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:
There are several other recent criticisms of the quality of Wikipedia’s medical entries in other medical journals:
Once again, as long as Wikipedia articles are near or at the top of google searches, this is a serious issue. I still wonder why Wikipedia’s attorneys haven’t stepped in.
By Michael W Simpson
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.
There are several other recent criticisms of the quality of Wikipedia’s medical entries in other medical journals:
- Proceed with caution: using Wikipedia as a reference. Neonatal Netw. 2007 May-Jun;26(3):140-1.
- Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? A content analysis. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102(7):441-8. The authors conclude that “the quality of the healthcare information provided by Wikipedia...do not meet important criteria of evidence-based patient and consumer information.”
- Wikipedia comes second. Br Dent J. 2008 Nov 22;205(10):525.
Once again, as long as Wikipedia articles are near or at the top of google searches, this is a serious issue. I still wonder why Wikipedia’s attorneys haven’t stepped in.
By Michael W Simpson