Wikipedia is an Excellent Information Source for Medical Students, Study Finds.

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia...

September 28: Strategy update -...

James Heilman

31 Oct 2017 31 Oct '17

4:09 p.m.

A study, published on Oct 31st, 2017 in the Journal of Medical Internet Research Medical Education, has found that Wikipedia helps Canadian medical students improve their knowledge of medical content. Wikipedia was compared to UpToDate, a subscription based online medical resource, and a standard medical textbook. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed with the notes taken while using their resource. The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate. Full study available under an open license at https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/ -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Show replies by date

Anna Stillwell

1 Nov 1 Nov

4:01 p.m.

Fantastic news, Doc. /a On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:09 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sailesh Patnaik

4:07 p.m.

Thank you for sharing it Doc James :) On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- Sailesh

Shlomi Fish

6:56 p.m.

Hi, On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:09:51 -0600 James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

good to hear! Thanks for sharing.

...

The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed with the notes taken while using their resource. The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate. Full study available under an open license at https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Summerschool-at-the-NSA/ Larry Wall applies a patch manually quicker than GNU patch. — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/ Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

pajz

2 Nov 2 Nov

8:30 a.m.

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/

James Heilman

8:37 a.m.

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/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

Jean-Philippe Béland

3:45 p.m.

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:

...

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

[...] 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/

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>

-- 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

3:52 p.m.

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: 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/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

James Heilman

8 p.m.

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:

...

wrote:

>> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com

wrote:

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

Jean-Philippe Béland

8:05 p.m.

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:

...

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:

> 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:

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/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>

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>

2368

days inactive

2370

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

9 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Anna Stillwell
James Heilman
Jean-Philippe Béland
pajz
Sailesh Patnaik
Shlomi Fish