Doctor Wikipedia

[Vigilant]

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.

Then shoot them in the dark.

[EricBarbour]

Did Mancunium get this one from 2011?
Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students

Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information. Pharmacy faculty should actively recommend against our students' use of Wikipedia for medication information and urge them to consult more credible drug information resources.

It came from Wikiproject Medicine's own listing of articles on the quality of Wikipedia's medical content. Some are favorable, some are unfavorable, some are useless, all over the place -- just like Wikipedia articles. And they start with that crummy 2005 Nature article.

Perhaps we should go through that list, and categorize them as pro-neutral-anti? Obviously Heilman and his monkeys have no intention of doing it, because it might make them unhappy.....

[Anthonyhcole]

These guys had good publicists.

Agreed.

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

Two grossly incompetent "studies" get by far the most headlines from grossly incompetent science reporters.

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.

It's rather a wall. I've isolated here all (I think) of the "peer reviewed" articles about the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content since 2007. (The list at Wikiproject Medicine includes all studies addressing Wikipedia medical content - not just accuracy - and many of the studies in my list don't appear in that list.)

The studies I've so far read from my list (about two thirds) all fail either to randomly select their samples from the 25,000-odd Wikipedia medical articles or to select a large enough sample for the results to say anything meaningful about Wikipedia's medical content. Most have various other fatal flaws, too. That is, the peer-reviewed articles addressing the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content have been so poor that even when taken together they tell us nothing meaningful about it, other than that it is unreliable - something we already know.

But I'm no expert in the assessment and synthesis of scientific work. Someone with that expertise has to do a rigorous systematic review of all the existing studies into the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content. (An as-yet unpublished 2012 review claimed to have taken a systematic approach to all studies addressing the quality of Wikipedia, but my reading, and the reading of another WikiProject Medicine editor, is that it is not a systematic review. It was discussed/is being discussed here permalink.)

My reading tells me and I believe a high-quality independent systematic review would find that we are waiting for a rigorous (large enough and well-enough-designed to answer the question with some confidence; paid for and designed and conducted by genuinely independent bodies and competent researchers) investigation into how accurate/inaccurate Wikipedia medical content is.

Until that's done and independently replicated, there just is nothing more that can be said about Wikipedia's medical content other than that it is unreliable. And that can be said about all online sources of medical information.

[Poetlister]

Until that's done and independently replicated, there just is nothing more that can be said about Wikipedia's medical content other than that it is unreliable. And that can be said about all online sources of medical information.

I think it can reasonably be said that some online sources are better than others. For example, if you want to know about medicines, what they are prescribed for and their likely side effects, the British National Formulary is surely a better bet than Wikipedia.

[Mancunium]

Study: Majority of Wikipedia’s Health Entries Are Terrifyingly Wrong
Philadelphia Magazine, 13 June 2014 link

You know how people say you should never EVER google your symptoms when you’re sick? You know, because they think the Internet is full of lies? Well, shocker: it turns out, the Internet really is full of lies, especially when it comes to health-related information. A recent study published in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association found that, when it comes to the costliest medical conditions in the U.S., nine out of 10 Wikipedia entries are inaccurate. Yikes. For the study, researchers chose 10 crowd-sourced Wikipedia articles on the 10 costliest medical conditions in the country: coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain, hyperlipidemia and concussions. [...] The reviewers found that a whopping 90 percent of the Wikipedia articles—all except the article on concussions—contained a significant amount of errors when checked against peer-reviewed sources. So seriously, do not employ Wikipedia as your medical guru. And don’t let your doctor check Wikipedia, either: According to a recent article in The Atlantic, 50 percent of physicians use Wikipedia for health-related information. But hopefully not after reading this: The study encourages doctors who use Wikipedia as a reference to quit it, stat, saying, “Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.” [...]

[Anthonyhcole]

Until that's done and independently replicated, there just is nothing more that can be said about Wikipedia's medical content other than that it is unreliable. And that can be said about all online sources of medical information.

I think it can reasonably be said that some online sources are better than others. For example, if you want to know about medicines, what they are prescribed for and their likely side effects, the British National Formulary is surely a better bet than Wikipedia.

Yes. Some are more reliable than others. I'd like to know where Wikipedia stands in that continuum. Presently, no one does. It'll be expensive but, IMO, a more worthwhile use of donors' funds than a lot of current uses.

[Anthonyhcole]

From cancer Pain.

Abdominal and urogenital hollow organs

Inflammation of artery walls and tissue adjacent to nerves is common in tumors of abdominal and urogenital hollow organs.[22] Infection or cancer may irritate the trigone of the urinary bladder, causing spasm of the detrusor urinae muscle (the muscle that squeezes urine from the urinary bladder), resulting in deep pain above the pubic bone, possibly referred to the tip of the penis, lasting from a few minutes to half an hour.[16]

Serous mucosa

Carcinosis of the peritoneum may cause pain through inflammation, disordered visceral motility, or pressure of the metastases on nerves. Once a tumor has penetrated or perforated hollow viscera, acute inflammation of the peritoneum appears, inducing severe abdominal pain. Pleural carcinomatosis is normally painless.[22]

This is stuff that your doctor might want to know. But I suspect that the data is more useful in the posts about the type of conditions, rather than clumping it all together as it is here. As of now the article is a smorgasbord of accumulated factoids whose only relationship is that they match 'pain' and 'cancer'.

Also for the general reader, the post is useless as they'll tend to only be concerned with a specific cancer. A clear example where even if everything on the page is correct it is useless to the reader. They'll quickly go elsewhere.

Thanks again. I've moved most of the "Causes" section to its own article.

As for its usefulness to the general reader, I think most of what's left is very relevant to the general reader with an interest in cancer pain, regardless of which cancer they're looking at. If I've got that wrong, your further feedback would be most appreciated.

[Casliber]

Until that's done and independently replicated, there just is nothing more that can be said about Wikipedia's medical content other than that it is unreliable. And that can be said about all online sources of medical information.

I think it can reasonably be said that some online sources are better than others. For example, if you want to know about medicines, what they are prescribed for and their likely side effects, the British National Formulary is surely a better bet than Wikipedia.

Yes. Some are more reliable than others. I'd like to know where Wikipedia stands in that continuum. Presently, no one does. It'll be expensive but, IMO, a more worthwhile use of donors' funds than a lot of current uses.

There is a host of work done on assessing articles. Ditto journals. Doesn't take too much for doctors to follow this really

[Anthonyhcole]

Until that's done and independently replicated, there just is nothing more that can be said about Wikipedia's medical content other than that it is unreliable. And that can be said about all online sources of medical information.

I think it can reasonably be said that some online sources are better than others. For example, if you want to know about medicines, what they are prescribed for and their likely side effects, the British National Formulary is surely a better bet than Wikipedia

Yes. Some are more reliable than others. I'd like to know where Wikipedia stands in that continuum. Presently, no one does. It'll be expensive but, IMO, a more worthwhile use of donors' funds than a lot of current uses.

There is a host of work done on assessing articles. Ditto journals. Doesn't take too much for doctors to follow this really

Sorry. If you're addressing me, I don't know what you're talking about.

[Mancunium]

Study: Wikipedia Drug Entries Not Always Up-to-Date
U.S. News & World Report, 25 June 2014 link

Many Wikipedia entries about prescription medications aren't up-to-date and accurate, a new study contends. [...] But investigators said they found that when it comes to providing reliable information on drugs, the editing isn't always timely, particularly with respect to lesser known medications. "And the problem is that patients may not have the background or training to assess what's good medical information and what's not," said study co-author John Seeger. He's an assistant professor in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "So if the information they find online isn't up-to-date, we have a real challenge," he said. Seeger and his colleagues wrote a perspective piece on the subject in the June 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. [...] Seeger's team said that searching Wikipedia for medical information has inherent problems. While a few Wikipedia entries are locked in order to prevent "online vandalism," most postings are not. In fact, most postings are accessible to nearly anyone, with many Wikipedia contributors functioning anonymously. [...] The risk is that at any point in time, the medical information the site contains could either be inaccurate or out-of-date. To address this concern, Seeger and his associates decided to explore to what degree Wikipedia entries reflected U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug-safety communications in an accurate and timely manner.

Specifically, the team looked at 22 drug safety warnings regarding prescription medications that the FDA issued over a two-year period between 2011 and 2012. The warnings covered drugs used to treat conditions such as high blood pressure, hepatitis C and leukemia. Starting 60 days prior to each FDA warning and continuing until 60 days afterward, the study authors assessed the informational accuracy of Wikipedia entries related to each drug. There were more than 13 million Google searches and 5 million Wikipedia page views for these drugs during the study period. During the week after the safety warnings, there was an 82 percent average increase in the number of Google searches, and a 175 percent increase in the number of page views for the drugs included in the warnings, according to the study. Overall, 41 percent of the relevant Wikipedia entries had been updated within two weeks following an FDA safety warning. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) took more than two weeks to update, while more than a third (36 percent) still didn't reference the FDA warning a year after it was issued, the study authors said. After digging deeper, the team found that not all drugs were treated equally on Wikipedia. The most common drugs -- meaning those used to treat more than 1 million American patients -- were much more likely to be updated in that time frame. For example, while 58 percent of entries concerning popular medications were properly updated with two weeks, that number fell to just 20 percent regarding less commonly used drugs, the study authors said. [...]

[Mancunium]

Also published here:

Study: Wikipedia Drug Entries Not Always Up-to-Date
Health, 25 June 2014 link

More bad news for WikiProject Medicine here:

FDA issues draft guidance docs on how to provide accurate risk/benefit info in 140 characters or less and clean up 3rd rty UGC
Lexology, 25 June 2014 link

The second guidance document addresses the issue of “misinformation” (i.e., “positive or negative incorrect representations or implications about a firm’s product”), sometimes contained in user-generated content (“UGC”) on independent third-party websites, such as Wikipedia, WebMD, or the numerous other health-related forums available online. The guidance acknowledges that companies generally are not obligated to correct misinformation generated by independent third parties, but makes clear that if a company voluntarily chooses to do so, it should correct all such misinformation in the particular forum, not just that which reflects negatively on the product. FDA recommends that corrections be narrowly tailored to address the misinformation, be non-promotional in tone, and include a direct link to the FDA-required labeling for the product.

Guidance for Industry
Internet/Social Media Platforms: Correcting Independent Third-Party
Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices
U.S. Food and Drug Administration link

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Draft_FDA_guidelines_for_social_media (T-H-L)

With respect to "off label use", this is an USA legal thing. We are a global encyclopedia. We want what the best available literature says. The position of regulators can go in the section on society and culture.
With respect to replying I am not sure what we should say. Having had some very negative runs in with industry here on Wikipedia I am inclined to see those being paid to promote a product limited to the talk pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify. IMO we should not organize the "medical uses" section into FDA approved uses and "off label uses". While I agree that the FDA is a good source, it is not the only source. If one wants to create a list of "approved" versus "off label" uses as this is a US legal definition it should be in the society and culture section. Other ways of presenting stuff from the FDA can go in the "medical uses" or other sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have you in my eye, Doc James.

[Mancunium]

The 'New England Journal of Medicine' article has not even been published yet, but the findings of the Wikipedia study are already spreading.

Study: Wikipedia Drug Entries Not Always Up-to-Date
Philly, 25 June 2014 link

NCurse (T-C-L)

My name is Bertalan Meskó, MD, PhD. I'm the author of the medical blog scienceroll.com.
I've been contributing to the English Wikipedia since May, 2006.
I became an administrator on 7 October, 2006. I'm interested in all parts of science, but mainly genetics.
I'm the maintainer of featured Portal:Medicine.
I'm the creator and the coordinator of Medical genetics WikiProject.
I'm the maintainer of Medicine WikiProject and Science collaboration of the month.

Who stands behind Webicina?
Webcina: link

Bertalan Meskó, MD, PhD, a medical futurist, graduated from the University of Debrecen, Medical School and Health Science Center in 2009 with Weszprémy Award; and received PhD in clinical genomics in 2012. He has been running the multiple award-winning medical blog, Scienceroll, since November, 2007, and had over 4 million hits. He thinks medical education and communication between physicians and patients will be revolutionized with the tools and services of social media.

Dr Bertalan Meskó's clients
Webicina: link

[Poetlister]

Study: Wikipedia Drug Entries Not Always Up-to-Date

That's very damning because the great virtue that Wikipedia has (or should have) is being up to date. In practice, that often doesn't happen.

[Mancunium]

These are some of the clients of NCurse (T-C-L), "Maintainer of Portal:Medicine and of WikiProject Medicine":



Abbott_Laboratories (T-H-L)

Bayer (T-H-L)

Bristol-Myers_Squibb (T-H-L)

GlaxoSmithKline (T-H-L)

Johnson_&_Johnson (T-H-L)

[Mancunium]

These are some of the clients of NCurse (T-C-L), "Maintainer of Portal:Medicine and of WikiProject Medicine":

You would think that a WikiProject boasting such a well-connected paid Administrator could do better.

Wikipedia drug entries often inaccurate or outdated, study finds
CBS News, 26 June 2014 link

Wikipedia Drug Entries Not Up-to-Date
HCPLive, 26 June 2014 link

Wikipedia Drug Entries Often Not Up-to-Date
Doctors Lounge, 26 June 2014 link

How reliable is the drug info you find online?
WCVB Boston, 26 June 2014 link

How reliable is the drug info you find online?
CNN, 26 June 2014 link

Study: Wikipedia Drug Entries Often Inaccurate or Outdated
The Charlottesville Newsplex, 26 June 2014 link

Wikipedia drug info often inaccurate, but who should update it?
Modern Healthcare, 26 June 2014 link

Drug Safety in the Digital Age
New England Journal of Medicine, 26 June 2014 link

We already know what medical maven Anthonyhcole thinks of all this:

I'm pissing on you all of my own accord. Spontaneously, as it were. Purely for my own delight.

[Mancunium]

By the way, Mr I-piss-on-you-all, if you feel the overwhelming urge to push your "Libel!" button, please direct your threats and insults to Thomas J. Hwang, A.B., Florence T. Bourgeois, M.D., M.P.H., John D. Seeger, Pharm.D., Dr.P.H., the Blackstone Group in London, the Children's Hospital Informatics Program and the Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, the Department of Pediatrics and the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

[EricBarbour]

By the way, Mr I-piss-on-you-all, if you feel the overwhelming urge to push your "Libel!" button, please direct your threats and insults to Thomas J. Hwang, A.B., Florence T. Bourgeois, M.D., M.P.H., John D. Seeger, Pharm.D., Dr.P.H., the Blackstone Group in London, the Children's Hospital Informatics Program and the Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, the Department of Pediatrics and the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Yeah, Anthony, you suck, neener neener.

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine (T-H-L)

Actually, this is not about including information from the FDA. It's about the FDA's ability to regulate what pharma companies can say on social media, and incidentally on Wikipedia. So the draft guidance says that a pharma company's employees must disclose if they make an edit here. It even says somethings about people that they just have some influence on. So we might send the FDA a comment on their proposed guidance that educates them about how Wikipedia works (it's pretty obvious they only have a vague idea) and then say we recommend that employees of pharma and the people they influence should, e.g.;
disclose their employer, client, and affiliation for each edit
Only edit on talk pages
disclose if they have been paid for specific research that they cite.
Or whatever else we want paid pharma editors to do or not do. This will likely be our only chance to send in this info to them for a decade or so.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

On our end, I think that there is some danger of assuming that the COI-related rules for the English Wikipedia are the rules for every wiki. Our rules here don't even apply to other languages of Wikipedia, much less to the smaller, non-Wikipedia "interactive, collaborative encyclopedias" out there.
About the pharma companies editing, my main concern is that they might believe that this requires them to remove off-label information, which we don't want them to do anyway, but which could also be a nightmare if they decide that the EU requires them to add X and the US requires them to remove X. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Having them stay on the talk page and off the article page should be very safe for everybody involved. I think allowing companies to remove dangerous information on drugs in articles is a real good idea. Focusing on en:WP doesn't seem like a bad idea for US FDA regulation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Drug Safety in the Digital Age, NEJM
Hwang, Thomas J.; Bourgeois, Florence T.; Seeger, John D. (2014). "Drug Safety in the Digital Age". New England Journal of Medicine 370 (26): 2460–2462. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401767. ISSN 0028-4793.

we selected new drug-safety communications related to prescription medicines that were issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a 2-year period between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012 ... We also examined the content of Wikipedia pages, looking specifically for references to safety warnings.... FDA safety warnings were associated with an 82% increase, on average, in Google searches for the drugs during the week after the announcement and a 175% increase in views of Wikipedia pages ... We found that 41% of Wikipedia pages pertaining to the drugs with new safety warnings were updated within 2 weeks after the warning was issued ... Our findings also suggest that there may be a benefit to enabling the FDA to update or automatically feed new safety communications to Wikipedia pages, as it does with WebMD.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

From just a quick reading of a brief article on this paper, it looks ok and actually reflects reasonably well on Wikipedia. The only thing I would have preferred is some sort of alternative considered, e.g. is there another site that updates the info more quickly? another form of media that gives detailed info to more people more quickly? As far as the above section on FDA guidelines, I'd think that we can recommend that drug firms bring this information asap to the talk pages, and remove any information in the article that has been shown by the FDA announcement to be dangerous. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do send the FDA a comment on their proposed guidance that educates them about how Wikipedia works. Your attempt to educate the U.S. Government might encourage it to shut down your playing-doctor WikiProject STAT.

And yes, Smallbones. There is another site that updates the info more quickly.

How reliable is the drug info you find online?
CNN, 26 June 2014 link

So where should you go to get the latest drug safety information? Report author John Seeger recommends consumers be “cautious about information that comes up when you do searches online" and "cross-reference it with the more authoritative source.”

“As a public health and regulatory agency, it is a priority for the FDA to provide consumers with clear and accurate information about the safety of the drugs they take," FDA spokesperson Tara Goodin said. "While there are a number of useful websites that contain information about FDA-approved products, ultimately, FDA.gov remains the best resource to find accurate and timely information about the safety and effectiveness of approved drug products.”

FDA.gov: link

[Mancunium]

The results of the England Journal of Medicine study, released yesterday, have already been reported in 27 English-language news media, and in several other languages. The following is a suggestion that the FDA just take over WikiProject Medicine's drug articles.

Researchers Say FDA Should Take More Active Role in Disseminating Drug Safety Warnings
Regulatory Focus, 27 June 2014 link

In addition to approving products and making sure bad ones never make it to market, an indispensable role of healthcare product regulators is warning consumers and healthcare professionals about new risks associated with already-approved healthcare products. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regularly sends out such warnings, generally known as drug safety communications, and as of 27 June 2014 had already issued 12 warnings in 2014—an average of two per month. But while the warnings are well-noted in regulatory circles, new research indicates that their effect on the public is more varied on account of the Internet. The research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), looked at all new drug safety communications for prescription medicines issued by FDA between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2012. The researchers, who postulated that most consumers get their medical information through Google and Wikipedia, then evaluated the content of Wikipedia pages, and looked at page views for both Wikipedia and Google search pages.

The good news: FDA's warnings had a positive effect on consumer interest in a drug, leading to an average 82% increase in Google searches during the week after the announcement, and a 175% increase in Wikipedia views on the day of the announcement. The bad news: Consumers might not have been getting the information FDA would have preferred them to have obtained. "We found that 41% of Wikipedia pages pertaining to the drugs with new safety warnings were updated within 2 weeks after the warning was issued with information provided in the FDA announcements," the researchers wrote. Pages for drugs that affected more people were more likely to be updated quickly, the researchers found. However, 23% of all Wikipedia pages were only updated more than two weeks after the announcement, and researchers said that 36% of pages "remained unchanged more than one year later." In other words, in a place where millions of consumers and healthcare professionals go each year to read brief summaries of healthcare information, it was as if FDA never made a safety warning at all. The researchers said FDA might do well to consider actively participating in Wikipedia and other "new media" sites, such as it already does with the health website WebMD, to quickly update pages and disseminate timely and accurate information.

Reckless Endangerment Law & Legal Definition
US Legal: link

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse.

Reckless Homicide Law & Legal Definition
US Legal link

Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction. In general, "recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint.

[Anthonyhcole]

We already know what medical maven Anthonyhcole thinks of all this

You haven't a clue. Really. Not a clue. I know how bad and dangerous Wikipedia is. You have never, that I can recall, shown me anything in this thread that I didn't know already. And you have yet to propose one achievable thing that might ameliorate the situation.

(Hi Eric.)

[mac]

We already know what medical maven Anthonyhcole thinks of all this

You haven't a clue. Really. Not a clue. I know how bad and dangerous Wikipedia is. You have never, that I can recall, shown me anything in this thread that I didn't know already. And you have yet to propose one achievable thing that might ameliorate the situation.

(Hi Eric.)

It is not the job of the forum participants here to propose jack shit to fix Wikipedia. Wikipedia has yet to achieve one achievable thing to ameliorate the situation either. And it seems like that would/should be part of their job.

[Anthonyhcole]

It is not the job of the forum participants here to propose jack shit to fix Wikipedia. Wikipedia has yet to achieve one achievable thing to ameliorate the situation either. And it seems like that would/should be part of their job.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

[Poetlister]

We already know what medical maven Anthonyhcole thinks of all this

You haven't a clue. Really. Not a clue. I know how bad and dangerous Wikipedia is. You have never, that I can recall, shown me anything in this thread that I didn't know already. And you have yet to propose one achievable thing that might ameliorate the situation.

(Hi Eric.)

The obvious thing would be to have an Office action by the WMF to put every single medical and pharmacy related article onto the pending changes list. If that isn't achievable, it says a great deal about the attitude of the WMF to public safety.

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia drug info often inaccurate, but who should update it?
Modern Healthcare, 26 June 2014 link

[...] Public health officials should proactively update Wikipedia pages on prescription drugs to ensure consumers get the most current details, the study authors suggest. [...] Overall, 23% of Wikipedia pages were updated within an average of 42 days, while about 36% remained unchanged more than a year later. For example, despite an FDA-issued black-box warning on the cancer drug brentuximab vedotin in January 2012, two-years later there was still no mention of the warning on Wikipedia, which the study authors said substantiates concerns raised by previous studies over the reliability of online drug information. At the same time, there was a 50% increase in Google searches for the drug the week following the announcement, and a 141% increase in views of the drug's Wikipedia page. [...] Wikipedia is an open-edit reference model, which means anyone anywhere in the world can change an entry. Other recent studies also have looked at its content, including one published in May in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, which found that Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly medical conditions contained many errors. That study's authors urged caution, not just by patients, but also by physicians and healthcare professionals who turn to the site to answer patient care questions. [...]

You haven't a clue. Really. Not a clue. I know how bad and dangerous Wikipedia is. You have never, that I can recall, shown me anything in this thread that I didn't know already. And you have yet to propose one achievable thing that might ameliorate the situation.

The very first post in this thread (27 September 2013): link

If fewer than 1% of medicine-related Wikipedia articles are Good or Featured, why on earth would it be used as a reference by physicians?

Even if this project succeeds in bringing a few more articles up to Good Article standard, would they not then be obliged to stand eternally guard over these little puddles of excellence, against the "anyone can edit the free encyclopedia" mob?

Why not move WP's medicine-related articles to a separate medical wiki, editable only by licensed health care professionals, researchers, and medical students-- all using their own names and displaying their credentials?

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Real_evidence_levels_versus_Wikipedia_cultism (T-H-L)

Smallbones, talk pages of minor articles languish and posts there are frequently ignored. Meanwhile, CNN reports that "More than 1/3 of Wikipedia pages have out-of-date drug info a year after a new US FDA warning". If you really wanted to keep drug companies from editing articles directly (personally I think that preventing potential damage to readers' health is a pretty good case for the application of WP:IAR policy), you'd have to have a well-oiled central noticeboard that promptly responds to input. Until such time, I would prefer it if companies (disclosing their affiliation per ToU) corrected harmful misinformation in article space on sight, as envisaged in the FDA draft guidance. (If I read your comment correctly, we agree on that latter point.) Andreas JN466 10:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

is there another site that updates the info more quickly? Quoting the CNN article, "So where should you go to get the latest drug safety information? Report author John Seeger recommends consumers be “cautious about information that comes up when you do searches online" and "cross-reference it with the more authoritative source.”
“As a public health and regulatory agency, it is a priority for the FDA to provide consumers with clear and accurate information about the safety of the drugs they take," FDA spokesperson Tara Goodin said. "While there are a number of useful websites that contain information about FDA-approved products, ultimately, FDA.gov remains the best resource to find accurate and timely information about the safety and effectiveness of approved drug products.” Andreas JN466 10:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

23 June 2014: link

For medical articles, the Wikipedia article should be blanked, a link inserted that leads to a peer-reviewed site on the subject, and the page locked.

Insert a policy - WP:NOTDOCTOR.

Problem solved in a responsible manner.

Would you delete information about environmental mercury and lead being harmful to health from the articles on those elements? Would you remove information about the complete ineffectiveness of homeopathy from that article - or would you just delete the article? Great. An encyclopedia that doesn't mention homeopathy. Anyway, you know your Gordian knot solution is never doing to happen. Would anyone mind if I inserted some other pipe dream into this thread?

"Paging Dr Benway! Paging Dr Benway!"

[Mancunium]

How reliable is the drug info you find online?
CNN, 27 June 2014 link

[...] About 23 percent of the Wikipedia pages were updated more than two weeks after an FDA announcement, taking, on average, 42 days to post the new information. More than a third of the website's pages remained unchanged more than one year later, according to the study. “As a public health and regulatory agency, it is a priority for the FDA to provide consumers with clear and accurate information about the safety of the drugs they take," FDA spokesperson Tara Goodin said. "While there are a number of useful websites that contain information about FDA-approved products, ultimately, FDA.gov remains the best resource to find accurate and timely information about the safety and effectiveness of approved drug products.”

The authors of the study pointed out some discrepancies with the FDA’s current web set-up: “Currently, safety communications are housed on the Med-Watch portal, whereas electronic drug labels containing information on efficacy, dosage, and contraindications are located in the Drugs@FDA database — and there is no obvious link between these two resources.” The FDA emphasized that “Drugs@FDA is not the agency’s primary communication method for new, emerging drug safety information.” Instead the agency highlighted the FDA’s Drug Safety Communications site, which brings adverse effects and information to light early in the investigation process. The FDA also has two Twitter accounts that have drug safety announcements: @FDA_Drug_Info (which has 143,000 followers) and a drug-safety-specific account @FDAMedWatch (20,900 followers).

The study calls for the FDA to have a greater online presence in social media, as well as to extend partnerships to popular online resources. The FDA has already experimented with working with WedMD and sending official FDA alerts to registered users. The authors' findings suggest that having the FDA update and/or automatically communicate drug safety information to Wikipedia pages could potentially be beneficial. [...]

Drugs@FDA: link

Drug Safety Communications - Food and Drug Administration: link

FDA Drug Information (FDA_Drug_Info) on Twitter link

US FDA MedWatch (FDAMedWatch) on Twitter link


WP:NOTDOCTOR

[Mancunium]

Is Wikipedia’s medical content really 90% wrong?
Cochrane Collaboration, 23 June 2014 link

Anwesh Chatterjee is a pulmonologist in the United Kingdom and longtime Wikipedia editor. He is the primary author of Wikipedia’s lung cancer article – one of those criticized by Hasty et al.

Robin M.T. Cooke is a peer-reviewed author with an interest in biomedical research, who collaborates with Wikipedia's medicine projects.

Ian Furst is an Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon in Ontario, Canada, a Wikipedian and an editorial assistant on the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association.

James Heilman is an emergency room physician known as an advocate for the improvement of Wikipedia's health-related content, and for encouraging other clinicians to contribute to the website. He formerly sat on the Wikimedia Canada Board of Directors, and is president of Wiki Project Med Foundation. He has been working closely with Cochrane on the development and implementation of the Cochrane/Wikipedia partnership.

Here they reflect on the basis for recent claims in the media about the accuracy of Wikipedia medical content. [...]

Hasty has created an unvalidated method to judge the quality of medical literature. He has then applied this method to a single source: Wikipedia. Even if we were to accept that getting two students to sample the literature on a topic in a haphazard way provides an appropriate basis for measurement (which we do not), without a comparator this single data point has little meaning. It would be interesting to know what their findings would have been if this method had been applied to NICE guidelines or a health information website such as eMedicine. We believe that this study should be viewed with skepticism, and that the authors should make the underlying data available to all for review.

There are two comments:

Re: Is Wikipedia’s medical content really 90% wrong?
Submitted by Anthony Cole (not verified) on 24 June 2014 - 3:16am. CEST

A sample of ten out of thousands of articles, with no disclosure of selection criteria. No comparator. No disclosure of the study data. Calling conflicting claims errors. There is a lot wrong with Wikipedia's methods, but this "study" and Handy's later pronouncements throw no light on the real problems; they throws no light on anything.

Re: Is Wikipedia’s medical content really 90% wrong?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on 23 June 2014 - 10:31pm. CEST

In the paper they note that April 25 2012 was the day they checked the articles.

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full

Looking at coronary artery disease on that day, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =489038483) Hasty stated at

http://www.campbell.edu/news/item/med-s ... l-articles

that "Wikipedia’s article states that family history is not an important risk factor in the disease, but according to Hasty’s study, “Multiple studies confirm or support the importance of family history of CAD in determining a patient’s risk.”" - however the article on that date does ''not'' say "not important" but "A family history of early CAD is one of the less important predictors of CAD.".....so not too different from, say, the NHS page, which has it in a second tier of risk factors.

(see http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Coronary-h ... auses.aspx)

I'll leave others to draw their own conclusions on that one, but looks to me like that was not a good example of this "discordance", which leaves me wondering about the others.

Cas Liber

Cochrane Collaboration Recruits Talented Wikipedian In Residence
Wikimedia Blog, 5 May 2014 link

[Mancunium]

The Cochrane Collaboration post above is not to be found in Google News, for some reason. Despite the fact that the distinguished authors of the Cochrane letter have conclusively proved that their crowd-sourced medical articles are perfect, in any search for Wikipedia news we still find stories like this:

Study: Wikipedia Drug References Often Inaccurate, Outdated
CBS News, 30 June 2014 link

[...] Wikipedia is a free-content Internet encyclopedia that can be edited by anybody. “And the problem is that patients may not have the background or training to assess what’s good medical information and what’s not,” John Seeger, an assistant professor in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and women’s Hospital in Boston, and the study’s co-author, told HealthDay. “So if the information they find online isn’t up-to-date, we have a real challenge. [...] Seeger advises patients to seek out multiple sources when looking for updates online. The findings were published in the June 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers give FDA social media advice
Medical Marketing and Media
30 June 2014 link

Researchers from Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital are offering a bit of internet advice for the Food and Drug Administration: do more. The recommendations were published in a New England Journal of Medicine Perspective column, a chaser of sorts to the social media guidance the FDA published for the pharmaceutical industry earlier this month. The short of it is that the researchers say the FDA can and should do more to disseminate drug safety information. In some instances it is just a matter of being smarter about the information it has on hand and making it easier for patients to find. As an example, the researchers note that the regulator pours safety information into its MedWatch site, and the site Drugs@ FDA is home base for electronic drug labels, which include dosing information and contraindications, but “there is no obvious link between these two resources.” [...] Wikipedia is another realm researches say the FDA could work with to its advantage. The practical aspects of a relationship with the crowdsourced information site comes down to how important Wikipedia has become for health-related information, yet that information is not uniformly up-to-date: 23% of drug-related Wikipedia pages are updated within about two weeks of a new FDA warning, but 36% “remained unchanged more than a year later.”

This takes on a greater importance when considering just who is looking to Wiki for advice. A January social media assessment by the IMS Health Institute for Health Informatics noted that patients and doctors look to Wikipedia for information. They also found that rare disease patients make up the majority of patients who seek out health information on Wiki pages. Yet, the NEJM-published writers found that small-population disease pages were generally the ones that were not updated. An example: a Wiki page for the Hodgkin's lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma medication Adcetris which failed to mention a black box warning about a risk for progressive multifocal leukenocephalopathy two years after it was announced. [...] One solution researchers proposed is for the FDA to replicate the relationship it established with WebMD in 2008 with Wikipedia now. The WebMD agreement consists of two parts: the FDA sends public health announcements to WebMD's registered users and WebMD adds the new information to its web resources. [...] IMS noted in its January report that the Medicine Translation task force has been working to improve the quality of Wikipedia's websites and help them get top billing in search results. The translation task force's Wiki page says the collaborative effort's goal is to “improve health care's most important topics in English followed by translation into as many other languages as possible.” The page was updated June 25.

[Mancunium]

Avoid medications that increase blood pressure
The Wichita Eagle, 1 July 2014 link

When the Six Flags amusement park in New Jersey opens Zumanjaro: Drop of Doom this summer, it’ll become the tallest “drop ride” in the world – 41 stories! The park’s warning about the risks is not just marketing hype; folks on the “not recommended” list include anyone with high blood pressure. That knocks out more than 30 percent of Americans and nearly 20 percent of Canadians who have HBP (above 140/90) and are at increased risk for diabetes, heart attack, stroke, impotence, skin wrinkling and memory loss. Unfortunately, almost 20 percent of you who have this silent disabler and killer don’t know it. [...]

Beware unreliable online health info

What did Orson Welles’ 1938 radio drama “War of the Worlds” have in common with today’s encyclopedic website Wikipedia? Too many people believed every word. Welles gave people notice that the tale was pure fiction, and Wikipedia has never claimed to be more than a website (often wonderful) with user-generated and curated articles. Nonetheless, as many as 150 million folks per month use Wikipedia’s 20,000 medical articles for health info, when they should not be the last word in medical advice. A new study compared info in Wiki’s medical articles to facts from peer-reviewed medical journals: 90 percent contained false or misleading information. Examining entries for heart disease, cancer, mental illness, concussion, osteoarthritis, respiratory conditions, hypertension, diabetes, back problems and elevated cholesterol, reviewers spotted mistakes that could lead you to treat yourself incorrectly or pass along faulty info to your doc.

Another study found the online Medscape Drug Reference provided answers to 82.5 percent of researchers’ questions about medications; Wikipedia answered only 40 percent – and often had missing or incorrect info on dosages, interactions and contraindications. So, what’s the smartest way to use the Internet for health info? Stick with sites with recognized medical experts who curate the info, those affiliated with the National Institutes of Health (health.nih.gov) and other dot-gov sites, established medical institutions and medical journals. On Wikipedia: Look at an article’s footnotes to see if they’re credible; if they are, use that article’s info for hints on what to search for on the more reliable sites. Then talk to your doc.

[EricBarbour]

and Wikipedia has never claimed to be more than a website (often wonderful) with user-generated and curated articles.

Here we go again with Joe Blow's bizarre delusion that Wikipedia is "curated" somehow.

[Poetlister]

and Wikipedia has never claimed to be more than a website (often wonderful) with user-generated and curated articles.

Here we go again with Joe Blow's bizarre delusion that Wikipedia is "curated" somehow.

Many articles are curated. It's called WP:OWNing. Of course, some curation doesn't guarantee high quality.

[Mancunium]

Why do journalists keep repeating the damnable lies of the Harvard Medical School, when Cochrane Collaboration auteurs Axl (T-C-L), Ian_Furst (T-C-L), Jmh649 (T-C-L) and the mysterious Robin M.T. Cooke (not a doctor, but plays one on WP) have it abundantly clear that Wikipedia is the last word on all facts medicinal?

Wikipedia drug-safety information unreliable, study finds
MinnPost, 2 July 2014 link

Here’s yet another reason why all of us need to be careful when seeking health information online: Safety warnings about prescription drugs may be out of date. That’s the finding of a study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). For the study, a team of Harvard University researchers looked at 22 drug-safety warnings issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2012, for a variety of diseases, including high blood pressure, leukemia and hepatitis C. They then examined both the accuracy and the timeliness of references to those drugs on Wikipedia for 60 days before and after the FDA announcements. [...] Anyone with Internet access can write and/or edit most Wikipedia entries, and tens of thousands of volunteers do so each year. [...] But did those consumers who went online find accurate information on the drug’s safety? Many times not, for the study also made the following findings:
Only 41 percent of the Wikipedia pages were updated with the new safety warning within two weeks of the FDA’s announcement.
Another 23 percent of the pages took more than two weeks to update (average length of time: 42 days).
Some 36 percent of the pages remained unchanged more than a year later.

As an example, the researchers point to the drug brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), which is used to treat Hodgkin lymphoma. In January 2012, the FDA issued a black-box label warning that the drug had been linked to two cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, a virus-caused neurological condition that can be a life-threatening for people with weakened immune systems. In the week after the warning, Google searches for the drug increased 50 percent, and Wikipedia page-views increased 141 percent. “However,” write the researchers, “there was still no mention of the new black-box warning on Wikipedia 2 years later, a discrepancy that substantiates concerns raised by previous studies over the reliability of online drug information.” The findings from the NEJM study have serious implications. A 2012 survey by the Pew Internet Project found that 72 percent of the 81 percent of Americans who use the Internet sought health information online, mostly through search engines such as Google or through websites such as Wikipedia. The study also found that 59 percent of those people were using the sites to determine whether or not symptoms they were having were something to worry about. That's 35 percent of all U.S. adults. If updated drug-safety warnings are not found on those sites, the patients may not connect their symptoms to an adverse drug reaction and may therefore delay seeking medical care. [...]

[Mancunium]

Seeking to identify Robin M.T. Cooke, I started to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants (T-H-L)

As of right now, there are 522 Wikipedians bearing the WikiMedicine Project insignia on their talk page (list here). As of 5 August 2013, there are 354 members listed below as active, and 455 Wikipedians bearing the WikiMedicine Project insignia on their talk page (list here).

At a preliminary glance, the results are truly horrifying. Later, when I have the strength, I will submit an analysis.

Wikipedia Drug Entries Often Not Up-to-Date
Oncology Nurse Advisor, 1 July 2014 link

[...] Thomas J. Hwang, from the Blackstone Group in London, and colleagues explored how messages from regulators related to prescription medicines are diffused digitally by examining Google searches and Wikipedia pages 60 days before and after the announcement issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 31, 2012). The researchers identified safety warnings for 22 prescription drugs. In total, these drugs triggered 13 million searches on Google and five million Wikipedia page views annually during the study period. There was an average 82 percent increase in Google searches for the drugs during the week after the FDA announcement and a 175 percent increase in views of Wikipedia pages for the drugs on the day of the announcement, compared to baseline trends. Wikipedia pages pertaining to the drugs with new safety warnings were updated 41 percent of the time within two weeks after the warning was issued.

Well, I expect those oncology nurses are just jealous of the anonymous "doctors" of WikiProject Medicine.

[mac]

Seeking to identify Robin M.T. Cooke, I started to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants (T-H-L)
[...]

Surely it's a coincidence that Robin Cook (novelist) (T-H-L) writes (really good) medical novels.

(edited)

[EricBarbour]

Later, when I have the strength, I will submit an analysis.

Yes, please. Write it up for the blog. We will harass reporters to look at it. These people writing about Wikipedia's medical coverage really need to see what a motley bunch is actually writing/controlling said coverage.

[Mancunium]

WikiProject Medicine has a newsletter!

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#July_2014_WikiProject_Medicine_newsletter_-_The_Pulse_WP:PULSE (T-H-L)

July 2014 WikiProject Medicine newsletter - The Pulse WP:PULSE
Hello. Before LT910001 quit Wikipedia, he founded a WikiProject newsletter and was executive editor, president, and chief officer of the publication for about two weeks. At the time of LT's departure I was serving as a copyedit intern for the operation. Even though the publication is without an editor, I put together an issue with help from some others. The paper is intend to be documentation of what WikiProject Medicine members do, and it is intended to help guests of WikiProject Medicine understand what happens here. Anyone who wants to read the current issue can do so at WP:PULSE. In perhaps a week, a link to it will be mass-messaged to all people who are on the WikiProject Medicine subscriber list. Your perspective would be welcome in this publication now! Please write what you like and just put it in! I hope that it can continue to be a monthly thing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 (T-C-L)

I am leaving
There is a toxic atmosphere on WP in which bullying and name-calling are accepted and sanctioned in the name of factual integrity. I have seen too many times instances where editors are willing to disagree instead of compromise, and very few instances where editors themselves intercede when arguments become too heated. In order to defend myself at any instance I am expected to master the hundreds of guidelines and guideline subsections and trawl through hundreds of diffs. WP is biased towards users who have developed relationships outside of article space, including on WPocracy, email, or by meeting in person. These methods circumvent the principles of openness and collaboration and make it hard for users such as myself who just want to 'get by'. WP has an atmosphere built around confrontation and the only groups this suit are young and middle-aged white men. I don't want to be part of this culture, and I certainly wouldn't recommend anybody I know participating on Wikipedia. Goodbye to WPMED. I have the utmost respect for many members of this project and have had the pleasure of working with some really wonderful Wikipedians. I wish you all well. --LT910001 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PULSE (T-H-L)

Issue 2 (Previous issue: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/June_2014 (T-H-L))


on the heartbeat news beat for WikiProject Medicine: July 2014

The Pulse is a newsletter intended to document the goings-on at WP:MED. A notification has been provided to all the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template here, listed in this category. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, leave a message on our talk page.

What's new

Articles
The following articles have been promoted to good article status:
Cervix
Plantar fasciitis
Other articles are awaiting review. Any editor can review a nomination, and instructions are provided here.

Wikimania 2014
If you will be in London in early August, and would like some sort of medical meetup, please let's have your views on what to do, and when, at meta:Wiki Project Med/Wikimania 2014 meetup. We would be very grateful if people could post this to other language equivalents. Of course this is for all medical editors not just members of the Wiki Project Med thorg or local projects.

What's happening

Retirement of a WikiProject Medicine member
In a thread titled "I am leaving" LT910001 announced his retirement. One interpretation of his reason for leaving could be that he was dissatisfied with the Wikimedia' communities to resolve disputes. His particular concern was the unpleasantness of being reviewed which can come from criticism during the good article review process. [...]

FDA rules on Wikipedia
Formerly 98 reports that the United States Food and Drug Administration is issuing guidance on the correction of misinformation on health topics on social media websites. Some guidance is for any "Internet-based, interactive, collaboratively edited encyclopedia" that people might find. Smallbones followed up a suggestion that Wikipedians interested in health should present comments to the FDA on this guidance.

Article feedback
In Wikipedia article review and feedback are considered separate things. Review is a check on accuracy and completeness, whereas feedback is usually imagined to be comments or suggestions for improvement. Anthonyhcole continues to ask questions about changing processes to solicit more article feedback for health articles. A major Wikimedia project, Wikipedia:Article feedback, was part of the MediaWiki software, but because of community concerns, it development was stopped and it was disabled.

External links in infoboxes
Infoboxes are data-based boxes which sometimes are presented in the top right of Wikipedia articles as a summary of data needed to put the article in context. Diptanshu.D has proposed reform of Template:Infobox disease in which external links in this infobox would be moved to the external links section of the article. This is an effort to reduce the prominence / favoritism granted to these links. This proposal was made after eMedicine changed it url structure, broking many of the links to their website. The issue in question has been partly fixed and as there was not clear consensus for ite removal the links have been returned until consensus develops. [...]

FDA medication warnings
A NEJM article, Drug Safety in the Digital Age, comments on how quickly Wikipedia's medication articles update to contain FDA warnings. What they found was 23% updated within 2 weeks and 64% updated within a year. Doc James has contacted the FDA to see if there is interest in collaborating to improve this situation.

Focus: Writers wanted
You are invited to write this newsletter! This newsletter is intended as a record of the activities of WikiProject Medicine members. A regular report of the interests and work of WikiProject Medicine members is encouraging and inviting to guests and future members of the project. If you would like to write stories for this newsletter, the please do so. Even 2-5 sentence reports are useful. [...]

[EricBarbour]

I am leaving
There is a toxic atmosphere on WP in which bullying and name-calling are accepted and sanctioned in the name of factual integrity. I have seen too many times instances where editors are willing to disagree instead of compromise, and very few instances where editors themselves intercede when arguments become too heated. In order to defend myself at any instance I am expected to master the hundreds of guidelines and guideline subsections and trawl through hundreds of diffs. WP is biased towards users who have developed relationships outside of article space, including on WPocracy, email, or by meeting in person. These methods circumvent the principles of openness and collaboration and make it hard for users such as myself who just want to 'get by'. WP has an atmosphere built around confrontation and the only groups this suit are young and middle-aged white men. I don't want to be part of this culture, and I certainly wouldn't recommend anybody I know participating on Wikipedia. Goodbye to WPMED. I have the utmost respect for many members of this project and have had the pleasure of working with some really wonderful Wikipedians. I wish you all well. --LT910001 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And the band played on, and the ship continued to slowly sink.

What's new

Articles
The following articles have been promoted to good article status:
Cervix
Plantar fasciitis

Next issue: Rectal Cancer!

[Vigilant]

I vote for Anal fissure (T-H-L) or Fournier gangrene (T-H-L) as the next featured article!

[Mancunium]

I vote for Anal fissure (T-H-L) or Fournier gangrene (T-H-L) as the next featured article!

Take a look at Issue 1 of PULSE:
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/June_2014 (T-H-L)

What's new

Articles
There are no new "good" or "featured" articles, images, lists or other media for May. There are however nine articles awaiting review. Any editor can review a nomination, and instructions are provided here.

Other
"I actually hate it here and I'm leaving" - WikiProject Medicine loses a prolific editor who complained of a hostile community environment. Issues faced by editors can be discussed at the wiki-wide editor retention board and our own 'editor outreach' page.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_48#I_actually_hate_it_here_and_I'm_leaving (T-H-L)

I actually hate it here and I'm leaving
After this incident I have truly had enough of this place: [1] My current GAs olfactory reference syndrome and leukoplakia need closure, unless another editor can be found to complete them. Apologies to LT and Ian Furst who have put effort into the review on Leukoplakia. For your info, DangerousPanda, I was an experienced editor with over 12,000 edits, mainly to topics around oral medicine and oral pathology, and I was apparently one of the top 10 most active editors on medical pages in '13 ... but hey none of that matters. All that is important is that people like you their daily fix of belittling and bullying people who are trying to do the right thing. And, ofc you get to keep the obnoxious POV-pushing editors so good luck with that. Lesion 09:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And could this have been the last straw for LT910001 (T-C-L)?

WikiProject_Medicine#Vaginal_weightlifting_article link

Vaginal weightlifting article
The Vaginal weightlifting article came to my attention after seeing this edit by Ahriman2014 (talk · contribs) at the Kegel exercise article. Ahriman2014 created the Vaginal weightlifting article, and that article needs attention from WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Vaginal_weightlifting (T-H-L)

World record
Guinness World Record in the category vaginal weightlifting is held by Tatyana Kozhevnikova who deadlifted a 14 kg kettlebell.[8]

[Vigilant]

I too am displeased that Lesion says they're retiring. Of course, I cannot and will not shoulder all of the blame. As I have already said elsewhere, yes, I stooped to sarcasm ... unfortunately, I did that after the conversation had already gone south. I should not have been tempted to do that. Lesion's edits have been able to move the project forward. The sole error I find was the way they approached the ANI filing, and then the post-closing - it's probably a good thing that Lesion does NOT have extensive experience at ANI, and that's a credit to them - those who spend a lot of time a ANI are jaded :-) . It's unfortunate that the way the ANI was filed/introduced left no other option but to close it with no action - and by the way, it wasn't me who closed it. Lesion, I apologize rarely, but I do apologize that my attempted humour led to sarcasm that was unfortunately taken the wrong way. It is also my sincere hope that you return to the work you've been doing. If you have questions on how to appropriately file the concerns, please contact me - although I see some of your wise colleagues are already taking up the mantle. Best, the panda ₯’ 19:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work, DumbassPanda!

Cutting out the content editors on en.wp is perfect "Hasten the day!" work.

Good thing you got to him before he could finish that GA he was working on.

*whew*

[EricBarbour]

Yep, DP/Wilkins/etc. is definitely looking to grab the Nasty Crown of Chris Owen for himself. All he needs is his own private tax haven.

[enwikibadscience]

Expect a future in which all health information Wikipedia [sic] is the most accurate available in every language and backed by medical consensus of every authority.

From WikiProject Pamphlets or some such.



I don't.

[Anthonyhcole]

That's an early draft. This one went to the printers: link

We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is reliable in every language version. Globally, Wikipedia is already one of the most-used sources of freely available health information. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us by writing, translating, reviewing and joining our discussions.

It's the leaflet for Wikimania 2014. link

[Mancunium]

Doctors unite to increase access to quality health information
opensource.com, 4 July 2014 link

Six years ago, Dr. James Heilman was working a night shift in the ER when he came across an error-ridden article on Wikipedia. Someone else might have used the article to dismiss the online encyclopedia, which was then less than half the size it is now. Instead, Heilman decided to improve the article. [...] Heilman, who goes by the username Jmh649 on Wikipedia, is now the president of the board of Wiki Project Med (WPM). A non-profit corporation created to promote medical content on Wikipedia, WPM contains more than a dozen different initiatives aimed at adding and improving articles, building relationships with schools, journals and other medical organizations, and increasing access to research. [...] Wiki Project Med, like Wikipedia itself, is an open community—a "do-ocracy," as Orlowitz calls it. If you're interested in learning more, or in getting involved, you can check out their project page, which details their many initiatives, or reach out to Orlowitz or the project as a whole on Twitter (@JakeOrlowitz, @WikiProjectMed) or via email (jorlowitz@gmail.com, wikiprojectmed@gmail.com).

This article was originally published at Open Science Collaboration. It is reposted here under a Creative Commons license. The article is the first in a series highlighting open science projects around the community. Read the interview on which this article was based edited for clarity and unedited.

This hagiography has been circulating since January of this year. Soon after Dr Heilman's wiki-epiphany he gained the international recognition he so obviously seeks. Google Search returns "About 66,200 results (0.46 seconds)" for "Dr James Heilman". Looking only at The New York Times, we find:

Complaint Over Doctor Who Posted Inkblot Test
The New York Times, 23 August 2009 link

The doctor who helped Wikipedia publish the 10 inkblots of the Rorschach test is being investigated by his local doctors’ organization after it received complaints that his actions were unprofessional. In a letter Wednesday from the group, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, the doctor, James Heilman, who works in an emergency room in Moose Jaw, was notified that two psychologists had filed complaints. One of them, Andrea Kowaz of the College of Psychologists of British Columbia, complained that by including the inkblots on Wikipedia, Dr. Heilman was violating the test’s secrecy and that if he were a psychologist his behavior would be “viewed as serious misconduct.” The other letter, from Laurene J. Wilson, a psychologist at Royal University Hospital in Saskatoon, echoed the concern about the test’s security but added that Dr. Heilman “shows disrespect to his professional colleagues in psychology and disparages them in the eyes of the public.” Dr. Wilson said she had read interviews with Dr. Heilman in which he “refers to psychologists as undertaking practices akin to a magic show with smoke and mirrors.” [...]

Book That Plagiarized From Wikipedia Is Pulled From Market
The York Times, 12 June 2012 link

An Indian publisher, Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, said on Tuesday that it had withdrawn a medical textbook after an editor of Wikipedia wrote to say that a section had been plagiarized from the Wikipedia article on H.I.V. [...] Chatting via instant message, Dr. Heilman said that he was editing the H.I.V. article as part of a project to improve and then simplify 80 of the most important medical articles. The articles are being prepared so they can be translated — with the help of Translators Without Borders — into as many languages as possible, particularly in the developing world. He said that he had been looking for citations “to support a poorly supported passage and came across a recent medical text on Google Books that supported what we had very well.” Pausing for effect, he said that he “noticed it supported it a little too well,” adding that the “whole thing was exactly like the article and was published years after us.” [...]

Travel Site Built on Wiki Ethos Now Bedevils Its Owner
Live by the wiki, perhaps die by the wiki
The New York Times, 9 September 2012 link

[...] When the California company Internet Brands bought the Web site Wikitravel in 2005 for $1.7 million from the two developers who had created it, the company got the site and the name, as well as a community of thousands of volunteers who generated the travel guidance that brought the audience. [...] On Thursday, the board of Wikimedia, the biggest wiki publisher, approved the creation of a travel guide after an extended online comment period that found support for the idea. The project will seed itself with the tens of thousands of articles on Wikitravel, and already as many as 38 of the 48 the most experienced and trusted volunteers at Wikitravel have said they will move to the Wikimedia project, according to Dr. James Heilman, a Wikipedia contributor who said he had acted as a liaison between Wikitravel writers and the foundation. On Aug. 24, Internet Brands filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County against Dr. Heilman and a longtime Wikitravel volunteer, Ryan Holliday. [...] In a statement, Internet Brands in turn questioned the motives of the Wikimedia Foundation. “The foundation covets Internet Brands’ Wikitravel Web site, which we have spent seven years and millions of dollars building, supporting and growing,” the company said. “In March, the foundation began supporting efforts to recreate the Web site in its exact form. More recently, in the wake of a six-month campaign to galvanize a migration, the foundation escalated its plans by asking us to transfer this site to the foundation in exchange for nothing.” [...] Dr. Heilman, an emergency room doctor who is on the board of the foundation’s chapter in Canada, has often encouraged Wikipedia to “liberate” information.

The "doctors unite" press release that has been circulating for the last six months describes him thusly:

Heilman, who goes by the username Jmh649 on Wikipedia, is now the president of the board of Wiki Project Med.

We aim for a future in which all health information on Wikipedia is reliable in every language version. Globally, Wikipedia is already one of the most-used sources of freely available health information. Participants from all backgrounds are invited to join us by writing, translating, reviewing and joining our discussions.

Imagine a world in which these self-important attention-seekers just stop. Just stop publishing amateur misinformation that could easily kill someone.

Imagine a world where we never have to hear about them again.

[Mancunium]

Drug companies may soon have to tweet dangerous side effects
The Verge, 4 July 2014 link

The FDA has proposed a new set of social media guidelines that will require drug companies to tweet their products’ side-effects to the world, reports The Wall Street Journal. [...] Already, there has been a ton of backlash from the drug companies, but also from people who believe that the regulations limit free speech. "The result is a restriction on free speech intended to protect consumers from a phantom danger," Brittany La Couture, a health policy analyst at the American Action Forum wrote in a statement. [...] It should be noted that the guidelines won’t actually stop pharmaceutical companies from tweeting about their drugs or devices if they can’t fit all the information in a single tweet. If they want to remind customers that their products exist, they’ll still be able to do so. But the minute that they include a product’s benefits, the tweet will also have to include a long list of side-effects.

The guidelines won’t just affect Twitter, however, because they’ll require companies to contact bloggers to ask for changes to articles that contain misinformation. Wikipedia will also be affected, as companies will now be asked to alter pages relating to their products if they contain false labelling details. Those edits, the FDA says, will have to be credited to the company employee or contractor who made them. "This is not an opportunity for a company to tout its drugs," Tom Abrams head of the FDA office of Prescription Drug Promotion told the Wall Street Journal. The information "should be factually correct" and "consistent with the FDA approved [product] labeling." If approved, the guidelines will go into effect in a little less than 90 days.

Dr Heilman has already annouced his intention to ignore the FDA: [link]Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Draft_FDA_guidelines_for_social_media[/link]

With respect to "off label use", this is an USA legal thing. We are a global encyclopedia. We want what the best available literature says. The position of regulators can go in the section on society and culture.
With respect to replying I am not sure what we should say. Having had some very negative runs in with industry here on Wikipedia I am inclined to see those being paid to promote a product limited to the talk pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify. IMO we should not organize the "medical uses" section into FDA approved uses and "off label uses". While I agree that the FDA is a good source, it is not the only source. If one wants to create a list of "approved" versus "off label" uses as this is a US legal definition it should be in the society and culture section. Other ways of presenting stuff from the FDA can go in the "medical uses" or other sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

American_Action_Network (T-H-L)

The American Action Network is a nonprofit issue advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. which promotes center right public policy. It was established in 2010 by Fred Malek and Norm Coleman as a 501(c)(4) organization. The American Action Network's sister organization, the American Action Forum, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focusing on policy. The American Action Forum is run by former Congressional Budget Office director Doug Holtz-Eakin. American Action Network officials also run the Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC, an independent expenditure PAC focused on electing a House Republican majority. [...] In July 2012, Politico reported that the American Action Network planned to spend a minimum of $10 million to establish "a legislation-focused ground game in a number of states". The Politico article also called the American Action Network "one of the key outside forces on the right".[10]

The American Action Forum

Leadership

Douglas Holtz-Eakin President
Fred Malek Chairman, American Action Forum
Senator Norm Coleman Of Counsel, Hogan Lovells US LLP
Governor Jeb Bush President, Jeb Bush and Associates
Elaine Chao 24th Secretary of Labor
James Barksdale Chairman and President, Barksdale Management Corporation
Peter Bell Former Chairman, Metropolitan Council
Wendy Grubbs Former Special Assistant, President George W. Bush
Bobbie Kilberg President, Northern Virginia Technology Council
Lauren Maddox Education Expert
Governor John R. McKernan, Jr. Chairman and CEO, McKernan Enterprises, Inc.
Billy Pitts President, Capitol BrainTrust
Bob Steel Former President and CEO, Wachovia

Those are some nice friends you've got there, Dr Heilman.

[Anthonyhcole]

Hey, Mancunium. This may interest you. Do you think it's worthwhile? There's strong support among the WikiProject medicine editors I've spoken to for a prominent button at the top of each fact-checked article, linking the reader to its reliable version, so I'm confident that will happen. So, a small bit of Wikipedia will offer both the current wiki version, and the reliable version.

Just thinking about this. At the top of both the current and reliable versions we should have a prominent "diff" button so the reader can easily view the difference between the reliable and current versions.

[Poetlister]

Hey, Mancunium. This may interest you. Do you think it's worthwhile? There's strong support among the WikiProject medicine editors I've spoken to for a prominent button at the top of each fact-checked article, linking the reader to its reliable version, so I'm confident that will happen. So, a small bit of Wikipedia will offer both the current wiki version, and the reliable version.

Just thinking about this. At the top of both the current and reliable versions we should have a prominent "diff" button so the reader can easily view the difference between the reliable and current versions.

Wouldn't it be easier to lock the reliable version and say that any proposed alterations had to go through appropriate channels?

[Anthonyhcole]

Hey, Mancunium. This may interest you. Do you think it's worthwhile? There's strong support among the WikiProject medicine editors I've spoken to for a prominent button at the top of each fact-checked article, linking the reader to its reliable version, so I'm confident that will happen. So, a small bit of Wikipedia will offer both the current wiki version, and the reliable version.

Just thinking about this. At the top of both the current and reliable versions we should have a prominent "diff" button so the reader can easily view the difference between the reliable and current versions.

Wouldn't it be easier to lock the reliable version and say that any proposed alterations had to go through appropriate channels?

Much easier, of course, but politically impossible for now. Hopefully, the search engines will wise up and follow those links when they appear on an article - taking searchers straight to the reliable version.

[Poetlister]

Hopefully, the search engines will wise up and follow those links when they appear on an article - taking searchers straight to the reliable version.

As I understand it the Google algorithm prefers pages that change a lot, so that's rather unlikely.

[Mancunium]

Can Twitter Address Specific Health Issues?
Science 2.0, 11 July 2014 link

Doctors cringe at the idea that patients may come in with specific information they got from the Internet; an athlete may do something good and the Wikipedia entry will say they are the greatest American since Abe Lincoln, while the entry for Science 2.0 says it was invented by a Wired writer in 2012. [...] Childhood obesity is one of the top public health concerns in the United States, with 32 percent of youths ages 2-19 classified as obese in 2012. And so on social media sites like Twitter, a lot of people are talking about it, not least among them companies selling ideology or products. A new study led by Jenine K. Harris, PhD, assistant professor in social work at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the use of the Twitter hashtag #childhoodobesity in tweets to track Twitter conversations about the issue of overweight kids. In the American Journal of Public Health, they noted that conversations involving childhood obesity on Twitter don't often include comments from representatives of government and public health organizations that likely have evidence relating to how best to approach this issue.

Experts? Best approach? If they knew what they were talking about, it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, they try to get laws banning Big Gulps and jump on the latest food fads. But if experts think they can help, Twitter may be the place to be. In 2014, the Pew Research Center found that Twitter is used more by those in lower-income groups, which are more obese and more difficult to reach with health information. It is also used by non-white Americans than whites, who also have higher obesity levels. This, Harris said, is one of the reasons Twitter is an avenue that the academic and government sources with accurate health information should consider taking advantage of in order to reach a wide variety of people. "I think public health so far doesn't have a great game plan for using social media, we're still laying the foundation for that," she said. "We're still learning what works. Public health communities, politicians, and government sources — people who really know what works — should join in the conversation. Then we might be able to make an impact."

Communication About Childhood Obesity on Twitter
American Journal of Public Health: link

ABSTRACT

Objectives. Little is known about the use of social media as a tool for health communication. We used a mixed-methods design to examine communication about childhood obesity on Twitter.

Methods. NodeXL was used to collect tweets sent in June 2013 containing the hashtag #childhoodobesity. Tweets were coded for content; tweeters were classified by sector and health focus. Data were also collected on the network of follower connections among the tweeters. We used descriptive statistics and exponential random graph modeling to examine tweet content, characteristics of tweeters, and the composition and structure of the network of connections facilitating communication among tweeters.

Results. We collected 1110 tweets originating from 576 unique Twitter users. More individuals (65.6%) than organizations (32.9%) tweeted. More tweets focused on individual behavior than environment or policy. Few government and educational tweeters were in the network, but they were more likely than private individuals to be followed by others.

Conclusions. There is an opportunity to better disseminate evidence-based information to a broad audience through Twitter by increasing the presence of credible sources in the #childhoodobesity conversation and focusing the content of tweets on scientific evidence.

[Anthonyhcole]

Hopefully, the search engines will wise up and follow those links when they appear on an article - taking searchers straight to the reliable version.

As I understand it the Google algorithm prefers pages that change a lot, so that's rather unlikely.

Then, I would directly lobby Google, Yahoo, etc. to add it to their algorithms. I think they would but if they don't, at least there'll be a link to the reviewed version at the top of the article.