2009/5/23 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:

That is the key, if physicians actively edit and keep the articles comprehensive and up to date, there is nothing wrong with them consulting them. Other than the usual difficulties...

FlaggedRevs ought to help with some of the usual difficulties if they get implemented for all articles (as I hope they do once they are shown to work on BLPs).

I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage, information that we have made the policy decision to omit. I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the information is standardized and available from the authoritative source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable. (Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be reported.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:

Thomas Dalton wrote:

...

2009/5/23 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:

...

http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhatta...

http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikiped...

"Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study.

An interesting finding. There's been calls for literally decades now for greater use of electronic information dissemination in medicine, and one of the big proposals that's been bandied about but never really implemented is some sort of widely available database of conditions, symptoms, treatments, etc. In specific areas there are "best practices" compenedia, but there's no giant database just summarizing everything, even the stuff that isn't worked out yet (physicians still need info on conditions even when they aren't totally well understood yet).

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.

-Mark

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I notice that in several survey the information that most physicians regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage, information that we have made the policy decision to omit. I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the information is standardized and available from the authoritative source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable. (Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be reported.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

I was not aware of that policy and am not sure what I think of it. But let us explore the possibility that a doctor consults Wikipedia regarding standard dosage and somehow (The Physician Desk Reference and the formulations actually available at a pharmacy figure into this) manages to prescribe a fatal or damaging dose. During his deposition in his medical malpractice suit he testifies that he consulted Wikipedia (Actually not likely even if he did due to the fact that judgment against him becomes almost a dead certainty). Are we then a potential defendant? Or is that so far fetched that we are denying useful information without being at any particular risk.

Another scenario involves someone who a condition and is self-medicating and buying drugs off the internet (or in a place where prescription drugs may be obtained without prescription) and relies on our standard dosage information. Information is grossly wrong and harm ensures, are we then morally responsible or a potential defendant? Does this fall under do no harm? If so, how is it different from any incorrect medical information.

Fred Bauder

Charles Matthews wrote:

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.

I agree the desire for authoritative information is well-founded, but you can go too far and have paralysis: since nobody's yet agreed on what the most perfect, most authoritative source of information would be, we shouldn't have one at all? Surely building *something* is better, which is basically what Wikipedia has done, with tentative and in-progress answers to all those tricky questions of authority and process. Maybe a medical organization can build something better than Wikipedia for their field, with more authoritative information and a better process. But they haven't, despite a decades-long headstart on us in the planning department. Rather than undercutting, maybe we'll actually stimulate a renewed sense of urgency to produce an alternative?

-Mark