Doctor Wikipedia

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
kołdry
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 12:43 pm

Presently, we're defining schizophrenia. It's a big responsibility. The first place a relative or person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read will be ours. I want them to understand effortlessly what it is in the first sentence. I hope we get it right.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by thekohser » Fri May 09, 2014 1:16 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:Presently, we're defining schizophrenia. It's a big responsibility. The first place a relative or person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read will be ours. I want them to understand effortlessly what it is in the first sentence. I hope we get it right.
Let me fix that for you... "The first place a gullible relative or intellectually-challenged person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read, if they are able to read at an eighth-grade level, will be ours."

And I see another half day has gone by without anyone addressing the problem I pointed out on Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (T-H-L). So, that's another 3,500 or so gullible and intellectually-challenged people who may be misinformed about the initial case of the virus. This vetting by medical professionals is really going swimmingly.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 2:10 pm

thekohser wrote:Let me fix that for you... "The first place a gullible relative or intellectually-challenged person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read, if they are able to read at an eighth-grade level, will be ours."
Yes, there are cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's readers think about its reliability; to the best of my knowledge, the Foundation has never asked them.
thekohser wrote:And I see another half day has gone by without anyone addressing the problem I pointed out on Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (T-H-L). So, that's another 3,500 or so gullible and intellectually-challenged people who may be misinformed about the initial case of the virus. This vetting by medical professionals is really going swimmingly.
I thought this bit was worth repeating.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri May 09, 2014 3:07 pm

thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:Presently, we're defining schizophrenia. It's a big responsibility. The first place a relative or person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read will be ours. I want them to understand effortlessly what it is in the first sentence. I hope we get it right.
Let me fix that for you... "The first place a gullible relative or intellectually-challenged person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read, if they are able to read at an eighth-grade level, will be ours."
That's not fair.

The first place any person is going to go is google. Google will send them to wikipedia.
It's not that they're stupid, its that the vast majority of the online population is ignorant of the pitfalls within wikipedia.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 3:11 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there. In the case of Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (T-H-L), the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics. Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors. Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis. The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability. In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old. (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.) The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at).

I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first. And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice.
May I post this to the article's talk page and WikiProject Medicine?

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri May 09, 2014 3:30 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:As you're addressing the Medical Wikipedians, just to clarify, the majority of them opposed a prominent disclaimer.
You say that like you're proud of it.
It's the reason I'm stepping down from the WikiProject Med Foundation board.
For the avoidance of doubt, Anthony was, along with SandyGeorgia (T-C-L), unequivocally in favour of having the disclaimer.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by thekohser » Fri May 09, 2014 3:37 pm

HRIP7 wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:As you're addressing the Medical Wikipedians, just to clarify, the majority of them opposed a prominent disclaimer.
You say that like you're proud of it.
It's the reason I'm stepping down from the WikiProject Med Foundation board.
For the avoidance of doubt, Anthony was, along with SandyGeorgia (T-C-L), unequivocally in favour of having the disclaimer.
I'm still unclear. Anthony, do you still support the goals and strategies of the WikiProject Med Foundation, even though you are stepping down from its board?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 4:22 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:Presently, we're defining schizophrenia. It's a big responsibility. The first place a relative or person diagnosed will go when they hear the diagnosis is Wikipedia, and the first words they read will be ours. I want them to understand effortlessly what it is in the first sentence. I hope we get it right.
The other parties to the discussion are a neuroscientist, an emergency medicine doctor and a psychiatrist.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 4:28 pm

thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:As you're addressing the Medical Wikipedians, just to clarify, the majority of them opposed a prominent disclaimer.
You say that like you're proud of it.
It's the reason I'm stepping down from the WikiProject Med Foundation board.
For the avoidance of doubt, Anthony was, along with SandyGeorgia (T-C-L), unequivocally in favour of having the disclaimer.
I'm still unclear. Anthony, do you still support the goals and strategies of the WikiProject Med Foundation, even though you are stepping down from its board?
The goals but not the strategies.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri May 09, 2014 4:36 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there. In the case of Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (T-H-L), the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics. Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors. Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis. The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability. In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old. (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.) The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at).

I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first. And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice.
May I post this to the article's talk page and WikiProject Medicine?
I don't really mind, although please note that fixing this one article will do nothing to fix the thousands of others that are equally wrong. Honestly, I think you should just replace the article with a link to the article at sarcomahelp.org and lock it as such; I think their article is as good as anything Wikipedia can hope to produce and has the merit of having been produced by and reviewed by professionals and is backed by a recognizable organization with validatable credentials.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 4:39 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:I do occasionally look at Wikipedia after I finish doing my research, just to see what is there. In the case of Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (T-H-L), the article materially misstates the survivability rates by lumping together several different categories of tumor with very distinct presentations and characteristics. Articles written professionally for laypeople honestly state that survivability is highly variable and difficult to predict due to the very low incidence of this class of tumors. Articles written professionally for practitioners give much more specific information, identifying factors (e.g. tumor size, tumor location, whether the tumor is rhabdomyoblastomatous) that allow the practitioner to reasonably advise their patients and their families as to the likely prognosis. The Wikipedia article mentions that rhabdomyoblastomatous tumors have a different name, but does not note that this is the single most significant factor in predicting survivability. In addition, the Wikipedia article is inconsistent with generally accepted practice guidelines, as published in 2012, which reflects the fact that all but one of the sources to the Wikipedia article are at least seven years old. (No excuse, though; they're also inconsistent with this well-balanced article for practitioners, from 2006.) The article's statements about the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are inconsistent with current best practice; recent clinical evidence has indicated that chemotherapy is problematic in patients with neurofibromatosis as chemotherapy agents may exacerbate existing benign neurofibromas (a critical fact that the article only hints at).

I'm seriously glad I read the NIH material before I read this article; I would have been far less sanguine for the chances of my son living to see his next birthday had I read the Wikipedia article first. And I am even more glad that my son's doctors don't rely on Wikipedia for medical advice.
May I post this to the article's talk page and WikiProject Medicine?
I don't really mind, although please note that fixing this one article will do nothing to fix the thousands of others that are equally wrong.
Noted. Done.
Last edited by Anthonyhcole on Fri May 09, 2014 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by thekohser » Fri May 09, 2014 4:51 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:The goals but not the strategies.
Is there any information about how this non-profit is funded, and to what extent? I see that Doug Taylor, otherwise known as "RexxS", is keeping the financial books in line.

I have said in the past that RexxS is a "certified twit", and he has said that I have a "disregard for basic human standards of decency" and he warned that Wikipedians should keep their personal information safe so that such info doesn't enable "parasites like Kohs to use as leads when he goes digging for more speculative smearing". OTRS was so convinced that Doug was off the rails, they redacted his ranting, but it still shows where his battlefield mentality is squarely resting. I can't imagine the things he'll dream up if he's got a budget to play with. I can only hope it's a tiny one.
Last edited by thekohser on Fri May 09, 2014 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by HRIP7 » Fri May 09, 2014 4:53 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
HRIP7 wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:As you're addressing the Medical Wikipedians, just to clarify, the majority of them opposed a prominent disclaimer.
You say that like you're proud of it.
It's the reason I'm stepping down from the WikiProject Med Foundation board.
For the avoidance of doubt, Anthony was, along with SandyGeorgia (T-C-L), unequivocally in favour of having the disclaimer.
I'm still unclear. Anthony, do you still support the goals and strategies of the WikiProject Med Foundation, even though you are stepping down from its board?
The goals but not the strategies.
What part of the strategies do you disagree with? I'm asking this in fairly complete ignorance of its strategies, beyond what's stated at the project's Meta page:
Wiki Project Med will fulfill its mission in the following ways:

Persuade individual experts and professional and scholarly associations to review or contribute to Wikimedia medical content, and provide them with necessary training

Create, collect, process, and present the sorts of metrics which describe usage statistics and quality of health content on Wikimedia projects

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 5:58 pm

thekohser wrote:Is there any information about how this non-profit is funded, and to what extent? I see that Doug Taylor, otherwise known as "RexxS", is keeping the financial books in line.
There is a bank account in New York with nothing in it. Everybody pays their own expenses or is paid by Foundation grants and chapters.
thekohser wrote:I have said in the past that RexxS is a "certified twit", and he has said that I have a "disregard for basic human standards of decency" and he warned that Wikipedians should keep their personal information safe so that such info doesn't enable "parasites like Kohs to use as leads when he goes digging for more speculative smearing".
Sounds like he doesn't like you. Do you know what's at the bottom of that animosity?
thekohser wrote:OTRS was so convinced that Doug was off the rails, they redacted his ranting, but it still shows where his battlefield mentality is squarely resting. I can't imagine the things he'll dream up if he's got a budget to play with. I can only hope it's a tiny one.
I think we're safe for the time being.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 6:18 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Persuade individual experts and professional and scholarly associations to review or contribute to Wikimedia medical content, and provide them with necessary training

Create, collect, process, and present the sorts of metrics which describe usage statistics and quality of health content on Wikimedia projects
I was mistaken. I totally agree with all of that. I guess it's the lack of urgency about things that really matter to me. I don't feel in step with the others.

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri May 09, 2014 6:27 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:I guess it's the lack of urgency about things that really matter to me. I don't feel in step with the others.
One of the ideas I would suggest is that there should be a prominent warning disclaimer that appears on all medical articles that have content that has not been professionally reviewed, with a link to the most recent reviewed version (if any). Also, any reviewed article that has a change to it should be automatically reverted to the reviewed edition after a fairly short time (say, 24 hours). The same system that manages that can be used to workflow new changes to reviewers so that reviews get handled in a timely manner.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 6:47 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:I guess it's the lack of urgency about things that really matter to me. I don't feel in step with the others.
One of the ideas I would suggest is that there should be a prominent warning disclaimer that appears on all medical articles that have content that has not been professionally reviewed, with a link to the most recent reviewed version (if any). Also, any reviewed article that has a change to it should be automatically reverted to the reviewed edition after a fairly short time (say, 24 hours). The same system that manages that can be used to workflow new changes to reviewers so that reviews get handled in a timely manner.
I'd prefer no live editing at all on veracity-checked articles. Google and the Wikipedia search box should take the reader to the veracity-checked version, while editors update the article in the new WP:DRAFTS namespace submitting it for review from time to time, and publishing only the latest veracity-checked version. And I'd like to see a prominent disclaimer on all unchecked articles saying "Don't trust this article."

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri May 09, 2014 6:49 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:I guess it's the lack of urgency about things that really matter to me. I don't feel in step with the others.
One of the ideas I would suggest is that there should be a prominent warning disclaimer that appears on all medical articles that have content that has not been professionally reviewed, with a link to the most recent reviewed version (if any). Also, any reviewed article that has a change to it should be automatically reverted to the reviewed edition after a fairly short time (say, 24 hours). The same system that manages that can be used to workflow new changes to reviewers so that reviews get handled in a timely manner.
I'd prefer no live editing at all on veracity-checked articles. Google and the Wikipedia search box should take the reader to the veracity-checked version, while editors update the article in the new WP:DRAFTS namespace submitting it for review from time to time, and publishing only the latest veracity-checked version. And I'd like to see a prominent disclaimer on all unchecked articles saying "Don't trust this article."
The use of Pending Changes would accomplish this. So would a bot that automatically reverts any edit to a reviewed article, moving the edit to the corresponding draft. A bot could automatically add the disclaimer to unchecked articles and keep it there. (However, you'll never get approval to run the bot, because of Wikipedia's policy against disclaimers.)

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 7:05 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:I guess it's the lack of urgency about things that really matter to me. I don't feel in step with the others.
One of the ideas I would suggest is that there should be a prominent warning disclaimer that appears on all medical articles that have content that has not been professionally reviewed, with a link to the most recent reviewed version (if any). Also, any reviewed article that has a change to it should be automatically reverted to the reviewed edition after a fairly short time (say, 24 hours). The same system that manages that can be used to workflow new changes to reviewers so that reviews get handled in a timely manner.
I'd prefer no live editing at all on veracity-checked articles. Google and the Wikipedia search box should take the reader to the veracity-checked version, while editors update the article in the new WP:DRAFTS namespace submitting it for review from time to time, and publishing only the latest veracity-checked version. And I'd like to see a prominent disclaimer on all unchecked articles saying "Don't trust this article."
The use of Pending Changes would accomplish this. So would a bot that automatically reverts any edit to a reviewed article, moving the edit to the corresponding draft. A bot could automatically add the disclaimer to unchecked articles and keep it there. (However, you'll never get approval to run the bot, because of Wikipedia's policy against disclaimers.)
You're assuming reviewers on tap. Mmmm. Wouldn't that be very expensive?

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Fri May 09, 2014 7:06 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:You're assuming reviewers on tap. Mmmm. Wouldn't that be very expensive?
The Foundation has money. If you're not going to do this right, don't do it at all.

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Fri May 09, 2014 7:25 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:You're assuming reviewers on tap. Mmmm. Wouldn't that be very expensive?
The Foundation has money. If you're not going to do this right, don't do it at all.
OK. Sure. If we can get the truly high caliber talent to constantly monitor the articles. But I'd prefer to sacrifice currency if necessary, (and I think it will be necessary) to uphold the very highest standards in reviewing.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Sun May 18, 2014 7:42 pm

I still type with difficulty, and so have not added to this thread in recent days, but thought I should post this video: File:New_medical_editor.ogv (T-H-L)

Also:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Mancunium wrote:When I posted this information here a few days ago, "the doctors of WikiProject Medicine" accused me of libel.
I'm not a doctor. And it had nothing to with that Atlantic article - which, by the way, was a very balanced report. The study it reported on was of poor quality - but that's nothing new. The same can be said for all the studies that say Wikipedia's medical content is good.

I'm sorry to hear about your present trials. It's a shit of a thing. Take care.
Obviously, the information I was referring to is this:

Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions
Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 2 May 2014 link

which I posted here on 2 May 2014, and which set off your cries of "libel" on 4 May 2014: link.

I posted the 'Atlantic' article Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text?, which referred to "the doctors of Wikiproject Medicine", on 8 May 2014. link

When you were interviewed by PharmExec, for its issue of 10 April 2014, you could have corrected this common misbelief, but instead I read: link
WikiProject Medicine, a loose coalition of 500 volunteer editors, most with some level of medical or pharmaceutical expertise, has set out to try to correct some of the problems with health-related content on English Wikipedia. The group, including experienced medical editors, is aware of Wikipedia's shortcomings. Veteran Wikipedian Anthony Cole is a participant in the group and says, "We are very conscious of our responsibility at or near the top of every search-engine result."
As long as WikiProject Medicine clings to the delusions that it is composed of individuals, "most with some level of medical or pharmaceutical expertise", and is written by "experienced medical editors", it is a major threat to public safety.

By the way:

The Myth Of Urine Sterility
Science 2.0, 18 May 2014 link
There is a reason why peeing in your house is not actually a good idea - but some doctors have perpetuated the idea that urine is sterile by using that as a test for urinary tract infections. Not that you should ever use Wikipedia for anything, but the non-expert hacktivists there botch the urine entry as further evidence. And every year the myth is debunked but it persists. Bacteria live in the bladders of healthy women, researchers from Loyola University Chicago noted again, this time at the 114th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Boston. [...]
Urine (T-H-L)
Urine (from Latin Urina, ae, f.) is a typically sterile liquid by-product of the body secreted by the kidneys through a process called urination and excreted through the urethra.
Thank you for your kind wishes.
former Living Person

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by EricBarbour » Sun May 18, 2014 9:48 pm

Mancunium wrote: By the way:

The Myth Of Urine Sterility
Science 2.0, 18 May 2014 link
There is a reason why peeing in your house is not actually a good idea - but some doctors have perpetuated the idea that urine is sterile by using that as a test for urinary tract infections. Not that you should ever use Wikipedia for anything, but the non-expert hacktivists there botch the urine entry as further evidence. And every year the myth is debunked but it persists. Bacteria live in the bladders of healthy women, researchers from Loyola University Chicago noted again, this time at the 114th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Boston. [...]
Urine (T-H-L)
Urine (from Latin Urina, ae, f.) is a typically sterile liquid by-product of the body secreted by the kidneys through a process called urination and excreted through the urethra.
Thank you for your kind wishes.
Heh.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon May 19, 2014 2:56 pm

Your Doctor's Getting Her Health Info From... Wikipedia?
Pevention, 19 May 2014 link
Newsflash: Not everything you read on the Internet is true! Okay, so that’s not surprising. But maybe this is: When it comes to some of the most commonly diagnosed health conditions in the U.S.—heart disease, diabetes, lung cancer—Wikipedia’s entries contain many errors, concludes a new study in the The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Probably more shocking: “Most physicians use Wikipedia from time to time,” says lead study author Robert Hasty, DO, of Campbell University in North Carolina. “Physicians are taught not to use the site, but they still do." While most of the errors Hasty and his colleagues turned up had to do with health statistics, there were some Wikipedia assertions related to diagnosing diseases or identifying emergency situations that, if followed, could have negative consequences, he says.

One example: National health guidelines require doctors to collect blood pressure readings from patients on two separate office visits before making a diagnosis of hypertension. At the time of the study, Wikipedia’s article asserted that three readings were required—an error that could lead to a dangerous delay in treatment, says Hasty. Wikipedia’s entries also featured details on diagnosing diabetes or blood pressure emergencies that didn’t align with national standards of practice, he says. [...] But if the site's entries on common, oft-scrutinized conditions like hypertension and diabetes contain errors, it’s possible that Wikipedia’s articles on less-common medical conditions could be even more flawed. “I would guess that the smaller conditions are less-rigorously edited,” Hasty says. The big takeaway: “Don’t use Wikipedia to be your guidance on medical decisions,” Hasty warns. Instead, talk to your doctor if you’re worried about your health, he advises. [...] If you feel compelled to go searching for medical information online, stick to those sites run by national health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Department of Health and Human Services, Hasty recommends.
Dr Pratt: "I was not always as you see me now."
Dr Pratt: "I was not always as you see me now."
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Tue May 20, 2014 12:03 am

The above also published here:

Your Doctor's Dirty Internet Secret
He's searching this site—and it could affect your health
Men's Health, 15 May 2014 link

Image

WikiProject Medicine's Dirty Internet Secret

Most of its members do NOT have "some level of medical or pharmaceutical expertise", and its non-expert hacktivists are NOT "experienced medical editors".
former Living Person

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Poetlister » Tue May 20, 2014 11:37 am

Mancunium wrote:Most of its members do NOT have "some level of medical or pharmaceutical expertise"
And even if it were true, say 2/3 had a little bit of expertise and 1/3 had none, that wouldn't be very confidence-inspiring!
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Wed May 21, 2014 9:18 am

Poetlister wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Most of its members do NOT have "some level of medical or pharmaceutical expertise"
And even if it were true, say 2/3 had a little bit of expertise and 1/3 had none, that wouldn't be very confidence-inspiring!
Nobody knows. My feeling is that less than half of the busiest editors of Wikipedia's health-related content have any formal medical or health training. Jake and James recently conducted a survey asking the busiest 300 of 2013 inter alia
What is your highest level of education?
Do you currently work in the healthcare field? Or have you previously worked in the healthcare field?
Are you currently in school studying healthcare?
The survey was anonymous, and no verification was required.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Thu May 22, 2014 8:00 pm

Study by Campbell dean finds medical errors on Wikipedia
Fayetteville Observer, 21 May 2014 link
While sitting around with a group of residents during an educational session two years ago, Dr. Robert Hasty noticed many of them were looking up information on Wikipedia. Then the vice president of medical education at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, Hasty — like many educators are apt to do — reminded them to steer clear of Wikipedia when conducting research. But after the session, Hasty began to wonder if the frequent admonition to steer clear of Wikipedia for medical references was really as valid as everyone assumed. Two years later and now the current regional associate dean of Campbell Medical School, Hasty knows the teachers have it right. “Very few studies have looked at anything related to that,” Hasty said, so he conducted a study of his own. He and a 17-member research team evaluated Wikipedia articles on the 10 costliest medical conditions in the United States, comparing each assertion it contained with information in peer-reviewed sources. The study, published this month in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, found statistically significant differences in nine of the 10 Wikipedia articles they reviewed. “We were thinking Wikipedia would be pretty good,” said Hasty, the lead author of the study. He noted that the constant ability for users to edit the material could potentially result in a sort of scrubbing effect on the site, as well as past studies in which Wikipedia held up well against Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The study evaluated articles on coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major depressive disorder, concussion, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain and hyperlipidemia. [...] Hasty said some of the errors in the Wikipedia articles had the potential to cause problems for readers. “In the article on major depression, it said antidepressants have not been found to be beneficial in children,” Hasty said, noting that the Food and Drug Administration does approve prozac for children ages 8 and older and that research has found there are benefits to giving antidepressants to children. “Potentially, there could be harm,” he said of such misinformation. “If you’re a parent, it could prompt you not to give your child antidepressants.” Instead, he said, patients should talk to health care providers and professionals before making such decisions. Hasty pointed out that any non-clinician, non-health care provider can edit a Wikipedia article, leaving the opportunity for users with biases on certain topics or who don’t have a full understanding of the issue to create errors that don’t get noticed by other users. With thousands of healthcare related articles on Wikipedia, Hasty said the study is just a small representation of what’s out there and does not indicate articles beyond the 10 his team reviewed contain errors. [...] “Some may be better; some may be worse,” he said.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon May 26, 2014 8:08 pm

6 Facts about Aging and Aging Research
Scientific American, 21 May 2014 link
Fact #1: With about $2.5 billion in annual funding, aging research is in the top 20 research categories supported by the National Institutes of Health. That gives me another opportunity to test my contention that taking a couple of seconds to think about where to start searching for medical information instead of automatically calling up your favorite all-purpose search engine will give you much more reliable and actionable results. As always, my go-to starting point for broad subjects like “aging” is MedlinePlus.gov, a service of the National Library of Medicine (disponible en español también), or NLM. Typing “aging” in the search box gives me a page with short introduction, well over 2,000 links to authoritative information—ranked in order from the broadest categories (Seniors’ Health) to more specialized ones (Aging with HIV), and the ability to refine my search by either type (news, videos and tutorials, etc.) or keyword (for example, aging and cancer, the brain or exercise)

Fact #2: While some aspects of aging are inevitable, a healthy lifestyle that features eating a balanced diet, keeping body and mind active, not smoking, getting regular checkups and adopting safety habits to avoid accidents and prevent falls are some of the most effective things you can do to “stay healthy and active as you age,” according to a summary of research written by the National Institute on Aging for MedlinePlus.

Fact #3: The two greatest environmental causes of excess wrinkles are exposure to sunlight and cigarette smoking, which you can find by clicking on the result #2 from the MedlinePlus “aging” page.

Fact #4: “Any symptom in an elderly patient should be considered a drug side effect until proved otherwise.” This sage piece of advices comes from the Brown University Long-term Care Quality, Letter, 1995, which I learned after scanning the list of keywords suggested by MedlinePlus, clicking on “drug” and following the first link to Caregivers’ Guide to Medications and Aging.

Fact #5: Medicare does not pay for long-term stays in nursing homes (the average Medicare-covered stay is 22 days). Only Medicaid (which is available only your income is below a certain level, you meet certain state requirements and you apply for and are accepted into the program) pays for long-term nursing home care. Follow link #9, which covers nursing homes, after refining your MedlinePlus’s search for “aging” by type—in this case: “Health Topics.” (Going to have to ask the folks at the NLM what the difference is between a keyword and a type.)

Fact #6: Air pollution is more likely to kill people aged 65 years and older than it is to kill younger people, according to one of the many research studies about aging that you can access for free, using MedlinePlus as a starting point. (Remember, always scroll all the way down any of the 900+ “Health Topics” pages in MedlinePlus if you’re looking for more specialized or technical information—still one of my best tips for getting the most out of that particular website.)

And now, for comparison purposes, what do you learn if you enter the word “aging” into any of the more popular search engines?

Google’s top result directed me to the National Institute on Aging. (Thanks, their information was already included in my MedlinePlus search, along with dozens of other authoritative websites.) Yahoo and Bing sent me to the Wikipedia entry on aging first. (Wikipedia is great for some things but I wouldn’t want to depend on it for medical information). Once again, MedlinePlus gave me the most reliable results in the shortest period of time with the added advantage of allowing me to easily direct my search toward the broadest overviews, practical advice or more detailed scientific research studies.
And yet, WikiProject Medicine wants to replace MedlinePlus.gov: link
as the first result in any online search for health information.

Why? Because some Wikipedia editors believe, and want the world to believe, that they are better informed than the National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Tue May 27, 2014 1:02 am

Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts
Problem caused by allowing ordinary users to create, delete and edit pages
Drug companies have been accused of deleting data about side effects
Researchers from Campbell University, US, said medical staff also use site
Daily Mail, 26 May 2014 link
When you’re feeling under the weather, it’s only natural to want to find out what is wrong with you...fast. But turning to the internet to determine the cause of your symptoms can be a bad idea, according to a study by doctors. It found that nine in ten Wikipedia entries on common medical conditions contained factual errors. [...]

Errors on Wikipedia included an entry which stated that to correctly diagnose high blood pressure, high readings must be obtained on three separate occasions. The researchers said that is not true and could lead to a dangerous delay in treatment. Another entry said antidepressants were not beneficial for children. But according to the researchers, this is incorrect and could prevent parents from allowing their children to be treated with medication.

Drug companies have also been accused of editing Wikipedia to remove references to harmful side effects. In 2009, employees at AstraZeneca allegedly deleted a sentence claiming that a treatment for manic depression made teenagers ‘more likely to think about harming or killing themselves.’

Worryingly, the researchers said that even medical staff turn to the site from time to time. Previous studies have shown up to 70 per cent of doctors and students of medicine admit using it as a reference. The researchers wrote: ‘Physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.’ [...] A survey of 1,000 women in 2012 found they often wrongly diagnosed themselves as having breast cancer, thrush, diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma.
former Living Person

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by The Joy » Tue May 27, 2014 4:12 am

From what I learned in my information science classes, people naturally do not go straight to the "best" source (in this case, a medical doctor) of information for a problem. They start out with their close friends, family, then on to Google, etc. Once those avenues are exhausted, people start going to the more "official" sources at the library or the doctor. It probably comes from the days when our early ancestors had to rely on their close-at-hand resources (such as others in their caveman family) to survive and understand the world. Also, I guess no one wants to go the gruff, expensive doctor, and they hope that Dr. Wikipedia might have the solution.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by The Adversary » Tue May 27, 2014 12:31 pm

Mancunium wrote:Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts
Problem caused by allowing ordinary users to create, delete and edit pages
Drug companies have been accused of deleting data about side effects
Researchers from Campbell University, US, said medical staff also use site
Daily Mail, 26 May 2014 link .
The original study is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, here.
BBC have also noticed, here.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue May 27, 2014 2:32 pm

The Adversary wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts
Problem caused by allowing ordinary users to create, delete and edit pages
Drug companies have been accused of deleting data about side effects
Researchers from Campbell University, US, said medical staff also use site
Daily Mail, 26 May 2014 link .
The original study is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, here.
BBC have also noticed, here.
Also in The Telegraph.

Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia, doctors warn Nine in ten medical entries on Wikipedia are inaccurate, doctors say, as they warn diagnosing yourself on the internet could be harmful

Currently being discussed on Wikimedia-l.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue May 27, 2014 4:39 pm

And now in TIME magazine.

Don’t Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says

These guys had good publicists. Perhaps this publicity can counteract a little bit of the effect of that flawed and frequently misquoted 2005 Nature study.

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by HRIP7 » Tue May 27, 2014 4:41 pm


User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Tue May 27, 2014 4:50 pm

Study: Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health link
TIME - ‎11 minutes ago‎
A team of U.S. scientists said they found “many errors” in Wikipedia articles concerning the 10 costliest medical conditions. The researchers cross-checked Wikipedia entries on coronary disease, lung cancer, hypertension and back pain, among other ailments ...

Wikipedia Your Symptoms, And You'll Get The Wrong Answer 9 Out Of 10 Times link
Bustle - ‎12 minutes ago‎
The next time you want to self-diagnose the weird blemish on your forehead or the cough you can't get rid of, don't Wikipedia it. A new study compared the open-source online encyclopedia's entries on 10 health conditions with peer-review medical literature ...

Don't trust Wikipedia for health-related information link
West - Welfare Society Territory - ‎1 hour ago‎
Don't trust Wikipedia for health information because it can be very dangerous. It has been demonstrated by a team of doctors in an article published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Analyzing the entries for ten common diseases in the ...

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia – Scientists link
Citifmonline - ‎1 hour ago‎
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said. Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and ...

Wikipedia Reliance Could Land You In Big Medical Trouble link
Carbonated.tv - ‎1 hour ago‎
The World Wide Web holds in itself an extremely vast collection of information that has something to offer no matter how strange a query is. While the easy availability of information is certainly a good thing, it does have its side-effects as one study recently ...

Rethink self-diagnosis link
Sunday World - ‎2 hours ago‎
“Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals,” Robert Hasty of Campbell University in America said. “The best resource when looking for a ...

Why You Should Never Use Wikipedia to Diagnose Your Illnesses link
RYOT - ‎3 hours ago‎
For the past few days I've been feeling a little under the weather. I've been coughing, feverish, and having some trouble breathing. So, like any hard-headed Internet using person who doesn't want to waste time and money going to the doctor, I went online to ...

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists link
BBC News - ‎4 hours ago‎
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said. Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and ...

90% of Wikipedia medical entries are inaccurate, say experts link
Daily Mail - ‎6 hours ago‎
When you're feeling under the weather, it's only natural to want to find out what is wrong with you...fast. But turning to the internet to determine the cause of your symptoms can be a bad idea, according to a study by doctors. It found that nine in ten Wikipedia ...

Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia, doctors warn link
Telegraph.co.uk - ‎7 hours ago‎
A number of articles on the hugely popular website were found to contain factual errors, largely because Wikipedia lets users create, delete and edit entries, which leads to more mistakes. The study by doctors, seen by The Daily Mail, found that errors on the ...

Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia link
Independent Online - ‎8 hours ago‎
Lead author Robert Hasty of Campbell University in the US warned: “Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals. The best resource when looking ...

Feeling ill? Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia link
IOL - ‎8 hours ago‎
Lead author Robert Hasty of Campbell University in the US warned: “Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals. The best resource when looking ...
When I posted the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association article here on 4 May 2014: link, this was the first response: link
Anthonyhcole wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:
Mancunium wrote:Try to get back to me before a report on "Doc James" is forwarded to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia: link
Still feeling like shit, Mancunium. So, if you want me to do anything but get angry and flame people, or idly dream about interesting stuff, you'll have to pay me money. If you have a query about James's status, have you thought about asking him before ladling libelous aspersions onto this thread?
That's not libelous, though it might be assholish depending on your point of view.

(Don't use the report button like that again, please. Seriously.)
It's libel. And if you're a moderator here, you should be ashamed of yourself. Mancunium is working within your boundaries.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Tue May 27, 2014 9:26 pm

More libel:
Using Wikipedia To Look Up Your Illness Is A Bad Idea, Scientists Confirm
Headlines & Global News - ‎29 minutes ago‎
"While Wikipedia is a convenient tool for conducting research, from a public health standpoint patients should not use it as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same-peer review process as medical journals," lead researcher Dr.

You Really Shouldn't Be Using Wikipedia to Diagnose Your Diseases
Gawker - ‎1 hour ago‎
Stop obsessing over what that weird oozing bump on your arm might be and go see a doctor already because that Wikipedia page you have open is probably wrong and is only going to make your crazier. Also, stop touching it. A new study published by the ...

BREAKING: Wikipedia Is NOT A Doctor -- And A Study Confirms It
Huffington Post - ‎1 hour ago‎
Your high school teacher said it best: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The online encyclopedia that can be edited by experts and idiots alike is an easy source of information when trying to learn about a new topic. But a new study confirms what we all ...

The Online Health Articles You Shouldn't Trust
News One - ‎1 hour ago‎
American researchers compared the online encyclopedia's entries about 10 conditions with peer reviewed medical research and found that most Wikipedia articles contained multiple mistakes, says HealthDay. The 10 conditions included in the study were the ...

Be wary of Wikipedia, say scientists
Bayoubuzz - ‎2 hours ago‎
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said. Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and ...

Wiki weakness: Don't use the site to diagnose yourself, study says
New York Daily News - ‎2 hours ago‎
"Researchers should not use (Wikipedia) as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review processes as medical journals," said lead author Robert Hasty of Campbell University. "The best resource when looking for a ...
'Don't use Wikipedia for medical advice', scientists warn after errors found

The Independent - ‎4 hours ago‎
A US study compared Wikipedia articles with peer-reviewed medical information on lung cancer, depression, diabetes, coronary heart disease and other illnesses. The report, published in the The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, concluded ...

Wikipedia Your Symptoms, And You'll Get The Wrong Answer 9 Out Of 10 Times
Bustle - ‎5 hours ago‎
The next time you want to self-diagnose the weird blemish on your forehead or the cough you can't get rid of, don't Wikipedia it. A new study compared the open-source online encyclopedia's entries on 10 health conditions with peer-review medical literature ...

Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says
TIME - ‎5 hours ago‎
A new study has found that Wikipedia entries on the costliest medical conditions contradicted the latest medical research 90% of the time. A team of U.S. scientists said they found “many errors” in Wikipedia articles concerning the 10 costliest medical ...

Don't trust Wikipedia for health-related information
West - Welfare Society Territory - ‎6 hours ago‎
Don't trust Wikipedia for health information because it can be very dangerous. It has been demonstrated by a team of doctors in an article published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Analyzing the entries for ten common diseases in the ...

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia – Scientists
Citifmonline - ‎6 hours ago‎
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said. Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and ...

Wikipedia Reliance Could Land You In Big Medical Trouble
Carbonated.tv - ‎6 hours ago‎
The World Wide Web holds in itself an extremely vast collection of information that has something to offer no matter how strange a query is. While the easy availability of information is certainly a good thing, it does have its side-effects as one study recently ...

Rethink self-diagnosis
Sunday World - ‎7 hours ago‎
“Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals,” Robert Hasty of Campbell University in America said. “The best resource when looking for a ...

News Flash: Wikipedia Is A Horrible Place To Get Medical Information
Refinery29-58 minutes ago
Researchers compared Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S. (including depression, heart disease, and ...

Why You Should Never Use Wikipedia to Diagnose Your Illnesses
RYOT - ‎9 hours ago‎
“Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources,” the study reads. So I probably won't die and it's just a really bad case of the common ...

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists
BBC News - ‎9 hours ago‎
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said. Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and ...

90% of Wikipedia medical entries are inaccurate, say experts
Daily Mail - ‎12 hours ago‎
When you're feeling under the weather, it's only natural to want to find out what is wrong with you...fast. But turning to the internet to determine the cause of your symptoms can be a bad idea, according to a study by doctors. It found that nine in ten Wikipedia ...

Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia, doctors warn
Telegraph.co.uk - ‎12 hours ago‎
A number of articles on the hugely popular website were found to contain factual errors, largely because Wikipedia lets users create, delete and edit entries, which leads to more mistakes. The study by doctors, seen by The Daily Mail, found that errors on the ...


Feeling ill? Don't diagnose yourself on Wikipedia
Independent Online - ‎13 hours ago‎
Lead author Robert Hasty of Campbell University in the US warned: “Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a pri[vimeo]mary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals. The best resource when looking ...

Wikipedia Contains Errors In Nine Out Of 10 Entries On The Most Costly Medical ...
iDigitalTimes.com - ‎4 hours ago‎
A new study has found that Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 entries on the most costly medical conditions. The study reminds us to seek professional advice rather than relying solely on Wikipedia. (Photo: Reuters).

Health Highlights: May 27, 2014
Philly.com - ‎7 hours ago‎
"While Wikipedia is a convenient tool for conducting research, from a public health standpoint patients should not use it as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals," said lead author Dr ...

Avoid Using Wikipedia for Health-Related Issues
Counsel & Heal-1 hour ago
The researchers discovered that nine out of the 10 Wikipedia articles they examined contradicted the information published in the most recent ...
Image
I'm kinda sick of reading about you, Doc James.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Wed May 28, 2014 8:53 pm

On 2 May 2014, I posted this: link

Caution Prescribed When Researching Medical Conditions on Wikipedia
Study in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association Finds Wikipedia Articles Contradict Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature
PR Newswire, 2 May 2014 link

On 4 May 2014 I posted the complete Summary and the link to the entire study: link

Wikipedia vs. Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, May 2014 link

Following that post, this was posted on 4 May 2014: link
Anthonyhcole wrote:It's libel. And if you're a moderator here, you should be ashamed of yourself. Mancunium is working within your boundaries.
On 5 May the same person posted this: link
Anthonyhcole wrote:What am I supposed to say about reports in mainstream press and scholarly journals? None of it is new to me. Most of it is shit, by the way. I haven't read that recent study by the osteopaths but will. As for being shit, most of the press reports are hopelessly anecdotal and full of fundamental errors of understanding, and all of the peer reviewed studies I've read (I haven't read them all) are useless due to tiny sample size and flawed or unpublished selection criteria.
Meanwhile, the official response was decided here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#Poor_paper_.5B4.5D_on_Wikipedia (T-H-L)
My first thought when glancing at the paper was the journal itself: The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association immediately makes me cynical. More importantly, the number of "dissimilar" assertions (where the two reviewers disagree with each other) is huge! In the case of the "lung cancer" (the article I am most interested in), there are 67 dissimilar assertions out of 268: that's 25%. There is even a big discrepancy in the total number of assertions counted. In "major depressive disorder", reviewer 1 counted 72 assertions while reviewer 2 counted 172.

The most appropriate conclusion from these findings is that their reviewers don't know what they are doing. This is unsurprising when they are "physicians-in-training". I have no doubt that all of us here are far better at seeking out evidence via literature search. And I absolutely guarantee that there are not 27+ "discordant" assertions in the article "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is what they're trying to pass off as statistics when generalizing to the rest of Wikipedia, not so much what they're trying to pass off as problems with medical info in these articles. You can't just take some arbitrary convenience sample like they did and expect it to have any semblance of generalizability. Because of that, I have no clue what the asymptotic distribution of their sample might look like, but i can guarantee that it's NOT normally distributed and probably not consistent (the distribution parameters, I mean); or in English, that study is a brown paper bag containing a pile of shit which happens to be on fire. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The author has not replied to my email. Not really surprising. Yes there is a lot of poor quality peer review literature that disagrees with our Wikipedia articles. That literature also disagrees with the best available literature. There is also a lot of old literature which disagrees with the newer literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This thread was also launched:

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation
[Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles
" link
dgerard at gmail
May 7, 2014, 3:19 PM
Post #4 of 73 (149 views)Permalink
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Metrics - accuracy of Wikipedia articles [In reply to]
On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 [at] gmail> wrote:

> For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's
> medical content that came to unflattering results:
> http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full

Osteopaths. Perhaps we could ask the chiropractors and homeopaths what they think too.
- d.
Today, the first page of a Google News search for "wikipedia" is this: link
Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says
TIME-May 27, 2014
A new study has found that Wikipedia entries on the costliest medical conditions contradicted the latest medical research 90% of the time.
Study finds many errors on Wikipedia articles for most costly diseases
mobihealthnews-2 hours ago

Dr. Wikipedia Isn't So Smart, But Lots of People Are Visiting Her
FiveThirtyEight-9 hours ago

90% of Wikipedia medical entries are inaccurate, say experts
Daily Mail-May 27, 2014

9 out of 10 health entries on Wikipedia are inaccurate, study finds
VentureBeat-6 hours ago

Daily Mail
VentureBeat
The Independent
gulfnews.com
Betabeat
Telegraph.co.uk

[.b]Explore in depth (65 more articles)[/b]

You Really Shouldn't Be Using Wikipedia to Diagnose Your Diseases
Gawker-May 27, 2014
Stop obsessing over what that weird oozing bump on your arm might be and go see a doctor already because that Wikipedia page you have ...

Wikipedia Your Symptoms, And You'll Get The Wrong Answer 9 Out ...
Bustle-by Alicia Lu-May 27, 2014
The next time you want to self-diagnose the weird blemish on your forehead or the cough you can't get rid of, don't Wikipedia it. A new study ...

Here's Something You Should Know Before Googling Your Symptoms
Business Insider-22 hours ago
Researchers looked at Wikipedia articles for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S. — including coronary artery disease, lung cancer, ...

Wikipedia: New medical reference for patients
Times of India-by Kounteya Sinha-19 hours ago
LONDON: Scientists have warned against a dangerous new trend where patients check on Wikipedia for information on their health conditions, ...

People with health concerns shouldn't trust Wikipedia, say experts
Zee News-8 hours ago
London: A new study has revealed that Wikipedia contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries and people with health issues ...

Wikipedia Holds Misinformation In Many Health-Related Subjects ...
Medical Daily-May 27, 2014
People who try to diagnose their own afflictions may want to think twice about looking at Wikipedia for information. Dullhunk, CC BY 2.0.

News Flash: Wikipedia Is A Horrible Place To Get Medical Information
Refinery29-May 27, 2014
Researchers compared Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S. (including depression, heart disease, and ...

Using Wikipedia To Look Up Your Illness Is A Bad Idea, Scientists ...
Headlines & Global News-May 27, 2014
A new study from researchers across the U.S. found that most of the medical information available on Wikipedia is false. (Photo : Reuters).

Wikipedia for medical advice? Experts warn of errors
The Sunshine Coast Daily-17 hours ago
IT MAY seem obvious but scientists are warning people to avoid using Wikipedia for medical advice after errors were found in nine out of 10 ...
Actually, there are now at least 100 English-language articles on WikiProject Medicine's eternal shame, and it is reported in at least 11 other languages.

Have a good laugh at that, you worthless ignorant crowd of make-believe physicians playing with people's lives.

The whole world is disgusted by you.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Thu May 29, 2014 3:55 am

Anthonyhcole wrote:I have asked James to join in here but he's chosen not to and, given your behaviour (in particular) and Mancunium's toward him, I can fully understand and respect his choice to not dignify either of you with a response. He doesn't read this forum and I doubt he ever will. So I'd very much appreciate it if you would both exercise a lot more discipline over what you smear onto this thread.

By focussing on petty libels and imperfections you're kicking up dust and obscuring the real problem with Wikipedia's medical content - and to some extent are just adding to the problem. By colonising this topic with your sleazy personal attacks and innuendo, you and Mancunium are ensuring those who could contribute to a serious debate won't touch this thread with a bargepole.
Since Dr Heilman is far too busy being self-appointed President and Chairman of the Board of the Wiki Project Med Foundation, self-appointed Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Internet Research Wiki Medical Reviews, self-appointed Leader of WikiProject Medicine, &c., &c., perhaps Anthonyhcole has the time to write a personal apology to each of the 500+ news media who, in more than 25 languages, reported on the insane mess that is WikiProject Medicine-- reports which now fill the first 15 pages of Google News search results for "wikipedia": link.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Fri May 30, 2014 12:26 am

Mancunium wrote:
Anthonyhcole wrote:I have asked James to join in here but he's chosen not to and, given your behaviour (in particular) and Mancunium's toward him, I can fully understand and respect his choice to not dignify either of you with a response. He doesn't read this forum and I doubt he ever will. So I'd very much appreciate it if you would both exercise a lot more discipline over what you smear onto this thread.
I believe Dr Heilman does read this thread. On 27 November 2013 he removed from his User page the long-standing claim to be a Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Saskatchewan link, and did so only after it was pointed out here that he was no such thing, and never had been.
So you see, Dr Heilman, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble when, four weeks ago, I had the goodness to draw your attention to the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association's study on your shoddy WikiProject.

Instead, you sent your messenger to piss on me, and made no effort to prepare yourself for hundreds of headlines, the world over, like
Why Wikipedia Could Cost You Your Life
Men's Fitness, 28 May 2014 link

Please believe me when I say that much worse is to come.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:12 pm

A rebuttal
Is Wikipedia’s Medical Content Really 90% Wrong?
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#A_rebuttal (T-H-L)
[...] What Hasty did show was 1) the peer reviewed literature does not agree with itself (ie different peer reviewed sources come to different conclusions which is no surprise to anyone that has read much of it) 2) the peer review process is sometimes flawed as he was able to publish a "peer reviewed" article whose data does not support its conclusions. As someone who has read a lot of the peer reviewed literature this is also not surprising. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If you intend this as a letter to the editor, you will have to send out at least 5,450 of them (link) in about 30 languages (get that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force (T-H-L) cracking); scores of them are professional medical journals, including these quoted in The Guardian today:

Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: link
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: Are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?
European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology: link
Conclusion
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for medical students searching for gastroenterology and hepatology articles. Several limitations, deficiencies, and scientific errors have been identified in the articles examined.
Image
former Living Person

Anthonyhcole
Habitué
Posts: 1120
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:35 am
Wikipedia User: Anthonyhcole

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Anthonyhcole » Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:40 pm

Mancunium wrote:...Instead, you sent your messenger to piss on me.
I'm pissing on you all of my own accord. Spontaneously, as it were. Purely for my own delight.
Mancunium wrote:...perhaps Anthonyhcole has the time to write a personal apology to each of the 500+ news media who, in more than 25 languages, reported on the insane mess that is WikiProject Medicine-- reports which now fill the first 15 pages of Google News search results for "wikipedia"
If I were to write to them it would be to upbraid them for not going harder.

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:14 am

Wikipedia Is Wrong 90% Of The Time
A new study compared health-related Wikipedia articles to peer-reviewed medical literature and found shocking results.
Health IT Outcomes, 3 June 2014 link
[...] Shockingly, when compared to peer-reviewed medical literature, the Wikipedia articles didn’t just come up short; an overwhelming 90 percent of them contained information that contradicted the latest medical research on the condition. “Most Wikipedia articles representing the 10 most costly medical conditions in the United States contain many errors when checked against standard peer-reviewed sources. Caution should be used when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care,” concluded researchers. [...]
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:12 pm

The Dangers Of Self-Diagnosis Via Wikipedia
Boston, 5 June 2014 link
Dr. Daliah Wachs sits down to discuss the dangers of using online websites to diagnose your symptoms.
Embedded video discussion of the deadly horror that is WikiProject Medicine.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:13 am

former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Tue Jun 10, 2014 11:59 pm

Wikipediaの病気についてのページは、90%が間違い:米医師調べ
研究者のチームが、アメリカで最も広まっていて最も費用のかかる10の病気についてのWikipedia(ウィキペディア)の記事を評価した。同時に、フリー百科事典で知識を得る同僚たちに警告を発している。
Wired Japan, 10 June 2014 link

Google-translation from Japanese link
90% error page about the disease of the Wikipedia: U.S. doctor examined
Team of researchers evaluated the article Wikipedia about the disease of the 10 most expensive you are most widespread in the United States. At the same time, it is a warning to colleagues to get knowledge in the free encyclopedia.

For any person seeking information of the medical field, the web has become a genuine "first aid kit". Top it off as a result, was looking around the web site, that there are people that would conclude that it is a disease incurable by self-diagnosis from slight pain of the fingertips Hipokondori of (hypochondria) can not be denied. So a group of physicians in the U.S. is I started, it's efforts to evaluate synonymous with the presence of the digital encyclopedia, the reliability of the page on the medicine on Wikipedia, make a decision. This study, which was published in the "Journal of the American Osteopathic Association", among Yamairei that many, I went considerations dealing with some of the disease costly to diagnosis and treatment, about 10 pages.

In the case of 9, there was a defect or mistake of the 10

It was found as a result, the thing that was something only the description of the "concussion" is satisfactory accurate. On the other hand, article diabetes, hypertension, low back pain, ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, dyslipidemia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, related to osteoarthritis of the knee, when compared with the scientific discoveries and the latest major manual, that there is a serious discrepancy was revealed. Team of researchers, has reiterated that it must be the maximum caution when on the basis of these results, scour the web in search of medical information. But the story is not only that. Because, this message, I have used was also directed to their colleagues. In fact, a survey of recently, it is said (that is, related to medical practice) for the problem at work, 70% of medical students and 47% of physicians professional in the United States, and are referring to Wikipedia occasionally 's are.
former Living Person

User avatar
Mancunium
Habitué
Posts: 4105
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Mancunium » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:44 pm

Wikipedia Dicey as Medical Info Source
Researchers who compared peer-reviewed articles to the Wikipedia pages for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the US discovered incorrect information on 9 out of 10 pages.
Scientific American, 10 June 2014 link
Feeling a bit sick? Maybe you checked your symptoms on Wikipedia before seeing a doctor. And maybe your doctor checked Wikipedia before seeing you. Up to 70 percent of physicians and medical students admit to using Wikipedia as a reference, too. But Wikipedia can be shockingly wrong. Researchers who compared peer-reviewed articles to the Wikipedia pages for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S.—including heart disease, back pain and osteoarthritis—discovered incorrect information on nine out of 10 pages. Only information on concussions appeared to be accurate. The study is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. [RT Hasty et al, Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions]. Earlier research suggested that Wikipedia is roughly comparable to peer-reviewed sources. A study in the journal Nature in 2005 found Wikipedia was about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, even about science topics. But that analysis looked only at 42 entries among the millions on Wikipedia. Since then the site has exploded, now including tens of millions of entries. The new results suggest we should all take online info with a grain of salt.

The above text is a transcript of this podcast.
Audio podcast embedded.
former Living Person

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:44 am

Your momentum on this subject is like an avalanche now. Bravo!

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:48 am

Zoloft wrote:Your momentum on this subject is like an avalanche now. Bravo!
And a horror for me. Which ones do I keep track of?

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13981
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Doctor Wikipedia

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:50 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Zoloft wrote:Your momentum on this subject is like an avalanche now. Bravo!
And a horror for me. Which ones do I keep track of?
Wait for the dust to settle. Listen for survivors.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


Post Reply