re HHS Plans to Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Hasan Diwan <hasan.diwan () gmail com>
> Date: July 16, 2018 at 15:53:42 GMT+9
> To: "dave () farber net" <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: [IP] re HHS Plans to Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week
>
> Prof Farber,
> [for IP, should you so deem and comments inline]
>
> > On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 at 21:46, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > > From: Chris Holland <frenchy () gmail com>
> > > Date: July 16, 2018 at 13:00:18 GMT+9
> > > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > > Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>
> > > Subject: Re: [IP] HHS Plans to Delete 20 Years of Critical Medical Guidelines Next Week
> > >
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >
> > > For IP if you wish.
> > >
> > > Is the title of the article misleadingly alarmist or are they literally looking to actually "delete" data? I get 
> > > that it might go "offline", but why would need to "delete" anything? Can't we just keep-around all the data until 
> > > such time we might be able to bring it back online? 
> > >
> > > The article points out that NGC was operating on $1.2 million a year, which seems like very little money in the 
> > > first place. It sounds like costs associated with the site are comprised of two things:
> > >
> > > - operational cost of editorial "gate-keeping" for the addition of new guidelines, to keep-away 
> > > financially-motivated guidelines
> > > - operational cost of running the site itself ... I imagine servers ... bandwidth ... IT costs ...
> > >
> > > From the article:
> > >
> > > "Nix estimates that the site would cost a “few hundred thousand” dollars per year to maintain even as a static 
> > > archive."
> > >
> > > A static archive would be a decent start, but I'd hate to lose the ability to add new knowledge to the base. 
> > > Speaking of knowledge ... could Google be potentially be a logical fit to support this effort? It seems 
> > > well-aligned with many initiatives they've undertaken to promote the sharing of information in the World.
>
> Putting it in the hands of a private corporation, like Google, is not acceptable. No matter how well-aligned it is 
> with the "many initiatives they've undertaken to promote the sharing of information in the World".
> > > Our priorities should be:
> > >
> > > 1) Keep the site online, at least as an archive, and I think that any tech giant should be able to facilitate this.
> > > 2) Find ways to fund its on-going editorial operations, while finding ways to ensure that they remain as unbiased 
> > > as possible, especially guarding against financial & political motivations.
> Do members of this list think that Googe can guard against financial and political motivations, especially given that 
> it needs to report numbers to Wall Street every quarter?  
>
> A better suitor would be the Wikimedia foundation or, a new entity. But again, this has its problems. Or what about 
> the European Union, or the United Nations? -- H
>
> --
I’m not sure that I would trust any of the current political entities djf


-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-a538de84&post_id=20180716034221:C445CC5E-88CB-11E8-9123-85F9AF17AC98
Powered by Listbox: https://www.listbox.com