Could you share links or titles for those other studies if you have them
please?
And what about you editing the articles :P haha
JP
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:01 PM James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Okay so followed up with Samir. While the database of
questions was
selected by he and I, neither one of us did any specific selection
beyond randomly selecting 25.
With respect to students going and changing Wikipedia / Uptodate, I
very much doubt they would have. There is other students that have
found that even when medical students find errors in WP they do not
bother fixing them. Both WP and Uptodate change slowly over time.
James
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
<jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
This could have been alleviated by using a dump
of Wikipedia at a
specific
time throughout the study. I don't know if it
was done or not, I doubt it
since the article do not mention it, I assume they had direct online
access
to the current Wikipedia at the time of the
iterations during the study.
Also that would lift one of the concerns in the discussion section about
the replicability of the study because Wikipedia evolves, a new study
could
be completed with the same dump at the time of
that study in order to
replicate the same results (however I wouldn't see the interest, but just
for the sake of having scientifically replicable findings).
JP
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <
jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I finally found time to read the whole article carefully. It is a very
> well done article and study, in my opinion.
>
> I have one remark/question. Since the study was conducted over a length
of
> time (April 2014 to December 2016), was the
data analyzed to see if the
> increase in the results of good answers in the posttest was higher later
> during the study (or not) since Wikipedia (and maybe UpToDate, I am not
> familiar with that resource) evolves with time? Maybe even students who
> participated in the first iteration of this study went after to improve
the
> related Wikipedia articles, thus obviously
having an impact on the
results
> since the information about the specific
questions that you retained for
> the MCQ were "directly" answered on Wikipedia. Is this something that
was
> considered? I do not see that consideration
in the discussion section of
> the article.
>
> Thank you,
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:37 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
>> downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
>> exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
>> selection beyond that.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <pajzmail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Full study available under an open license at
>> >>
https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>> >
>> >
>> > If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire
then
>> > shown to all study participants, I
would submit that more or less
>> arbitrary
>> > study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously,
>> picking
>> > the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that
"reviewed" the
>> > questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
>> > "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and
>> "founder of
>> > [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
>> >
>> > Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to
scientifically
>> > evaluate whether a given exam prep
book improves students' grades,
would
>> > you let the editors of the book
prepare the test exam?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Patrik
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:
,
>>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
i/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Jean-Philippe Béland
[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec) H2L 2P3,jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
--
Jean-Philippe Béland
[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec) H2L 2P3,jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>