2009/7/31 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Ben Kovitz wrote:
"The site's other major flaw is its incompleteness. Wikipedia was able to answer only 40 per cent of the drug questions Clauson asked of it. By contrast, the traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of questions. 'If there is missing safety information about a drug, that can be really detrimental,' Clauson points out."
The good news is that the template {{missing}} exists. The bad news is that it appears hardly to be used (backlinks for [[Template:Missing]]). Could we do more to make clear to the public that there is such a template to add? They have caught on quite well to {{fact}}.
Charles
The bad news is a considerable amount of the stuff they considered to be missing (dosage information and the like) we probably wouldn't consider encyclopedic.