Medical articles on Wikipedia

[Kingsindian]

This is a thread to look at the state of Wikipedia's medical articles their use by medical students, professionals etc.

I have been casually searching the academic literature about the medical information on Wikipedia. Here is one, which looks at medical students' use of Wikipedia:

Handling erroneous Wikipedia articles

Asked if they have ever found inaccurate medical entries on Wikipedia, 1324 (97%) students affirmed this. Of those, 861 (65%) students did not know how to revise articles and 199 (15%) let the false information unaltered, despite knowing how to correct articles. In contrast, 159 (12%) corrected errors immediately and 66 (5%) of the respondents drew attention to the inaccurate information in any other way. Regarding the students that do not revise respectively do not know how to revise articles, 55% were in clinics and 51% were male. In concerns of correcting erroneous entries, 44% were in clinics and 47% were male (Table 4).

Pearson Chi-square test showed a statistically significant correlation between handling inaccurate information and gender (p < 0.001), use of Wikipedia in general (p < 0.001), and in medical studies (p < 0.001). There was no statistical significance related to age (p = 0.680) or study progress (p = 0.334).

Nonparametric analysis using the Jonckheere-Terpstra-Test showed a positive trend between handling false entries and gender (p < 0.001). A negative trend was noted between frequency of use in general and correcting erroneous entries (p < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant trend between frequency of use in medical studies and the correction of false information (p < 0.001).

And

Without a doubt, Wikipedia is one of the most dominant online reference sources, gaining in presence, quality, and content [3] - also for retrieving health information [10,12,13]. Not only the lay public but health professionals, researchers, and medical students depend on it as a resource for medical information [7]. Studies show that 50–70% practicing and 70% junior physicians use Wikipedia as a medical information source [7]. In medical education, Wikipedia’s potential role is that of a vast learning resource. As we could demonstrate, the site is used by the majority of the surveyed students in context of their academic education. A strong correlation between searching for general and medical entries could be disclosed. However, its use by the majority does not necessarily confirm its reliability. The medical use of Wikipedia seems to increase in frequency with the respondents’ study progress. It could serve well to enhance the students’ information seeking and sharing behaviour in correlation to the stage of their medical education.

[Poetlister]

Pearson Chi-square test ... Nonparametric analysis using the Jonckheere-Terpstra-Test

I have my doubts about the competence of anyone who doesn't know that the Chi-square test is also nonparametric.

[HRIP7]

This is a thread to look at the state of Wikipedia's medical articles their use by medical students, professionals etc.

I have been casually searching the academic literature about the medical information on Wikipedia. Here is one, which looks at medical students' use of Wikipedia:

Interesting.

Regarding the students that do not revise respectively do not know how to revise articles

This is off-topic but I wish German-speakers could be taught that the translation of "beziehungsweise" in sentences like this is "or", not "respectively". It's an incredibly common mistake among Germans writing otherwise passable English, and it inevitably turns the afflicted sentence into a mush unintelligible to a native English speaker.

[Rogol Domedonfors]

I agree: at best it leaves the reader in a perpetual state of suspense waiting for the other shoe to drop. In technical prose, it would be possible if somewhat compressed to write "For students who did A respectively B, the pecentages were C respectively D" but this is not such a situation.

However the articles conclusion is, in my view flawed: it appears to suggest that medical students should spend their time in perpetuity correcting errors inserted and re-inserted into medical articles. It would certainly be the educational experience that the authors suggest, but not perhaps on the topics they envisage: pyschopathology and personality disorders are the areas those unfortunate students are going to learn more about.

[Poetlister]

All medical articles should be subject to pending revision and only suitably qualified people should be allowed to accept or reject these revisions. Of course, this would violate the invisible pillar that experts are unwelcome. Alternatively, this should appear at the top of all medical articles:

Please note that this article is intended only for amusement
and should not be regarded as medical advice or information.

[Kingsindian]

Linking this post here for easier reference.

[Poetlister]

Linking this post here for easier reference.

Please also note my comment on the post.