Comments on: Using Wikipedia for online health information, my USA Today column

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:33:09 +0000

The problems with Wikipedia with respect to relatively obscure or (more commonly) controversial topics are true, but not unique to Wikipedia. Searching on the web for any given topic where there may be controversy can bring up conflicting information from various sides of the controversy. Relying on just one (Wikipedia or otherwise) would not be a prudent as checking several sources. Of course, then the problem becomes that most of the general public is scientifically illiterate enough to be easily misled by those with agendas dismissed by nearly every true expert in the field (consider vaccination, fluoride in water, amalgam dental fillings, etc.).

By: Totoro

Totoro — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:37:52 +0000

Essentially, you blame Wikipedia for not providing exhaustive adverse effect and dose information for prescription drugs.

First, as a physician, you know that prescription drugs are by definition prescribed by a physician and delivered by a qualified pharmacist. It is normally the job of the physician and the pharmacist to provide the patient with information on possible adverse effects and applicable doses. That information should also be provided in the documentation coming inside the drug packaging.

Second, if Wikipedia provided such information, I’m sure that some health professionals would blame it for it. The problem with medical encyclopaedias, be them paper or online, even if absolutely reliable (if that exists), is that they are not suitable for nonprofessionals seeking treatment, be it for diagnosis (except for the simplest cases) or for dosing. Each patient is different and each needs to have its condition evaluated by a health professional.

The problem is not with Wikipedia – it is with the US health system. Advertisements directed towards patients for prescription drugs are a bad idea. Overworked physicians not spending the time to explain to patients why they should take such or such drug and possible adverse effects is another problem.

By: Matt S.

Matt S. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:04:55 +0000

Holy old school Wikipedia bashing!

Instead of making the claim that it’s an inaccurate source of health information, why not check? I mean,I think it’s dynamite currently AND it’s getting better by the minute–yes, literally by the minute. There is certainly a theoretical risk of modified content/misinformation, but that’s not to say that it’s ACTUALLY a problem. Let’s not forget the showdown between the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica and the editable-by-anyone-[GASP] Wikipedia:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

I have less respect for doctors who don’t use or don’t know how to use Wikipedia. It’s the same with PDAs–I’d feel a lot less comfortable if my physician wasn’t using one. These are the tools of the future–or at least the early iterations thereof–and any doctor who holds out betrays a certain conservatism which, I fear, probably spills over into other aspects of her/his practice.

A lot of Wikipedia bashers are going to feel puh-retty embarrassed ten years from now.

By: Web Media Daily – July 15, 2009

Web Media Daily – July 15, 2009 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:29:15 +0000

[...] Using Wikipedia for online health information, my USA Today column… Kevin, M.D. [...]

By: ...

... — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:33:47 +0000

Wikipedia does best when the subject in question has many good and easily found sources, isn’t ambiguous or subjective, and there is no room for controversy or offense. Usually these would be hard sciences, like molecular biology articles. Go look up one of those, and it will probably be much better than any encyclopedia article.

Wikipedia has disadvantages, but complaining alone isn’t going to solve it.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:58:37 +0000

Wikipedia is entertaining but is not an academically credible resource. All entries should include a disclaimer.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:44:18 +0000

I recently took my mother to an appointment with a doctor who clearly was a very informed and highly skilled cardiology specialist. At one point the doctor mentioned my mother should use coumadin to cut down what is a “several percent risk” of stroke. I asked the doctor exactly what the percentage risk is, she went to Wikipedia to look up the way to determine stroke risk and that immediately decreased my confidence in the physician.

I think of myself as someone who is online savvy and can put Wikipedia information into context. I hope this doctor is as well. But there are others, though, who see Wikipedia and think its 100 percent awful. It shouldn’t appear on any screen anywhere during an appointment.

By: Steve Parker, M.D.

Steve Parker, M.D. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:33:38 +0000

I’ve referred to Wikipedia in my blog posts, but only when I’ve read and agree with the bulk of the Wikipedia entry. I’m writing for three different blogs and often refer readers elsewhere for additional info.

Better sources for the general public are the Mayo Clinic website, WebMD, emedicine.com, Medicinenet.com (owned by WebMD?), and About.com. About.com has a medical advisory board that is supposed to review medical content.

As always, consider the source, and verify.

By: Finn

Finn — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:27:02 +0000

I find Wikipedia useful for trivia and for looking up things that I “know” but can’t recall at the moment. I can’t imagine using a site so unreliable for looking up anything important, like health information, particularly when there are so many reliable sites run by government agencies and health care organizations.

By: erica holt

erica holt — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:36:20 +0000

It appears Wikipedia is making some attempt to increase its medical and scientific information. The foundation is going to NIH to train experts on Wikipedia use soon. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_training_for_us_health_department.php