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
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
6 hours ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
13 hours ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
14 hours ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
14 hours ago
Who Spoke More During the Final Debate?
19 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.