[WikiEN-l] Three cheers for Wikipedia's cancer info (or two and a half)

[Keith Old]

Folks,

The LA Times health blog Booster Shots reports:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/06/three-cheers-for-wikipedias-cancer-info-well-two-and-a-half-cheers.html


As it turns out, information on Wikipedia can largely be trusted, at least
as it pertains to cancer. That should be a relief both to patients and to
the doctors who care for them. The entries in the user-edited online
encyclopedia often show up high atop search-engine results, and many users
likely have taken their content at face value.

But that content's reliability has been in doubt. After all, it's created by
users, not traditional "experts." ("Don't use Wikipedia," earnest
eighth-graders in search of homework help are told.)

Now researchers at Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in
Philadelphia have done their own analysis of that content, comparing
Wikipedia information on 10 types of cancer to information found in the
National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query.

The entries were solid, the researchers found, at least in terms of key
points. Way to go, online writers and editors! But they were also quite
dense. Tsk -- points subtracted due to lack of clarity, online writers and
editors.

The researchers write in their study's abstract, to be presented at the
current annual meeting of theAmerican Society of Clinical
Oncology<http://chicago2010.asco.org/>:
"Although the Wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth to the
professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further
research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding
and retention."

Here's the abstract of the Wikipedia
analysis<http://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_74_41625.html>;
one of the researcher's
comments<http://www.jeffersonhospital.org/News/2010-june-cancer-information.aspx>,
as presented in the university's news release; and the aforementioned Physician
Data Query <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq>, a peer-reviewed cancer
database.

Surely, no one needs help finding Wikipedia. But here's how it's
created<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About>,
worth reading now more than ever.

http://abstract.asco.org/AbstView_74_41625.html

The abstract of the analysis is here:

Regards


*Keith*



-- 
Keith Old
62050121 (w)
62825360 (h)
0429478376 (m)