Talk:Healthline: Difference between revisions

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)

@@ 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)