Talk:List of open-source health software/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Early discussions about this page

I have collected some additional information on some of these projects. Should they be appended to the entries on this list, or should new pages be created for each project? I'm thinking it would be nice to keep this list succinct, but the added information may be of value. John No 06:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an annotated list divided into useful groupings, and thus meets the requirements of WP:LIST. Not being the author, i have removed the tagl. Please check the guidlines before going to AfDDGG 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical Practice Management Software

Comments invited to add SaaS site : edeskonline. Having gone through their demo, i notice that medical records can be maintained using their e-cabinet (database) section. Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall I please add ? Sanjiv swarup (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, please stop promoting this link, Sanjiv. Kuru talk 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
lifesaver is not open source, should it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.130.169 (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Public Health and Biosurveillance

I have added TriSano(TM) to the list of Public Health and Biosurveillance open source software. I am a part-time employee of Collaborative Software Initiative. Astif (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Source and Public Domain

I believe that Open Source and Public Domain are different. Wikipedia needs a separate page to list Public Domain Healthcare software. Once this is done, we should delete the unnecessary lists and have only the Open Source projects listed here. Saravana Kumar K (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Public domain is a subset of open source - check this GNU diagram here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html. I don't think its worth splitting up at this point. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What I meant to say is any Open Source software means that you have the liberty to modify the source code and use it. If the software doesn't come with Source code, those kind of softwares can be called as "Freeware". What I see in this list is many freeware applications along with Open Source. Whereas the heading clearly says the list as only Open Source applications. That GNU diagram also says those Public Domain applications with Source code.Saravana Kumar K (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
From the top of the page: "The following is a list of software packages and applications licensed under an open source license or in the public domain for use in the healthcare industry." If there are packages which you see which are not licensed under an open source license, then I agree, they should be removed. If you are not positive, I'd suggest listing them here for discussion, and then we can do some research to figure out if they are indeed licensed under an open source license. As for criteria, I would propose listing anything that has a license approved by the Open Source initiative.
We could also consider listing the license alongside each individual application, and make it a requirement that new projects listed must also list their license. --Karl.brown (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Non Open Source Applications

These are some Non Open Source Applications that are listed wrongly in this Article.

The article should only allow applications that comes with source code to be listed here in the article.

As per the definition of Public domain applications under Open Source, the software should be accompanied by it's Source code. See this page for more details: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.

These are some apps I found as Not Open Source nor Public Domain. They are copyright softwares. May be they need to be put in a separate article of List of free healthcare software

Update: The above items were moved to List of freeware health software --Karl.brown (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Saravana Kumar K (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vista is open source (http://worldvista.org/) (http://healthit.ahrq.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1089&&PageID=14608&mode=2&in_hi_userid=3882&cached=true). The others as far as I can tell are freeware. I'd suggest renaming the new page to be "List of freeware health applications" because the GNU people have a specific meaning for 'free software' - I think freeware is the right word you want to use. --Karl.brown (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I renamed the freeware page to be titled 'list of freeware health software' and moved some of the items from your suggested list above.--Karl.brown (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Proposed rules for this article:

  1. Please only list software that is actually licensed under an open source license.
  2. When adding/updating entries, please note which license the software is licensed under.
  3. For freeware, please add that here: List of freeware health software
  4. Please try to keep the entries in alphabetical order

(These rules were also added in HTML comments to the article itself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwankenobi (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

edit war

There have been 2 back and forth edits around GIMIAS (http://www.gimias.org/). Any other editor care to chime in on whether GIMIAS should be listed? They claim a BSD license, which if you look at their website, the license looks like a BSD license to me. Thus I would vote to keep this, and will override the 'undo' of "Theserialcomma" unless I hear some arguments to the contrary for why they shouldn't be listed. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

List of open source healthcare software → List of open-source healthcare software — like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:List of free and open source software packages#Requested move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That discussion was closed no concensus after 34 days Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Leveling the Playing Field

It seems that if open source interface engines such as Mirth are listed on this page, then other open source engines should also be present - in particular Axial 360. This seems to meet the sensible requirements specified in the "External Links" section above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasnaani (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree, based on a brief look at the site, source code, and license, it does appear Axial 360 qualifies. This list does not seem to have a structure that would 'rate' this software or that as more or less appropriate (based on number of downloads, mentions in the media, etc.) so I can so no reason it wouldn't be treated as equal to other products here. I've added it to the 'integration' section of the list. Please feel free to Be bold and edit as you see appropriate to improve the listing.Cander0000 (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

Without necessarily picking a fight over the general use of external links on this page, I'm removing or modifying a bunch that link primarily to a site promoting a particular company or service. Many of the existing links, i fear, would be interpreted as spam as they primarily link to pages inviting the viewer to purchase or request a quote for some product or service. The external links that would seem to qualify to stay would be links:

  1. directly to the source code, or open source hosting site (i.e. codeplex, sourceforge)
  2. a commercial company pages that clearly focused on the asserted open source software, and prominently mentioned the license under which it released or a link to the source code.
  3. An organization that sponsored the software, again, likely prominently mentioning that it is in fact open source

Cander0000 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The external links don't belong per WP:ELNO#20.
On a related note, it appears that editors have been adding references to support the inclusion of otherwise non-notable entries. As long as they're Independent and reliable sources, I don't see a problem with them. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Item #20 on WP:ELNO is fairly clear... and would be a major removal of content to a list like this. Just want to make sure there is consensus about applying that item of WP:ELNO to this list. I fear removing a large number of links would antagonize many who had spent time tracking this information down, even if it does bring the list within the 'letter of the law'.Cander0000 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, such cleanup can be upsetting. Hopefully editors will read the comments above and ask for clarification if necessary. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

MEDILIG

MEDILIG - Medical Life Guard A few months ago, I have contributed MEDILIG entry at the Electronic health or medical records section. My entry has been erased without anyone providing a reason for this action. I added MEDILIG again in the same section on the 15th of November 2010. The very same day user "PhilKnight Reverted good faith edits by Healis to last version by IsaiahNorton" according to the revision history. I am not sure why this happened. Please do provide explanations, information on that issue. Thank you.Healis (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam cleanout

As of this timestamp, I removed many many redlinked / inline external linked elements of the list per WP:EL and WP:LISTS. Only notable products (bluelinked, with articles of their own) should be added. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've tried to keep the article clean, but the spamming continues. I'm requesting partial protection of the article to stop this.
If anyone would like help getting a new article written about a notable product to add to this list, I'll be happy to help. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting to add link

Dear Editor, I am requesting to add Chartlogic, Inc [1] link to your Practice Management software. We offer an extensive Practice Management Software solution for our clients and would like to be added with your current Practice Management Software Companies listing. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Best Regards, Shari (Emrsolution (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

Is it open source? Jesanj (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
External links to individual software will not be added to this list per WP:ELNO#20.
If the software can meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, then create the article and added it to this list. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibility to add a new link

I would like to add a link to an open-source software (LGPL) that we are developing at the University of Las Palmas of Gran Canaria in Spain. The software is called AMILab. I am new to Wikipedia and I will probably write a Wikipedia page of the software soon, but let me know if you think it is or not the appropriate page to include it. Best, Karl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlkr (talk • contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Karlkr, it is probably best to wait to add your article on AMILab to this list until the article is established (existed for at least a few days). There are several editors (myself included) who scour this list and remove all redlinked articles, as companies that are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article should not be included in this list. We have had quite the issue with spammers trying to promote their software, so I hope you can understand our caution. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to move

I'd like to suggest that we move this article to List of open-source health software - since much of the software here has more to do with health research or health system management as it does with provision of clinical care. Health is a broader term, and thus more inclusive for this list. It also mirrors the 'List of freeware health software' provided elsewhere.--Karl.brown (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding two OS schemas, sans WP entries

While SMART on FHIR and Standard Health Record (and https://github.com/standardhealth/shr/) are known entities in the world of healthcare and open source, they do not have their own WP entry. They are still required efforts within the OS HC software world, and hence this list. And this same MITRE group is listed in the adjacent section on interop (CCHIT, ONC, Laika). Need clarification. -Jsonin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsonin (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Filling in gaps

I would like to add a non-trivial amount of entries that do not have WP articles. Originally this section was asking if it would be okay to insert empty links, but I didn't hear back so I simply reached out to the projects with the following email on 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC).:

EMAIL 1

Dear Maintainers,

My name is Matthew Vita, a programmer in the healthcare industry. I am trying to help build up the high impact "List of open-source health software" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_health_software) and would love to add your software to the list. However, it appears that your project does not have a page on Wikipedia so I ask you to consider the following:

1) Adding a nice article for your project (see the GNU Health article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Health) for a really good example and Ginkgo CADx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo_CADx) for a lightweight, but acceptable example).

2) Adding said article to "List of open-source health software" Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_health_software).

(If you’re already on Wikipedia, my search-fu wasn’t working when I looked you up so please consider doing only step 2 above)

Thanks,

Matthew

EMAIL 2 I just replied to all projects with the following information (certain projects mentioned the potential for COI, which we definitely want to avoid!):

Dear Maintainers,

I just wanted to follow up with a few words in regards to Conflict of Interest (COI). As you can imagine, I have been reaching out to all kinds of mature, reputable, and active open source healthcare projects to help build up this Wikipedia list. However, some project members have (rightly) reached out to me with concerns about COI, so I wanted to clear this up as best as I can. I should first note that my role in this process is of a neutral party that is solely acting in the interests of Wikipedia readers that wish to learn about open source healthcare solutions.

Wikipedia defines COI as "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." They also go on to say that organizations writing about themselves is a COI.

If you meet one or more of those criteria, I suggest reaching out to a neutral party in your project's community to put together the article. If you do not meet any of those criteria, I suggest putting together an article with material that places the interest of the encyclopedia and its reader above all else.

Assuming you don't have a COI, I encourage you to do as other open source healthcare projects have done by creating a neutral article about the project with the help of the community (users, developers, and subject matter experts) as well as reliable references.

For whatever it's worth, my personal opinion is that if you don't have a COI, it is rather easy to write up an article talking about the software's features, history, usage, and milestones all while being neutral.

Thanks, Matthew Vita

Exception e (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE AS OF MAY 28th Hello everyone. As you can see, my above emails to the various projects that aren't represented on this list weren't very successful. As such, I have added my abundant list of open source healthcare software to the page with broken links. Please do not revert these additions simply because the links are broken... I believe it is important for this article to stand out for open source healthcare users, even if they have to Google through the broken links for a temporary period of time.

If you do not agree with this approach, let's talk here to figure out a better strategy because our common goal of providing an excellent article for prospective open source healthcare users is shared!

Exception e (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can Spinnaker be added to DPMS?

https://www.dentalit.ltd.uk/spinnaker/

It seems to be free and open source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwin18 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Licenses

Over the last couple days I've added referenced license information for the vast majority of applications/packages in this list. Here are a few have been difficult to track down (despite most having Wikipedia articles):

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help with these. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC) edited 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work, ShelleyAdams Exception e (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't the following one here....???

--222.64.214.234 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

no Invalid This is not open-source software. See [3]. Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

187.113.156.207 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Tangollama added HospitalRun 02:09, 2 May 2017. Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

OpenAPS

Would https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAPS have a place on this list? Exception e (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Exception e: Great find! OpenAPS definitely looks like it would fit here. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Done! Exception e (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Non Open-source entry

I just reverted the 'bdtask' entry as this is clearly not open source and was a spam ad.

bdtask folks, I appreciate that you are trying to advertise your product but please understand the rules of WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Exception e (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV?

@CFCF: you added an NPOV tag. Could you elaborate? I don't understand your edit summary, "Trying to sell in some of these a little hard". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

MedinTux MedinTux is a French medical practice management system, with a web interface as well as a desktop one, that has been initially to manage a hospital emergency department. Being very modular, it has been extended to run also many different smaller practices. It works on GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows

As soon as you use words such as very you are giving a form of judgement. Either this requires a quality source or it's going to sound like a sales-pitch i.e. not neutral. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF:

As soon as you use words such as very you are giving a form of judgement

I disagree. There are more ways to use the word "very" than just in a judgemental way. In this case it could easily be descriptive or quantifiable. For instance, Legos are very modular, Teddy Bears are not very modular. Without researching, it is conceivable the usage here is both descriptive and quantifiable, and likely not "judgemental". Therefore, the NPOV tag should be removed. Sixit (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@CFCF, Rhododendrites, and Sixit: I've improved referencing throughout and condensed the descriptions of EHR/HIS/practice management software into a comparison table. The switch to more concise language may have resolved any POV issues, please take a look. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 19:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF, Rhododendrites, and ShelleyAdams: This looks good to me. CFCF has had 10 months to object, so I believe it is time to remove the NPOV tag. Sixit (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_open-source_health_software/Archive_1&oldid=1145992630"