Hello,

A German PhD about dentristy articles in Wikipedia has been presented, I now accidentally fell over it.

Kind regards Ziko van Dijk

URL: http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/6884/

Lorenz, Annette Beurteilung der Qualität zahnmedizinischer Einträge in Wikipedia - ein Vergleich mit zahnmedizinischer Fachliteratur

Dentistry in Wikipedia - a quantitative and qualitative analysis

Kurzfassung in Englisch

The aim of this dissertation was to examine all 285 dental entries in the German- language online encyclopedia WIKIPEDIA from November 2006 until January 2008 for their scientific quality. For this purpose, the WIKIPEDIA entries were examined for their correctness by relying on sources from the dental literature that were found through electronic and manual searches. Every entry was classified under one of the following headings: “textbook- suitable”, “partially textbook-suitable” or “textbook-unsuitable”. The assessment criteria included correctness of contents and furthermore spelling and completeness alongside mistakes in style and language. In addition the monthly increase in dental WIKIPEDIA articles published in 10 European languages (i.e. “WIKIPEDIA versions”) was taken into account. After the exclusion of 18 articles that appeared twice and one that appeared three times, 256 keywords remained for assessment. From these, four could not be included in the assessment as they contained statements about individuals that could not be verified. From the 261 usable dental WIKIPEDIA entries, 28% were qualitatively comparable to a textbook. Fifty-six percent of the contributions conveyed correct knowledge; the quality of the presentation, however, was not equivalent to that of a textbook. About 16% of the articles contained mistakes regarding contents, and thus were not suitable for the propagation of state-of-the-art dental knowledge. On average, 56 new dental articles appeared every month, of which 3 were in German. With 51%, the English language formed the biggest portion of the total number of dentistry-related entries. As it is not possible for the WIKIPEDIA user to judge the quality of the information presented, it is essential that she/he does not rely blindly on the correctness of this online encyclopedia. An additional information search is, therefore, indispensible. In general, however, WIKIPEDIA would appear suitable to provide a quick, albeit somewhat rough overview of dental topics. Thus far, no efforts have been made to ensure a suitable quality of WIKIPEDIA entries. Conceivable would be a form of “specialist jury”, comprised of dental specialists and dental technicians. Such a body could examine, and if necessary, correct contributions, before they are submitted to be included in WIKIPEDIA. In addition, high-quality articles could be referenced, so that the user receives a form of quality guide.