Wikipedia
Wikipedia–more bad medicine
Apr/21/09 16:24 Filed in: Wikipedia | Pharmaceuticals
The usefulness of the medical articles in Wikipedia is coming under a lot of scrutiny lately. I’ve made my opinion of Wikipedia known in the past. In this article published in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy in December 2008, the authors conclude:
Read More...
Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission than the comparator database. Wikipedia may be a useful point of engagement for consumers, but is not authoritative and should only be a supplemental source of drug information.
Read More...
Wikipedia–bad medicine
The internet has become a great tool for researching information from new gadgets to statistical analysis of politics. One of the most popular websites for research is Wikipedia, an online, democratic encyclopedia. As I have discussed previously, I link to it frequently, to give an overview about a particular topic. I admit I go to the website many times a day to get more information on a topic of interest to me, sometimes just for entertainment, and occasionally to laugh at the quality of articles. Wikipedia functions as a democracy, meaning anyone can edit it. Sometimes it appears that the project is more of an anarchy, but there are “police”, called administrators or admins, and several levels of bureaucracy above the police, to control the situation. The admins are elected by the community of editors. They can block editors (kind of a punishment), and as best as I can tell, every single action by anyone is subject to a lot of yelling, screaming, whining, and complaining. Actually, a social scientist might find the whole system quite fascinating, as I do.
A Wikipedia article is almost always the #1 hit when a google search is done on a subject. This might be useful if you are interested in episodes of 24 or need to know all about the Boston Red Sox. In most cases, the quality of the articles are not a life and death issue. If a Yankees fan chooses to vandalize (yes, that’s the term used by Wikipedia cognoscenti to describe actions that aren’t approved by the general Wikipedia community) the article, I am relatively certain that the world will not collapse into barbarism and a new Dark Age. Read More...
A Wikipedia article is almost always the #1 hit when a google search is done on a subject. This might be useful if you are interested in episodes of 24 or need to know all about the Boston Red Sox. In most cases, the quality of the articles are not a life and death issue. If a Yankees fan chooses to vandalize (yes, that’s the term used by Wikipedia cognoscenti to describe actions that aren’t approved by the general Wikipedia community) the article, I am relatively certain that the world will not collapse into barbarism and a new Dark Age. Read More...
Linking to Wikipedia
Nov/06/08 12:16 Filed in: Wikipedia | Pseudoscience
Just a brief housekeeping note. Many of the links in this blog will point to an associated Wikipedia article. I, in fact, read and edit those articles, so I won’t make a link to an article that doesn’t make my point. It is supposed to be the epitome of a democratic encyclopedia, one that anyone can edit. It is free to read, and it has become the number one hit for almost any key subject, whether popular or obscure. Other than Obama’s own websites, the Wikipedia article about him is the first google hit. Read More...