Delirium wrote:
As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have
been that nobody
can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes evidence worth
including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and
deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least
better than nothing.
This (medical info) case is certainly an interesting instance of WP
"undercutting" what people would generally agree was a well-founded
desire to have authoritative information. If we assume that doctors are
"smart" users of WP, it suggests that the advantages of a quick survey
or cross-check only seconds away can outweigh more ponderous research.
We have no reason to be complacent about all this, but at least the
Wikipedia "brand" must be getting repeat customers.
Charles