Comments on: Learning from Sermo http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html medical blog Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:15:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: DermDoc http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html/comment-page-1#comment-82243 DermDoc Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:58:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html#comment-82243 I think emedicine has good info, especially for those "I'll-be-right-back"-quickly-google-it moments in clinic. I think emedicine has good info, especially for those “I’ll-be-right-back”-quickly-google-it moments in clinic.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html/comment-page-1#comment-82239 Anonymous Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:29:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html#comment-82239 If you look at the actual quote on the homepage of www.sermo.com it acutally says "valuable sites I frequent on the internet"<br/><br/>It says nothing about consults. Misquote's of this type are dangerous. If you look at the actual quote on the homepage of http://www.sermo.com it acutally says “valuable sites I frequent on the internet”

It says nothing about consults. Misquote’s of this type are dangerous.

]]> By: shadowfax http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html/comment-page-1#comment-82229 shadowfax Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:00:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/learning-from-sermo.html#comment-82229 I use wikipedia all the time for medical reference. I also edit wikipedia, so I am familiar with its strengths and limitations. It's a fine source, so long as you take it with a grain of salt. The amateur-level articles are easy to spot and disregard. Malicious vandalism is very rare, even more so in the technical medical articles, and usually corrected rapidly by the "watchers." Existing data suggests that wikipedia, in toto, has an error rate comparable to that of Encyclopedia Brittanica. <br/><br/>My mode is this: if I am just double-checking to confirm something already know, I'll take a positive correlation with wiki to be sufficient. If it's a new topic for me, I'll read the wikipedia article and cross-check with an external source. (usually helpfully linked in the footnotes)<br/><br/>Honestly, with Google, PubMed, and Wiki, I don't need any other reference texts or sites... I use wikipedia all the time for medical reference. I also edit wikipedia, so I am familiar with its strengths and limitations. It’s a fine source, so long as you take it with a grain of salt. The amateur-level articles are easy to spot and disregard. Malicious vandalism is very rare, even more so in the technical medical articles, and usually corrected rapidly by the “watchers.” Existing data suggests that wikipedia, in toto, has an error rate comparable to that of Encyclopedia Brittanica.

My mode is this: if I am just double-checking to confirm something already know, I’ll take a positive correlation with wiki to be sufficient. If it’s a new topic for me, I’ll read the wikipedia article and cross-check with an external source. (usually helpfully linked in the footnotes)

Honestly, with Google, PubMed, and Wiki, I don’t need any other reference texts or sites…

]]>