I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing:

1. Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear

this at work when people ask me how I became an editor ). Maybe we should advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia.

This, I think, probably accounts for most who might participate but don't. Senior academics write books and journal articles. They don't fool around on the internet for hours like we do.

2. Many are just not interested. In medicine we have had issues with

getting physicians to do continuing medical education.

A high percentage of practicing physicians, about 50%, regularly consult Wikipedia and many do contribute. Which is not a surprising reaction to discovery of minor or major errors and omissions. I suspect it is precisely the ones who don't keep up adequately with their continuing education who are most likely to consult Wikipedia. (It is a lazy way of researching anything)

Many just want to do their job and that is it. Contributing to Wikipedia is work. However students are required to do work and I think this is one of the populations which would be easiest to attract. McGill University may have started a Wikipedia club. Promoting these may be useful.

Students are our core constituency.

3. A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as

Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia ( which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has more technical content ). Each addressing some perceived drawback in Wikipedia. None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of course cuts into the pool of available volunteers.

Nearly all of us who have created alternative sites continue to participate on Wikipedia to some extent.

Medpedia has partnered with a number of very respected Universities. I think we could learn something for each of these formats such as clarification around image copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc.

4. Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications.

We need to address these negativities most of which are false. Currently a number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource. Other subject areas should do the same.

Yes, nearly always issues are raised which are off-point or ancient history. Just as a political campaign has a "war room" to respond to such press we should make a point of responding. David Gerard has done a great deal of this, particularly in the U.K.

-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.

Fred Bauder