[WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research

[David Goodman]

I notice that in several survey the information that most  physicians
regret Wikipedia not having is information on standard dosage,
information that we have made the policy decision to omit.
I think this a particularly stupid decision. For current drugs, the
information is standardized and available from the authoritative
source--the official drug information. It's not a matter of
unsupported opinion, it's pertinent, and the sources are impeccable.
(Giving the variation in actual dosage used, or giving historical
does, is another matter, though there are sometimes sources for that
also). The general reason given is that WP is not a source of medical
advice. No, but it is and should be a source of reliable medical
information. The range of official usual dose is a fact, and can be
reported.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/5/23 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>
>>> http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/
>>>
>>> http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2009/05/beyond-wikipedia.html
>>>
>>
>> "Nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes
>> are visiting Wikipedia for health and medical information, especially
>> condition information, according to a Manhattan Research study.
>>
>
> An interesting finding. There's been calls for literally decades now for
> greater use of electronic information dissemination in medicine, and one
> of the big proposals that's been bandied about but never really
> implemented is some sort of widely available database of conditions,
> symptoms, treatments, etc. In specific areas there are "best practices"
> compenedia, but there's no giant database just summarizing everything,
> even the stuff that isn't worked out yet (physicians still need info on
> conditions even when they aren't totally well understood yet).
>
> As far as I understand, the main stumbling blocks have been that nobody
> can agree on who should make the database, what the process will be for
> verifying information, what access policies should be like, who would be
> responsible if there were errors in it, what constitutes evidence worth
> including, etc., etc. Seems doctors are voting with their feet and
> deciding that Wikipedia's attempt at tackling all those is at least
> better than nothing.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>