A survey this year found that up to 50 percent of physicians consult Wikipedia

[Are_grits_groceries]

Wikipedia: How Accurate Is It?

<snip>
Missing or wrong information on Wikipedia could have more serious consequences.

A survey this year found that up to 50 percent of physicians consult Wikipedia for medical information, despite a 2008 study that found certain drug pages miss vital health information about side effects. Wikipedia may also unintentionally encourage lazy or gullible students who cite it as a primary source in their papers, which leads to perennial complaints by teachers and professors.

Still, misuse of Wikipedia by readers and contributors does not diminish the encyclopedia's huge accomplishments as a crowd-sourcing experiment. Dartmouth researchers found that much of Wikipedia's success depends not only upon registered, dedicated users, but also relies upon many anonymous "Good Samaritans" who might contribute just once.
<snip>
http://www.livescience.com/technology/091106-ttr-wikipedia.html

Now that is disturbing!

[proteus_lives]

1. Well, that's depressing.

I'm glad I haven't been to a doctor in over five years.

[mucifer]

2. nih.gov and medlineplus.gov

are great websites that I use as a nurse and tell my patients to use.
It's the National Institute of Health lots of great free info and you can translate everything into Spanish and give some info to your patients.

[Jim__]

3. I'm not sure how bad that is.

First, when I went to the story, the phrase up to 50 percent of physicians is a link, but the link doesn't work. It's hard to verify the information.

But, I use wikipedia at work all the time. My background is math and wikipedia has a lot of good math information. When I'm working with things I haven't worked with in a while, I'll take a quick peek at wikipedia for a refresher. Usually I can tell whether or not the information is good. Most of the time it's good.

When I'm using it for new research, I always check the information.

My guess is that most of those doctors are just checking something.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. Here are some other sources:

Did your surgery take longer than expected? If so, maybe your surgeon was looking up tips on Wikipedia. Sounds far fetched -- and that example surely is -- but according to a report in April by U.S. health care consultancy Manhattan Research, 50 percent of doctors turn to Wikipedia for medical information.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/report_half_all_doctors_consult_wikipedia

Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
Despite using the online encyclopedia as a resource for information, only about 10% of the 1,900 physicians surveyed created new posts or edited existing posts on Wikipedia, the study found.

“The number of physicians turning to Wikipedia for medical information has doubled in the past year alone, said Meredith Abreu Ressi, vice president of research at Manhattan Research. “Physicians, just like consumers, are heavily search engine reliant, and often Wikipedia results are what come up in the top of the organic results.”
http://www.mmm-online.com/Docs-look-to-Wikipedia-for-condition-info-Manhattan-Research/article/131038/

Taking the Pulse®
http://www.manhattanresearch.com/products/Strategic_Advisory/ttp/

[Jim__]

7. Thanks for the sources.

I still don't see a problem. It depends on how they're using it.

[imdjh]

8. Exactly. The beauty of the internet is that it can prompt examination of alternatives.

ON the internet you find a great deal of, "All the doctors said this, except this one doctor in Baltimore who said we could..... and we had much better results." A claim like that is worth looking into.

[bananas]

9. "10% of the 1,900 physicians surveyed created new posts or edited existing posts on Wikipedia"

That's a lot. It makes sense - the internet has been around for thirty years, many doctors have been using it since high school and college as part of their own education and research. Also, since many of their patients have been coming in for decades asking about things they read on the internet, it's one way of keeping their patients informed.

[rucky]

4. It's not a good primary source...

but it is a good place to start research.

[conscious evolution]

11. I agree with this

Wiki links have lead me to more indepth information sources on more then one occasion.

[rug]

5. That's ok. I use craig's list to find a doctor.

[rucky]

12. They need to move that section right below Casual Encounters. n/t

[Bitwit1234]

10. Trying to convince a nutcase republican that

you can not trust the information posted there, some is accurate, but most is the individuals own take on events, was absolutely fruitless. They swear by wikipedia. Especially if it is deter mental to a democrat. I have seen birth and death dates patently wrong. Names mixed up and so on but these republicans have a one step mind. They believe only what they want to believe.

[Bonobo]

13. Convince me that using Wikipedia is a bad idea. I want to hear your best arguments. nt