"Across all markets a surprising 75% of doctors in the 51-60 age groups stated that they regularly used Wikipedia for professional use."
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=65076
They edit a lot too.
It is unlikely that any doctor while under oath in discovery or testifying at a trial would admit that they consulted Wikipedia regarding any matter, especially regarding any erroneous information they may have relied on.
Fred
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
"Across all markets a surprising 75% of doctors in the 51-60 age groups stated that they regularly used Wikipedia for professional use."
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=65076
They edit a lot too.
It is unlikely that any doctor while under oath in discovery or testifying at a trial would admit that they consulted Wikipedia regarding any matter, especially regarding any erroneous information they may have relied on.
Fred
Pretty bold statement - 75% of doctors in that age group would commit perjury by lying rather than admit to having read Wikipedia?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
"Across all markets a surprising 75% of doctors in the 51-60 age groups stated that they regularly used Wikipedia for professional use."
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=65076
They edit a lot too.
It is unlikely that any doctor while under oath in discovery or testifying at a trial would admit that they consulted Wikipedia regarding any matter, especially regarding any erroneous information they may have relied on.
Fred
Pretty bold statement - 75% of doctors in that age group would commit perjury by lying rather than admit to having read Wikipedia?
Medical malpractice suits are hard ball. Admitting to having relied on Wikipedia when hundreds of thousands of dollars and your reputation are on the line will not happen in real life. Age has nothing to do with it.
Fred
There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a medical matter about a patient's treatment".
A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague)
FT2
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
"Across all markets a surprising 75% of doctors in the 51-60 age groups stated that they regularly used Wikipedia for professional use."
http://www.responsesource.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=65076
They edit a lot too.
It is unlikely that any doctor while under oath in discovery or testifying at a trial would admit that they consulted Wikipedia regarding any matter, especially regarding any erroneous information they may have relied on.
Fred
Pretty bold statement - 75% of doctors in that age group would commit perjury by lying rather than admit to having read Wikipedia?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a medical matter about a patient's treatment".
A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague)
FT2
Sounds good, but I think that is probably at variance with human nature. Doctors generally are behind on their reading, what they are theoretically responsible for being up to date on is beyond human capacity. They have no time to leisurely research relatively simple matters in medical journals; thus they rely on Wikipedia as it is an effective method to get basic information.
They are smart and practical; a characteristic they share with the typical student, who will also fail to cite Wikipedia as a source if questioned closely by authority.
Fred
Indeed. The problem is we don't know. The survey doesn't ask what area they use it, how often or rarely, or whether they used it "instead of" or "as well as".
Different people may have different guesses how to interpret it. But we don't know.
FT2
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a medical matter about a patient's treatment".
A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague)
FT2
Sounds good, but I think that is probably at variance with human nature. Doctors generally are behind on their reading, what they are theoretically responsible for being up to date on is beyond human capacity. They have no time to leisurely research relatively simple matters in medical journals; thus they rely on Wikipedia as it is an effective method to get basic information.
They are smart and practical; a characteristic they share with the typical student, who will also fail to cite Wikipedia as a source if questioned closely by authority.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Indeed. The problem is we don't know. The survey doesn't ask what area they use it, how often or rarely, or whether they used it "instead of" or "as well as".
Different people may have different guesses how to interpret it. But we don't know.
FT2
The only thing we can do is try to make the information as good as possible and appropriately word and display our disclaimer about not relying inappropriately on Wikipedia.
We can leave it up to professionals to sort out ambiguous information from ambiguous sources such as patients and Wikipedia.
Fred
On 06/01/11 7:55 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a medical matter about a patient's treatment".
A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to double check something, especially obscure areas, or when writing a professional letter (eg to a professional magazine or colleague)
FT2
Sounds good, but I think that is probably at variance with human nature. Doctors generally are behind on their reading, what they are theoretically responsible for being up to date on is beyond human capacity. They have no time to leisurely research relatively simple matters in medical journals; thus they rely on Wikipedia as it is an effective method to get basic information.
The pharmaceutical reps who parade through doctors' offices are well aware of the time shortage.
They are smart and practical; a characteristic they share with the typical student, who will also fail to cite Wikipedia as a source if questioned closely by authority.
Not relying on Wikipedia is a form of political correctness. Political correctness trumps accuracy.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org