Wkipedia medical articles review

[Coat of Many Colours]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

[Mancunium]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

wikiprojectmedicidalmania

[Kumioko]

I think your quite right but I think this is also one of those double edged sword issues. Medical articles can have a lot of drama from the editors who have differing views of the causes and cures. Because of this, many medical editors either give up in frustration or are banned. Additionally, some of these topics are under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom so either editors fall into that trap and get banned or they stay away from them, leaving errors exist for a long time. There there is the issue with references not being updated fast enough for new developments in medicine which are happening so fast we can't keep up.

[Mancunium]

I think your quite right but I think this is also one of those double edged sword issues. Medical articles can have a lot of drama from the editors who have differing views of the causes and cures. Because of this, many medical editors either give up in frustration or are banned. Additionally, some of these topics are under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom so either editors fall into that trap and get banned or they stay away from them, leaving errors exist for a long time. There there is the issue with references not being updated fast enough for new developments in medicine which are happening so fast we can't keep up.

I have held my nose to lurk in WikiProject Medicine for the last six months, and can assure you that it is a Snake_pit (T-H-L) run by wikiprojectmedicidalmaniacs.

Please see this thread for details: link

[Coat of Many Colours]

I think your quite right but I think this is also one of those double edged sword issues. Medical articles can have a lot of drama from the editors who have differing views of the causes and cures. Because of this, many medical editors either give up in frustration or are banned. Additionally, some of these topics are under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom so either editors fall into that trap and get banned or they stay away from them, leaving errors exist for a long time. There there is the issue with references not being updated fast enough for new developments in medicine which are happening so fast we can't keep up.

I still think there's some sort of syndrome at work here.

I'm taking some time out BTW. I may be away a while.

[HRIP7]

I may be away a while.

I hope that's not a Lawrence Oates quote.

[Kumioko]

I think your quite right but I think this is also one of those double edged sword issues. Medical articles can have a lot of drama from the editors who have differing views of the causes and cures. Because of this, many medical editors either give up in frustration or are banned. Additionally, some of these topics are under discretionary sanctions by Arbcom so either editors fall into that trap and get banned or they stay away from them, leaving errors exist for a long time. There there is the issue with references not being updated fast enough for new developments in medicine which are happening so fast we can't keep up.

I have held my nose to lurk in WikiProject Medicine for the last six months, and can assure you that it is a Snake_pit (T-H-L) run by wikiprojectmedicidalmaniacs.

Please see this thread for details: link

Oh yeah without a doubt. I would have to say that by and large Wikipedia would be better off if they deleted all the WikiProjects. Too much time is spent managing them and too many POV pushers have taken up residence in them. They started off as a good idea (much like the Arbcom and many other things) and over time they were allowed too much power by too many who either didn't know better or didn't care.

[Casliber]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

Hmmm...from the article...

"We then identified 10 Wikipedia articles that we believed most closely related to each of those conditions"

but...looking at http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T1.expansion.html their table, they've decided "cancer" equates with "lung cancer", "mental disorder" equates with "major depressive disorder" and "Trauma-related disorders" relates with "concussion" (so...umm..not including orthopedic and crush injuries and lacerations and.......??????)

[Kumioko]

I would recommend a larger pool, maybe 50. With 10 its such a small sample size your not really going to get much. We also need a baseline to compare it too like a respected medical journal with the equivalent info.

[Coat of Many Colours]

I may be away a while.

I hope that's not a Lawrence Oates quote.

If it is, it will be from a distinctly sunnier clime ...

[Coat of Many Colours]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

Hmmm...from the article...

"We then identified 10 Wikipedia articles that we believed most closely related to each of those conditions"

but...looking at http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T1.expansion.html their table, they've decided "cancer" equates with "lung cancer", "mental disorder" equates with "major depressive disorder" and "Trauma-related disorders" relates with "concussion" (so...umm..not including orthopedic and crush injuries and lacerations and.......??????)

Well, presumably the most commonly seen conditions within those categories? I'm not sure this study can have any validity without some sort of control (if there are problems is it just the nature of Wikipedia in general, or a more deeply rooted problem specific to medical articles).

According to the BBC the study was based on articles as they existed on 25 April 2012. Looking at "major depressive disorder'' at that date, I would say that there is in general an issue with primary sources (rather than secondary sources). I suspect that when the raw data is examined, some part at least will centre round undue weight edits quoting primary sources.

Off on my hols as it happens. Will look back when I return. I'm a fan of Doc James BTW.

[HRIP7]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

Hmmm...from the article...

"We then identified 10 Wikipedia articles that we believed most closely related to each of those conditions"

but...looking at http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T1.expansion.html their table, they've decided "cancer" equates with "lung cancer", "mental disorder" equates with "major depressive disorder" and "Trauma-related disorders" relates with "concussion" (so...umm..not including orthopedic and crush injuries and lacerations and.......??????)

So what? So for four or five topics, they – obviously – picked a specific sub-topic so that the articles reviewed would contain a bit more check-worthy detail about etiology, treatment etc. – something you would not expect Wikipedia's overview articles on "cancer" or "mental disorder" to contain.

This sort of thing is Wikipedian grasping-at-straws.

[HRIP7]

FWIW, a member of WikiProject Medicine commented on wikimedia-l:

I am a participant in WikiProject Medicine on English Wikipedia and know
about this case. I also have talked to the researcher who published this
paper since its publication.

Lots of people have lots of objections to Wikipedia. In my opinion, the
study itself is correct for what it reports, but no newspaper or other
media understands what the study is saying and they are reporting all kinds
of silly things. Here is the discussion of this paper in WikiProject
Medicine -
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Wikipedia
>
That is in the archives, so if someone has more to say, post to the main
forum.

While I think this study is being perceived negatively, I appreciate any
research team who does any kind of research on Wikipedia's health content.
Here is a list of what has been done:
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... blications
>

@geni - "The problem is the number of doctors who use wikipedia."

I disagree. I feel that the problem is that for all of history there has
never been health information accessible to doctors and patients. Wikipedia
at least says that people should have health information, whereas every
government and health organization in the world (NIH, NHS, WHO and the
rest) are still saying "Not yet, it is not important, nobody wants this"
and not providing any alternative. There are no alternatives or competitors
to Wikipedia for what it does, so of course doctors use it. The problem is
that no one else thinks doctors need ready access to good information right
now, and Wikipedia is just doing the best it can to meet the existing
demand that is otherwise ignored.

@Todd Allen - "ask your doctor" should always be the end of the process."

The number of people how have as much access to their doctors as they wish
is definitely not more than 20% of the English speaking world and the
reality is probably closer to 2-3% of people. Doctors simply do not have
more than minutes to answer questions and many people would like to study
for hours over their lifetimes. Referring people to doctors ignores the
problem that people do not get as much access to healthcare as they would
like, and doctors are not ready to provide health information on demand. At
the same time, patients are being encouraged to make more health decisions
with their doctors, but not given educational resources to help them make
those decisions.

I wish there were enough doctors, and people should try hard to ask them
lots of questions, but something more is needed too.

yours,

He may well have a point there, but this sort of press "simplification of the message" also swings the other way. Just look at the number of journalists spouting off that Nature proved Wikipedia is as reliable as Britannica (with the message now having morphed to the point where some journalists claim Nature proved Wikipedia was more reliable than Britannica). I don't see many Wikipedians complaining about that.

[Kelly Martin]

So for four or five topics, they – obviously – picked a specific sub-topic so that the articles reviewed would contain a bit more check-worthy detail about etiology, treatment etc. – something you would not expect Wikipedia's overview articles on "cancer" or "mental disorder" to contain.

Note also that Wikipedia does much better at writing articles about narrow, specific topics than it does about broader topics, and so by choosing narrow topics for a comparative evaluation they'll necessarily do better.

Of course, the reason why Wikipedia does better at specific topics is that narrow topics are much more conductive to Wikipedia's plagiaristic authorial model. Broader topics require the author to actually understand the topic in enough detail as to synthesize multiple sources, evaluate relevance and weight of authority, and render an informed opinion of often contradictory or countervailing sources. Wikipedia's authorial model does not tolerate such "original research", which makes writing even halfway decent articles on broad topics such as "cancer" or "mental disorder" virtually impossible.

[Casliber]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full#ref-1 and posted on Jimbo's Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... h_Articles.

"Conclusion: 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. "

One reason I suggest would be the number of juveniles and sickos posing as physicians on Wikipedia. Does that have a medical name attached I wonder? It should have by now.

Hmmm...from the article...

"We then identified 10 Wikipedia articles that we believed most closely related to each of those conditions"

but...looking at http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368/T1.expansion.html their table, they've decided "cancer" equates with "lung cancer", "mental disorder" equates with "major depressive disorder" and "Trauma-related disorders" relates with "concussion" (so...umm..not including orthopedic and crush injuries and lacerations and.......??????)

So what? So for four or five topics, they – obviously – picked a specific sub-topic so that the articles reviewed would contain a bit more check-worthy detail about etiology, treatment etc. – something you would not expect Wikipedia's overview articles on "cancer" or "mental disorder" to contain.

This sort of thing is Wikipedian grasping-at-straws.

Why not say then that they picked ten articles rather than try and (mistakenly) say they are equivalent to these ten common conditions? Other than that, I have asked to see what was analyzed in the one I'm most familiar with and not received a reply as yet, so it's hard to comment on other material judged. The page http://www.campbell.edu/news/item/med-s ... l-articles mentions their analysis of family history in coronary heart disease. I posted on Jimbo's talk page about it.

[Casliber]

So for four or five topics, they – obviously – picked a specific sub-topic so that the articles reviewed would contain a bit more check-worthy detail about etiology, treatment etc. – something you would not expect Wikipedia's overview articles on "cancer" or "mental disorder" to contain.

Note also that Wikipedia does much better at writing articles about narrow, specific topics than it does about broader topics, and so by choosing narrow topics for a comparative evaluation they'll necessarily do better.

Of course, the reason why Wikipedia does better at specific topics is that narrow topics are much more conductive to Wikipedia's plagiaristic authorial model. Broader topics require the author to actually understand the topic in enough detail as to synthesize multiple sources, evaluate relevance and weight of authority, and render an informed opinion of often contradictory or countervailing sources. Wikipedia's authorial model does not tolerate such "original research", which makes writing even halfway decent articles on broad topics such as "cancer" or "mental disorder" virtually impossible.

There are generally consensus statements and syntheses out there. I wouldn't say "virtually impossible" though the adjective/adverb combo "insanely time-consuming" comes to mind......

[HRIP7]

So what? So for four or five topics, they – obviously – picked a specific sub-topic so that the articles reviewed would contain a bit more check-worthy detail about etiology, treatment etc. – something you would not expect Wikipedia's overview articles on "cancer" or "mental disorder" to contain.

This sort of thing is Wikipedian grasping-at-straws.

Why not say then that they picked ten articles rather than try and (mistakenly) say they are equivalent to these ten common conditions? Other than that, I have asked to see what was analyzed in the one I'm most familiar with and not received a reply as yet, so it's hard to comment on other material judged. The page http://www.campbell.edu/news/item/med-s ... l-articles mentions their analysis of family history in coronary heart disease. I posted on Jimbo's talk page about it.

They say they picked the ten costliest conditions, and in those four or five cases where that was too broad a topic to allow meaningful analysis, they picked a major subtopic.

It's not like lung cancer is an obscure cancer for example; it's the most common type to affect both genders equally in the US (after breast and prostate cancer, which have very similar rates of occurrence to lung cancer). I don't see that as problematic.

Lane seems to be in touch with the author (see Wikimedia-l post copied above). You might be able to find out more through him.

[The Garbage Scow]

Verifiability, not truth.

LOLZ

I weep for the future. These articles are not only comically incorrect, but DAMAGING. People read them and believe them. Jimbo Wales and his vanity project are damaging science.

[Casliber]

Verifiability, not truth.

LOLZ

I weep for the future. These articles are not only comically incorrect, but DAMAGING. People read them and believe them. Jimbo Wales and his vanity project are damaging science.

point out something comically incorrect in them then.

[eagle]

point out something comically incorrect in them then.

Even if you assume that the medical articles were 100% correct on English Wikipedia, just compare any English Wikipedia medical article with its Simple English Wikipedia counterpart. The amount lost in the translation is comical. This has provoked much debate. link link

There are many doctors who have a primary language other than English, so a reference work with a simplified grammar could be valuable for them. However, what has been translated from English Wikipedia would be very dangerous because of the reduced scope and the highly-constrained vocabulary.

[Poetlister]

point out something comically incorrect in them then.

Even if you assume that the medical articles were 100% correct on English Wikipedia, just compare any English Wikipedia medical article with its Simple English Wikipedia counterpart. The amount lost in the translation is comical. This has provoked much debate. link link

There are many doctors who have a primary language other than English, so a reference work with a simplified grammar could be valuable for them. However, what has been translated from English Wikipedia would be very dangerous because of the reduced scope and the highly-constrained vocabulary.

If for the sake of argument things were working properly, Wikipedia would be a huge boon to these doctors because bilingual medically qualified people would ensure that there ar egood medical articles on other language wikis.

[EricBarbour]

Reviving this thread partly because the medical problems on WP are never-ending. Why? Is it because doctors and researchers are editing things, and they're either committing COI or they're just plain arrogant?

Example I stumbled into today: Eculizumab (T-H-L), which is not a "bad" article, just not written by or for laymen. A monoclonal antibody made specifically to treat two very rare genetic diseases.

It was short but adequate, until June 2011. When Wawot1 (T-C-L), Ergeorge123 (T-C-L) and especially Dr.Lieberman (T-C-L) started messing with it. Love the "references"!

"Dr.Lieberman" just has to be a world-renowned expert on these disorders, because that's all he did on Wikipedia -- plus the eculizumab article. Or else he works for Alexion, or owns stock in the company. Or maybe all three. Oh, looky here:
http://omicsonline.org/2161-0959/2161-0 ... te]Kenneth Lieberman completed his undergraduate studies at Princeton University and then earned his MD from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is currently the Chief of the Section of Pediatric Nephrology of the Joseph M Sanzari Children’s Hospital of the Hackensack University Medical Center and a Professor of Pediatrics at Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School. He contributed to the identification of one of the complement component mutations causing aHUS and has been a Principal Investigator of the clinical trials of Eculizumab for the treatment of aHUS.[/quote]How much did Alexion pay him, one wonders?

(Also, the article presently fails to mention that Eculizumab is the "world's most expensive drug". It used to mention that -- until the three maniacs mentioned above started messing with it. oops.)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/03 ... nada-says/
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/expens ... eases.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 09289.html

[thekohser]

How much did Alexion pay him, one wonders?

At a conference lecture, Kenneth Lieberman listed these "Disclosures":

Consultant/Advisory Board: Alexion Pharmaceuticals; Athena Diagnostics

Speaker: Alexion Pharmaceuticals