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 »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
1 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
1 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

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.

Login