Comments on: Op-ed: Wikipedia isn’t really the patient’s friend

By: JH

JH — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:41:30 +0000

This is not unique to patient care – this is a systemic problem with deep roots in our education system. Students should be taught to LEARN, and learn responsibly. My daughter graduated high school with no requirements for a research paper. I may be aging myself, but I was doing research papers in middle school. I learned to *research the resource* as well as the data provided. That said, I do believe that patients who take enough time to read about health care are generally more educated – even if they are misguided, than those who invest no time or energy into their personal care.

By: The Trouble with Wikipedia as a Source for Medical Information « Laika’s MedLibLog

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:41:19 +0000

[...] In the field of medicine, several drug companies have been caught altering Wikipedia entries. The first drug company messing with Wikipedia was AstraZeneca. References claiming that Seroquel allegedly made teenagers “more likely to think about harming or killing themselves” were deleted by a user of a computer registered to the drug company [25], according to Times [26]. Employees of Abbott Laboratories have also been altering entries to Wikipedia to “eliminate information questioning the safety of its top-selling drugs.”(See WSJ-blog [27] , brandweeknrx.com [28], and recently Kevin MD[29]) [...]

By: Brian E. Moore, MD

Brian E. Moore, MD — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:20:21 +0000

I hate to admit it, but you made some good points, Todd. Thanks!

By: Todd Bradley

Todd Bradley — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:14:26 +0000

I wish you all the best success, Dr. Moore. But there may not be a “critical mass” of people who (a) are doctors and (b) want to spend their time editing an online database for betterment of humanity to catch up with and surpass Wikipedia. For something like Wikipedia or Medpedia to work, you’ve got to get from cathedral mindset to bazaar mindset.

Case in point: I searched Medpedia for information on “superior semicircular canal dehiscence syndrome” and for “Minor’s syndrome” and for “perilymphatic fistula” and for “autophony”. I found nothing. And though I know more basic information about these topics than at least 50% of doctors in the US, I can’t add a single bit of content to Medpedia.

“Authoritative weight” is irrelevant if there’s no content. A better approach? Find domain experts to act as editors or approvers who oversee user-contributed content, much like Wikipedia is now doing with biographical entries.

By: Brian E. Moore, MD

Brian E. Moore, MD — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:51:53 +0000

An answer to the growing concern that medical professionals and patients have become too dependent on Wikipedia.com for quick answers about medical topics, Medpedia.com was launched this past February. Now if you need to look up a particular disease or syndrome, Medpedia is available as an authoritative online reference written by approved professionals. Only physicians and Ph.D.s in a biomedical/health field can edit the Medpedia database. Over time, Medpedia will be a repository of up-to-date medical information contributed and maintained by health experts around the world and freely available to everyone. Medpedia trumps Wikipedia with regard to authoritative reliability, as content in Wikipedia is authored anyone in cyberspace who wants to contribute. And Medpedia comes onto the scene with considerable authoritative weight behind it: Harvard, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and U Michigan are chief backers of the project.
Medpedia offers more than just a reliable online medical encyclopedia, the site also includes a Professional Network and Directory (for health professionals and organizations) and Communities of Interest, in which medical professionals and non-professionals can share information about conditions, treatments, lifestyle choices, etc.
Nancy Brown, CEO of The American Heart Association said: “This platform provides new opportunities for our physician audience to network and share knowledge with other medical professionals around the world who are not a part of the American Heart Association. And, Medpedia’s medical encyclopedia provides the public with convenient access to credible health information, with varying perspectives and resources included.”

I am one of the volunteer editors on Medpedia and have already contributed some photomicrographs and articles to the Medpedia medical encyclopedia. I encourage my colleagues to get involved with a project that may turn out to be the biggest and best source of medical information on the web.

By: Todd Bradley

Todd Bradley — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:48:13 +0000

I suffered for 14 years with an inner ear disorder called superior semi-circular canal dehiscence syndrome. During that time, I saw 3 family doctors, 2 ear surgeons, 2 audiologists, 1 chiropractor, 1 acupuncturist, and 1 cranial sacral massage therapist. All these were trained medical professionals (obviously, some "traditional" and some "alternative").All 10 people mis-diagnosed the problem, and many of them treated me for the wrong thing, including a totally unnecessary surgical procedure. Despite their training and access to all these traditional resources, this one article on Wikipedia told me more information about this disorder than all 10 of those people combined.

By: Leigh Ann

Leigh Ann — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:30:29 +0000

@official trash While it is true that we try to convince people they’re sick in every way possible, just for the pure pleasure, we unfortunately do not have ads and therefore cannot reap the benefits of further making money off of people’s misery. Thank you for the idea though.

Leigh Ann Otte
Managing Editor
My Family Doctor magazine

By: officialtrash

officialtrash — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:30:56 +0000

@Leigh Ann: Ok… I suppose you’d rather have them buy a perscriptio…. err… subscription of your magazine instead, huh?

There should be a disclaimer on your rag as well: “CAUTION: Articles and ads may cause you to think you have a disease you don’t. Instead of reading medical magazines how about go outside for a walk? Oh, and drink plenty of water.”

By: Leigh Ann

Leigh Ann — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:08:37 +0000

Argh! Doctors are using Wikipedia? Say it ain’t so! I thought it was bad enough when journalists were caught lifting from it.

There should be a disclaimer or something: “CAUTION: Medical information may have been written two minutes ago by a 14-year-old who just happened to be bored. Trust at your own–and your patient’s–risk.”

Leigh Ann Otte
Managing Editor
My Family Doctor magazine

By: dennis

dennis — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:09:32 +0000

It’s a bit surprising that doctors are using wikipedia a lot. I would’ve thought that they would be the ones who would be supplying information or even have more information than that on wikipedia.

Knowing this, the important thing is to be able to cross-check the information with different sites like webmd.com and mayoclinic.com.

On the flip side, the knowledge that wikipedia gives patients is a big boost, as the cost of healthcare is high. It helps that people able to empower themselves with the information.