Talk:Healthline: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

== relevancy ==

==relevancy==

hey [[User:Mr Pollo]] I saw the edit summary and would like to discuss. my primary drive for writing the article was the cookies incident. but for inclusion to the wiki I had to justify its existence. and as I had nothing better I put it off for a while. till I stumbled onto Wikipedia's {{wplink|Healthline|article}} where they mention the site being banned for the publishing of missinfo. I then read through the {{wplink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409|discussion}} and hence deemed it worthy for inclusion to the wiki. I have some medical knowledge but its all just amateur. hence leaving it up for more knowledgable people to fill up the misinfo section. but based on said knowledge I deemed Healthline to be publishing perhaps not misinfo but certainly misleading stuff.

Line 10:

p.s. I had to write this shit twice cuz elec knocked out my PC and all the sacred text with it. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

:The main thing here is that we shouldn't be proffering original interpretation, or covering issues that no-one else has covered.

:With regards to the AI stuff, are there actually any reported/sourced examples of their site providing fully AI-generated answers/inaccurate answers in an AI-generated way? There are several ways that AI could be used legitimately in article creation (e.g. to comb through and highlight relevant sections of a medical textbook, or correct grammatical errors) so we'd need more than just a 'they say they sometimes use AI in their writing process' to justify its inclusion. The cookies thing is fine to mention, though I don't know if it's enough to warrant an article on its own, if it's the only thing. probably fine as a stub with that.

:with regards to misinformation, we need to be citing experts who are calling them out for being inaccurate, not joining those dots ourselves.

:but yeah, i'd say that the main issue here is a lack of secondary sources, rather than a relevance issue. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

::ah I didn't consider that lol. CRW's the first time I've done anything like this so am still learning new stuff.

::anyhow, they do not explicitly mention using AI for generation. they state "In some cases, Artificial Intelligence (AI), or similar technology, may be used in developing elements of our content." due to the vagueness of that statement it could contain generation but atm I have no receipts. the usage of accelerating certain tedious workflows is fine by me. but based on the current state of AI I feel we must be cautious. for me the inclusion is context. for those actually making a decision regarding Healthline to have in the back of their mind. some people despise AI and I can't blame them for it. hence when they see "this product uses AI" they might take their "business" (couldn't find a better word lmao) elsewhere.

::one of the things that really bug me is '''the''' lack of expert review lol. when searching anything medical related Healthline's like the top results in the first page. the site also generates a fuckton of traffic yet nothing holding them accountable than volunteers on Wikipedia and CRW? damn shit fucked af

::anyway nothing for us to do than our work [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 09:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

:::I agree that AI in its current state is increasing becoming an unwanted mainstay in our society and lives among the general public (I myself am getting AI fatigue). Though like what Keith said, the wiki would need sources from experts debunking those Healthline articles and not an unqualified entity like the wiki debunking them (only reporting on the debunking by qualified professionals). [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 22:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== relevancy ==
+==relevancy==
 hey [[User:Mr Pollo]] I saw the edit summary and would like to discuss. my primary drive for writing the article was the cookies incident. but for inclusion to the wiki I had to justify its existence. and as I had nothing better I put it off for a while. till I stumbled onto Wikipedia's {{wplink|Healthline|article}} where they mention the site being banned for the publishing of missinfo. I then read through the {{wplink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409|discussion}} and hence deemed it worthy for inclusion to the wiki. I have some medical knowledge but its all just amateur. hence leaving it up for more knowledgable people to fill up the misinfo section. but based on said knowledge I deemed Healthline to be publishing perhaps not misinfo but certainly misleading stuff.
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 p.s. I had to write this shit twice cuz elec knocked out my PC and all the sacred text with it. [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 18:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
+:The main thing here is that we shouldn't be proffering original interpretation, or covering issues that no-one else has covered.
+:With regards to the AI stuff, are there actually any reported/sourced examples of their site providing fully AI-generated answers/inaccurate answers in an AI-generated way? There are several ways that AI could be used legitimately in article creation (e.g. to comb through and highlight relevant sections of a medical textbook, or correct grammatical errors) so we'd need more than just a 'they say they sometimes use AI in their writing process' to justify its inclusion. The cookies thing is fine to mention, though I don't know if it's enough to warrant an article on its own, if it's the only thing. probably fine as a stub with that.
+:with regards to misinformation, we need to be citing experts who are calling them out for being inaccurate, not joining those dots ourselves.
+:but yeah, i'd say that the main issue here is a lack of secondary sources, rather than a relevance issue. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
+::ah I didn't consider that lol. CRW's the first time I've done anything like this so am still learning new stuff.
+::anyhow, they do not explicitly mention using AI for generation. they state "In some cases, Artificial Intelligence (AI), or similar technology, may be used in developing elements of our content." due to the vagueness of that statement it could contain generation but atm I have no receipts. the usage of accelerating certain tedious workflows is fine by me. but based on the current state of AI I feel we must be cautious. for me the inclusion is context. for those actually making a decision regarding Healthline to have in the back of their mind. some people despise AI and I can't blame them for it. hence when they see "this product uses AI" they might take their "business" (couldn't find a better word lmao) elsewhere.
+::one of the things that really bug me is '''the''' lack of expert review lol. when searching anything medical related Healthline's like the top results in the first page. the site also generates a fuckton of traffic yet nothing holding them accountable than volunteers on Wikipedia and CRW? damn shit fucked af
+::anyway nothing for us to do than our work [[User:SinexTitan|SinexTitan]] ([[User talk:SinexTitan|talk]]) 09:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
+:::I agree that AI in its current state is increasing becoming an unwanted mainstay in our society and lives among the general public (I myself am getting AI fatigue). Though like what Keith said, the wiki would need sources from experts debunking those Healthline articles and not an unqualified entity like the wiki debunking them (only reporting on the debunking by qualified professionals). [[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] ([[User talk:Mr Pollo|talk]]) 22:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)