Dear Foundation List Members,
I'm writing to let everybody know more about the proposed Emergency Medicine Wikibook. I've met with board members and it seems at the present time that our main challenge is finding interested programmers to create templates and a special registration screen. The open-source Wikibook model is a strong fit with the rapidly changing and incredibly broad field of Emergency Medicine. Traditional textbooks simply can't cover all the little things which walk into an Emergency Room, everything from broken toes, to heart attacks and strokes, to stabbings and shootings. Please contact me if you want to be part of this, particularly if you're a Wiki programmer or Emergency doc or nurse or paramedic. All the details are below. Thanks,
Paris Lovett "You must believe in free will; there is no choice."
-- Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904-1991)
-------------------------------
Emergency Medicine Wikibook Proposal
Paris Lovett
paris@pazzah.com
Executive Summary
1) An open-source textbook of Emergency Medicine (EM)
2) The specialty of EM applies to doctors working in Emergency Departments and in Ambulance and Disaster services, known an Emergency Physicians (EPs).
3) EM focuses upon the first few hours of illness. The range of diseases is extremely broad. However, EPs do not focus upon exhaustive diagnosis and treatment. Rather they focus upon recognition and management of immediate threats to life and body function.
4) The EM Wikibook would share most core features of Wikimedia projects: open-source collaborative structure, minimizing barriers to participation, maximizing breadth of coverage and rapidly assimilating new areas of research and interest
5) The EM Wikibook would differ from other Wikimedia projects in a few important ways:
a) Authors/editors would be required to state their name and credentials prior to contributing
b) The structure of entries/pages in the EM Wikibook would follow a structured template.
c) References in the EM Wikibook, where possible, would link out to PubMed/NLM
6) Getting the EM Wikibook started requires some technical feature enhancements, most importantly
a) Registration screens for users, requiring medical credentials
b) Creation of template
7) The EM Wikibook poses certain unique concerns and risks
a) The usual concerns of plagiarism, copyright infringement, vandalism, edit wars
b) Regarding accuracy of medical information, there are concerns about legal liability
c) Posting of Private Health Information (PHI) either accidentally, or maliciously would also be a concern
Introduction
1) Wikimedia is currently fostering the growth of a new set of open-source information resources: online textbooks. These textbooks are known as Wikibooks. There is no EM textbook currently in development.
How would the EM Wikibook differ from the Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects?
1) Most significantly, authors would be required to state their name and credentials. These would not be subject to verification routinely. However, in problematic situations those sysops would be able to request verification of identity and/or credentials and take corrective action for fraud or vandalism.
2) Templates would create a standardized format for discussion of diseases, diagnosis and management. A provisional template structure is shown below. Each subject would feature bullet summaries, table summaries, followed by longer narrative sections, a list of current controversies, and a large citation list. The citations/references would link out to PubMed and other large public medical databases.
3) Recruitment for an EM text would be aided by lines of communication via CORDEM, EMED-L, SAEM, and special interest groups in ACEP and EMRA.
What is needed to get the EM Wikibook up and running?
1) We need programmers! To get the EM Wikibook up and running we need to create a registration screen and templates
2) The registration screen is where users can type in their name and medical credentials. This would follow a very similar pattern to eMedicine (an online textbook of medicine), which has a registration screen with drop-down menus covering all schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing, and other health disciplines. These menus are non-proprietary, and the information is public, so the menus could be ripped and modified.
3) The templates would create standardized subheadings and places for bullet summaries, and table summaries. Also, a majority of references/citations could be quickly added by simply supplying a Unique Identifier (UI). This creates an automatic link to medical references in PubMed. For instance, the UI = 14525742 can be used in the following URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... stract&list_uids=14525742
Special Concerns
1) Posting of Private Health Information (PHI). It is conceivable that physicians might accidentally or maliciously post images or text containing identified PHI. The concerns would be for both the wellbeing of patients whose PHI was thus distributed, and for any resultant liability. However, there is an inherent barrier to malicious or accidental posting can always be tracked back to the source, and in the USA the person posting the information would be liable under federal HIPAA laws. Other countries have similar laws covering illegal disclosure of health information. Wikimedia would need to use its legal resources to draft appropriate terms and conditions for contributors to protect both itself and any institution or individuals with roles as founders or sponsors.
2) Liability for Medical Information. Similarly, Wikimedia can create appropriate terms and conditions to make clear to users that sponsoring institutions and individuals "start the ball rolling" but offer no guarantees on the content. The disclaimer would emphasize that the medical information in the EM Wikibook cannot be guaranteed to be accurate, and is not a replacement for consulting with a doctor.
Draft of the template structure:
Quick Summary
We need bullet points:
. Like this
. And this
. And this
. So that people can drop in and quickly grasp the essentials
And more bullet points:
. Like this
. And this
. And this
. So that people can make a series of quick points
Table Summaries
Organism
Other
Vomiting
Cramps
Pain
Tender
Diarrhea
Fever
Rotavirus
URI
+
+
Watery
Low
Norwalk
Abrupt; No URI
+
Watery
Low
Enteric Adeno
+
Watery
Low
ETEC
Abrupt
+
Watery
EHEC (0157:H7)
+
+
+
+
watery -> bloody
+/-
Shigella
+/-
+
Watery, green-
High
Salmonella
+
+
+
Watery, foul,
+
Campylobacter
headache, myalgia, malaise
+
+
+
loose
???
Yersinia
+
+
+
Profuse watery
+
Clostridium Perfringens
+
Watery
+/-
Clostridium Difficile
+
Watery, +/- bloody
+
Historical Aspects
Background
Definition
Pathophysiology / etiology
Epidemiology
Frequency
Risk factors
Morbidity and Mortality
ED Presentations
Diagnosis
Symptoms (with NPV AND PPV)
Signs (with NPV AND PPV)
Investigations (with NPV AND PPV)
Lab
Imaging
Bedside
Invasive
Other
Consultations
Differentials (and distinguishing features)
Complications
Therapy, with indications and evidence (WITH NNT OR SIMILAR)
Prehospital
ABCs
Medication
Procedures
Disposition
Admission criteria
Type of admission
Discharge (criteria)
Follow-up (with timing)
Prognosis
Cost and impact of care
Patient Education Leaflet
EBM
Controversies and Consensus
Changes in practice
Pitfalls
Common questions on examinations
Citations (PubMed/NLM links)
--- Paris Lovett paris@pazzah.com wrote:
I'm writing to let everybody know more about the proposed Emergency Medicine Wikibook.
Emergency Medicine Wikibook - great idea. But you don't need permission to start such a thing, just go to http://en.wikibooks.org and get to work! :)
I've met with board members and it seems at the present time that our main challenge is finding interested programmers to create templates and a special registration screen.
Registration system? I'm sorry but that is not the way we do things around here. We had one project called Nupedia that had a registration system and it was nearly a complete failure. Its only saving grace was that its looming downfall led to the creation to Wikipedia (whose initial purpose was to breathe life back into Nupedia - but that never happened and Wikipedia quickly became its own thing).
The open-source Wikibook model is a strong fit with the rapidly changing and incredibly broad field of Emergency Medicine. Traditional textbooks simply can't cover all the little things which walk into an Emergency Room, everything from broken toes, to heart attacks and strokes, to stabbings and shootings.
This is all great and wonderful, but instead of having controls on what people do up front, why not have control on what is included in a published/static copy? The live Wikibook would be the place where development of the Wikibook takes place and a separate website is where approved parts of that would be used by emergency medicine professionals.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Hello,
I would like to give a precision. Paris contacted Jimbo to talk to him about this proposal a while ago now. We met Paris in New York, where we had the opportunity to discuss this project around a set of beers :-)
In Paris mind, this project was not a wikibook, but rather a new project, due to the differences he wished to be brought, both in terms of templates, and in terms of registration.
After discussion, we agreed that this project could be part of wikibooks rather than a new project.
We asked Paris that he send a full proposal to this mailing list, so that everyone can grasp the implications and possibly join.
As for myself, I had not really understood what he meant by templates, and now that I read the description, I do not think it is problematic.
A template model can be set by Paris himself (it must be defined before starting the pages) and be used for all pages. We manage to do this for Wikipedia for example in all country pages. Paris, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject_Countries to see what I mean.
However Paris has a point when he insists on "authority", since his area is particularly technically and legally touchy.
Still, Paris, the strength of the wiki model is precisely that anyone can edit. If only to help you set the template, or fix typos or do categories etc...
I do think you can start the project without mandatory "creditials request". And I think you can do it within wikibooks to start
Here is what I suggest
First, make it clear that there will be a dual population authorized to edit these page * the crowd, with no credentials given. This crowd might possibly be autorized by "rules" (human rules rather than technical rules) not to edit the medical content. You might request a sort of moral engagement not to do so, and it is your business to enforce this. Of course, such a rule should have to be approved by participants to this project
* some people with credentials. They would be adding the medical content mostly. OR they would be the ones authorized to validate it. You can equally make a template for them to put on their pages, where they will state all what you mentionned. You could make a special page to list all of them, and display it proeminently on the main page of your book. You could also make a rule so that these guys make a validation committee and might have the right to "approve" article with a big stamp.
Aside from technical possibilities, you have a lot of power as a *human*, through the strength of recommandations, through rules and through enforcement. Actually, if the community editing the book agrees with such guidelines and believe faithfully in its wiseness, it will be more powerful than any technical fancy feature.
What you need "now" is not tech, what you need it people, many people, some with credentials, some without, and build a community around it, with its own local rules.
I understand the need for "stamp of approval", but it will be important when there is "content". For now, there is no content. Build the framework, animate the community, add the content, then, there will be something to protect. The community will protect the content. And you can then use your group of "credited" people to set a validation/approval system which will please outside people.
Do you really think a "paper" encyclopedia is ONLY written by big professors ????
No, I do not think so, there are people taking care of typo, reorganising text to make it look better, working on displaying pictures in a nicer way. The big professor just add quickly the content, let it for others to organise it well, put their big names as a stamp of approval somewhere, and then, they go to a conference.
Just do the same :-) And you'll see that will work fine.
What you need is human leader to get it started and serious work on mission statement, guidelines and policies; That will work :-)
Anthere
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Paris Lovett paris@pazzah.com wrote:
I'm writing to let everybody know more about the proposed Emergency Medicine Wikibook.
Emergency Medicine Wikibook - great idea. But you don't need permission to start such a thing, just go to http://en.wikibooks.org and get to work! :)
I've met with board members and it seems at the present time that our main challenge is finding interested programmers to create templates and a special registration screen.
Registration system? I'm sorry but that is not the way we do things around here. We had one project called Nupedia that had a registration system and it was nearly a complete failure. Its only saving grace was that its looming downfall led to the creation to Wikipedia (whose initial purpose was to breathe life back into Nupedia - but that never happened and Wikipedia quickly became its own thing).
The open-source Wikibook model is a strong fit with the rapidly changing and incredibly broad field of Emergency Medicine. Traditional textbooks simply can't cover all the little things which walk into an Emergency Room, everything from broken toes, to heart attacks and strokes, to stabbings and shootings.
This is all great and wonderful, but instead of having controls on what people do up front, why not have control on what is included in a published/static copy? The live Wikibook would be the place where development of the Wikibook takes place and a separate website is where approved parts of that would be used by emergency medicine professionals.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Hmmm. I did indeed sit down with some board members and a lot of people felt that it was reasonable to start the Emergency Medicine Wikibook with a few departures from the previous Wiki norm: registration screen, credentials, templates.
But after reading these emails and some others that followed my meeting with the board, I'm feeling that indeed I should just start the thing. So I did. It's online.
I created a "template" page for people to use, mainly to keep some consistency in organization.
At this point I'd particularly appreciate it if anyone has time to tweak and make the template page as good looking and smooth as possible. When I invite doctors to create new pages they will start by copying the template, so it will influence the whole look of the book.
I'm a terrible newcomer to the Wiki markup language, I have to admit. If anyone has time to teach me on some very basic topics, I'd much appreciate it. (And yes, I have looked them up on the help pages, but just haven't figured them out yet). Just email me if you have patience for a poor beginner and a little free time.
One final, rather big question. I've gone ahead and created an entire set of chapters, but the chapters point to (as yet) empty pages. I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. It seems possible that it's better to leave blank things that haven't been written yet, so people know they need to be written.
Thanks,
Paris.
Paris Lovett a écrit:
Hmmm. I did indeed sit down with some board members and a lot of people felt that it was reasonable to start the Emergency Medicine Wikibook with a few departures from the previous Wiki norm: registration screen, credentials, templates.
But after reading these emails and some others that followed my meeting with the board, I'm feeling that indeed I should just start the thing. So I did. It's online.
Good :-)
Do not forget to advertise it in the project pump, in particular english speaking pumps.
I created a "template" page for people to use, mainly to keep some consistency in organization.
At this point I'd particularly appreciate it if anyone has time to tweak and make the template page as good looking and smooth as possible. When I invite doctors to create new pages they will start by copying the template, so it will influence the whole look of the book.
It will, so take your time.
I'm a terrible newcomer to the Wiki markup language, I have to admit. If anyone has time to teach me on some very basic topics, I'd much appreciate it. (And yes, I have looked them up on the help pages, but just haven't figured them out yet). Just email me if you have patience for a poor beginner and a little free time.
I can't help you here. I still do not succeed to use table mark up. Actually, try to avoid using them...
One final, rather big question. I've gone ahead and created an entire set of chapters, but the chapters point to (as yet) empty pages. I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. It seems possible that it's better to leave blank things that haven't been written yet, so people know they need to be written.
Thanks,
Paris.
No, you should leave empty pages. This suggests to newcomers what is yet missing.
Ant
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One final, rather big question. I've gone ahead and created an entire set of chapters, but the chapters point to (as yet) empty pages. I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. It seems possible that it's better to leave blank things that haven't been written yet, so people know they need to be written.
No, you should leave empty pages. This suggests to newcomers what is yet missing.
Paris - forget what I said. Anthere's method is better since you will likely change the template and/or page names. Creating a bunch of blank templates right now will therefore mean more work for you later. It might also upset those people on Wikibooks who want their module count to mean something. :)
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
--- Paris Lovett paris@pazzah.com wrote:
One final, rather big question. I've gone ahead and created an entire set of chapters, but the chapters point to (as yet) empty pages. I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. It seems possible that it's better to leave blank things that haven't been written yet, so people know they need to be written.
If I had the same problem on Wikibooks, I'd create the pages with the template and put (empty) by the link to the empty chapters on the book's main table of contents page. This way readers know there is nothing there and writers know that is place that still needs to be filled.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org