by university to some extent. Aconite (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been giving some thought to taking a program, but the better schools are around $35,000 a year. Like it or not, it would help me a lot, in medical informatics, to have some medical credentials. Another option may be to see if I can get advanced placement for the pre-clinical courses and take a year of nursing. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)