http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-wi...
"According to recent research that has been shared with Wikimedia UK, use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are aware of its faults and that it needs to be read critically.
The investigators conducted an online survey of medical staff at two large hospital trusts in England. Nearly all the 109 responses included free-text comments."
- d.
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2012/04/doctors-use-but-dont-rely-totally-on-wi...
"According to recent research that has been shared with Wikimedia UK, use of Wikipedia for medical information is almost universal among a sample of doctors. Many of them praise its accuracy, but they are aware of its faults and that it needs to be read critically.
The investigators conducted an online survey of medical staff at two large hospital trusts in England. Nearly all the 109 responses included free-text comments."
- d.
I think using Wikipedia in that way is an effective learning process as you encounter new information and develop ways of evaluating it. The doctors that edit, perhaps 5%, are the ones who benefit from doing more reading and research. I suspect our medical articles are pretty much written by the medical community.
Fred
On 25 April 2012 13:30, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I suspect our medical articles are pretty much written by the medical community.
The clinical medicine WikiProject is all doctors, I believe, in practical terms. In a talk I heard given by one of them, it was pretty clear that the core group of around 20 knew each other as professionals.
Charles