Wikipedia Is a Massively Popular (Yet Untested) Doctor

Nearly three-fourths of Internet users look up health information online. Wikipedia wants to make sure they’re not misled.

The 'Wikipedia' logo is seen on a tablet screen on December 4, 2012 in Paris.
National Journal
Clara Ritger
Feb. 20, 2014, 12:05 a.m.

Wiki­pe­dia says that few­er than 1 per­cent of its med­ic­al art­icles have been peer-re­viewed, but that doesn’t stop the pages from grabbing more than 180 mil­lion views per month.

Now the web­site is work­ing to change that.

Enter the Wiki­Pro­ject Med Found­a­tion — a non­profit group work­ing to de­vel­op free med­ic­al con­tent on Wiki­pe­dia — and Wiki­Pro­ject Medi­cine, a dis­cus­sion for­um for people in­ter­ested in health and sci­ence.

Wiki­pe­dia is cur­ated on a vo­lun­teer-only basis and has a tiny budget re­l­at­ive to its size, so the web­site won’t be hir­ing doc­tors and oth­er med­ic­al ex­perts to re­write its art­icles. In­stead, the part­ner­ships are work­ing to provide the vo­lun­teers who edit the site ac­cess to pro­fes­sion­al-level med­ic­al in­form­a­tion.

In an ef­fort to ex­pand glob­al ac­cess to ac­cur­ate med­ic­al in­form­a­tion, the pro­jects are col­lab­or­at­ing with third-party ex­perts in­clud­ing the Na­tion­al In­sti­tutes of Health, the World Health Or­gan­iz­a­tion, Trans­lat­ors Without Bor­ders, the Uni­versity of San Fran­cisco Col­lege of Medi­cine, and med­ic­al journ­als such as Open Medi­cine and the Journ­al of In­ter­net Med­ic­al Re­search.

Their most re­cent part­ner­ship is with the Co­chrane Col­lab­or­a­tion, an in­de­pend­ent, non­profit, glob­al health care re­search net­work. Co­chrane works with health prac­ti­tion­ers, re­search­ers, and pa­tient ad­voc­ates to pro­duce treat­ment and policy re­views based on new and ex­ist­ing re­search and stud­ies. As a res­ult of the part­ner­ship, Wiki­pe­dia ed­it­ors have 100 free ac­counts to Co­chrane’s on­line lib­rary col­lec­tion to use in veri­fy­ing con­tent ac­cur­acy.

On­line health in­form­a­tion ac­cur­acy is an im­port­ant pri­or­ity, giv­en the high num­ber of pa­tients and doc­tors who rely on the con­tent. Roughly 85 per­cent of U.S. adults use the In­ter­net, ac­cord­ing to a sur­vey con­duc­ted by the Pew Re­search Cen­ter, 72 per­cent of whom look for health in­form­a­tion on­line.

Wiki­pe­dia is the most-used on­line med­ic­al re­source, ac­cord­ing to a Janu­ary re­port from the IMS In­sti­tute for Health­care In­form­at­ics, and is the single lead­ing source of in­form­a­tion for both pa­tients and health care pro­fes­sion­als. In its re­port, IMS ad­ded that pa­tient and pro­vider trust is one of the be­ne­fits of Wiki­pe­dia as a source of med­ic­al in­form­a­tion, but that its vul­ner­ab­il­ity to mis­takes and au­thor bi­as “has caused con­cern with­in the aca­dem­ic and med­ic­al com­munity.”

Wiki­pe­dia ed­it­or James Heil­man, an emer­gency doc­tor who also serves as pres­id­ent of the Wiki­Pro­ject Med Found­a­tion, es­tim­ates there are 50-100 act­ive med­ic­al-re­lated page ed­it­ors each month, roughly half of whom have a pro­fes­sion­al back­ground in medi­cine. Some 1,000-2,000 ed­its are made to med­ic­al con­tent each day.

Heil­man said the new re­la­tion­ship with Co­chrane is im­port­ant be­cause it pro­duces qual­ity con­tent and source ma­ter­i­al to pop­u­late Wiki­pe­dia’s med­ic­al pages.

“The way Wiki­pe­dia works,” Heil­man wrote in an email, “is that all con­tent is to stand en­tirely on the ref­er­ences that are lis­ted. If the best qual­ity sources are used to write Wiki­pe­dia there’s a good chance that Wiki­pe­dia will con­tain the best qual­ity in­form­a­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
‘PULLING A TRUMP’
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Source:
A DARK CLOUD OVER TRUMP?
Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
21 hours ago
THE LATEST

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

Source:
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
16 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Source:
THE LAST ROUND OF NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLS
Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.
×