Hi, Today daily mail published a news about Wikipedia Medical related entries. Title of this news: *Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts* *! * Anyone clarify this issue please?
Check this link for news: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipe...
Hi Nurunnaby,
A similar story has appeared in the Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10857468/Dont-diagnose-yourself... and the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-27586356
The BBC piece is the best of the three and WMUK has reached out to all three sources. The article stems from a report published a while ago by the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. The paper was discussed by members of WikiProject Medicine and some issues found in its methodology.
I hope this is helpful,
Stevie
On 27 May 2014 14:39, Nurunnaby Chowdhury nh@nhasive.com wrote:
Hi, Today daily mail published a news about Wikipedia Medical related entries. Title of this news: *Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts* *! * Anyone clarify this issue please?
Check this link for news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2639910/Do-NOT-try-diagnose-Wikipe...
-- *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia< http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive%3E Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundationhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network http://www.okfn.org Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) http://www.bdosn.org Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh http://www.mozillabd.org fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think one of our friends who is US based can more helpfully answer this, but I believe osteopathy in the US is somehow different from elsewhere. I couldn't tell you how, but I seem to remember this being the case.
On 27 May 2014 15:01, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
That issue was discussed before too. From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US, where the UK one is basically voodoo, and the US one a legitimate specialty in medicine (but correct me if I'm wrong)
-- Martijn
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy!
-- Marc
On 27 May 2014 15:22, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy!
The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 May 2014 15:22, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article
accuracy!
The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia.
s/use wikipedia/rely on the completeness and accurancy of Wikipedia to practice their profession/
There is nothing *wrong* with using Wikipedia as a doctor, but there may be something wrong with the way they use it.
-- Martijn
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Actually, "Don't diagnose yourself" is just generally good advice. Even if the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other possible causes or factors that need to be considered.
Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to get things to ask your doctor about, but "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article accuracy!
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello,
I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this paper since its publication.
Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject Medicine - < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48...
That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main forum.
While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content. Here is a list of what has been done: < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_public...
@geni - "The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia."
I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia at least says that people should have health information, whereas every government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the rest) are still saying "Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this" and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing demand that is otherwise ignored.
@Todd Allen - "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process."
The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make those decisions.
I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them lots of questions, but something more is needed too.
yours,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, "Don't diagnose yourself" is just generally good advice. Even if the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other possible causes or factors that need to be considered.
Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to get things to ask your doctor about, but "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article
accuracy!
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikipedia discourages self diagnosis and treatment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer
And I think professionals are capable enough to verify the credibility of the referred sources instead of blindly reading the articles.
Regards, Jee
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.comwrote:
Hello,
I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this paper since its publication.
Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject Medicine - <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48...
That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main forum.
While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content. Here is a list of what has been done: <
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Research_public...
@geni - "The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia."
I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia at least says that people should have health information, whereas every government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the rest) are still saying "Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this" and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing demand that is otherwise ignored.
@Todd Allen - "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process."
The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make those decisions.
I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them lots of questions, but something more is needed too.
yours,
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, "Don't diagnose yourself" is just generally good advice. Even
if
the medical information you have is accurate, there might be other
possible
causes or factors that need to be considered.
Internet information, Wikipedia or otherwise, might be a good place to
get
things to ask your doctor about, but "ask your doctor" should always be
the
end of the process.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's
called
Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article
accuracy!
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
FYI - Here is the previous thread on this list about this study / topic:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/460005?do=post_view_th...
Hi Hasive,
I think we need to read again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer
Jayanta
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
FYI - Here is the previous thread on this list about this study / topic:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/460005?do=post_view_th... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
That issue was discussed before too. From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US, where the UK one is basically voodoo, and the US one a legitimate specialty in medicine (but correct me if I'm wrong)
-- Martijn
You are correct. In the UK osteopathy is a woo woo homeopathic discipline, in the U.S. (where the study was conducted) the training and degree granting processes for osteopathy are equivalent to medical doctors and the two are treated identically.
Osteopathy is one of those “difficult” ones, where it does have some real evidence to back it up - but in the UK certain practitioners make exceptional and (hokum) claims.
The NHS recommends it for Lower Back Pain (http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Osteopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx, and personally I’ve found it the only effective treatment for my back pain) and also say may be effective for other forms of muskculoskeletal problems.
But you get plenty of osteopaths claiming that they can fix anything from IBS to heart problems (total BS).
Talking about it to my osteopath, those latter claims became popular in the 90s during the “hokum-medicine” (his words :P) boom, but fortunately today it seems to be falling further out of favour, with a twist to more realistic attitudes.
The US has a much more robust approach to such claims, and hopefully the UK will go that way too :D
Anyway, just an interesting aside :) As a note, the WP article on osteopathy does a good job of overviewing the topic!
Tom
On 27 May 2014 at 15:23:59, Nathan (nawrich@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
That issue was discussed before too. From what I remember from it is that what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called Osteopathy in the US, where the UK one is basically voodoo, and the US one a legitimate specialty in medicine (but correct me if I'm wrong)
-- Martijn
You are correct. In the UK osteopathy is a woo woo homeopathic discipline, in the U.S. (where the study was conducted) the training and degree granting processes for osteopathy are equivalent to medical doctors and the two are treated identically. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States
Osteopaths also have chiropractic training.
Take care, Amy
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's a weird content architecture, right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_physician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_manipulative_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy
No redirects listed.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Amy Vossbrinck avossbrinck@wikimedia.orgwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States
Osteopaths also have chiropractic training.
Take care, Amy
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbrinck@wikimedia.org avossbrinck@wikimedia.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks everyone. Last day when this news published i receive lots of phone call from our journalist friend. You know all journalist just check the news media. Not check details issue. So i start this thread. If this news published various language it may negative sign for Wikipedia. Because all are not read *Wikipedia: Medical_disclaimer* properly.
Anyway thanks again. I'll inform our journalist friend about this.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
That's a weird content architecture, right there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_physician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_manipulative_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy
No redirects listed.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Amy Vossbrinck avossbrinck@wikimedia.orgwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States
Osteopaths also have chiropractic training.
Take care, Amy
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of
the
numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbrinck@wikimedia.org avossbrinck@wikimedia.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
2014-05-28 7:42 GMT+02:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury nh@nhasive.com:
Thanks everyone. Last day when this news published i receive lots of phone call from our journalist friend. You know all journalist just check the news media. Not check details issue.
This news found is way also on Italian media: http://www.corriere.it/salute/14_maggio_27/occhio-wikipedia-nove-voci-medich...
The good thing is that the articles mentions that the author of the original study invited physicians to participate in Wikipedia to raise the quality of its articles.
Cristian
What I think is funny about this whole article and this email thread is that the quality of Wikipedia is not brought into relation with anything else. For example, I know that one of the main causes of death in the Netherlands today has to do with improper dosages of medicine, caused both by failure to follow instructions in the medical information accompanying pharmaceuticals and by mistakes in that medical information.
Wikipedia may be full of mistakes, but so is the "official" medical information offered to doctors and patients.
2014-05-28 20:03 GMT+02:00, Cristian Consonni kikkocristian@gmail.com:
2014-05-28 7:42 GMT+02:00 Nurunnaby Chowdhury nh@nhasive.com:
Thanks everyone. Last day when this news published i receive lots of phone call from our journalist friend. You know all journalist just check the news media. Not check details issue.
This news found is way also on Italian media: http://www.corriere.it/salute/14_maggio_27/occhio-wikipedia-nove-voci-medich...
The good thing is that the articles mentions that the author of the original study invited physicians to participate in Wikipedia to raise the quality of its articles.
Cristian
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
What I think is funny about this whole article and this email thread is that the quality of Wikipedia is not brought into relation with anything else. For example, I know that one of the main causes of death in the Netherlands today has to do with improper dosages of medicine, caused both by failure to follow instructions in the medical information accompanying pharmaceuticals and by mistakes in that medical information.
Wikipedia may be full of mistakes, but so is the "official" medical information offered to doctors and patients.
Let's not focus on what others are doing wrong, but improve on what we may be doing wrong - that's the only thing we have most influence on in changing.
--Martijn
Let's not focus on what others are doing wrong, but improve on what we may be doing wrong - that's the only thing we have most influence on in changing.
Are there spot checks by professionals in medicine, or ways to flag often-read pages for peer review? That seems like a way that experts could help without getting into edit wars. The wikiproject medicine chat is fine but incomplete.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org