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...

Thomas Dalton wrote: 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(a)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

Delirium wrote: 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.