WikiProject Medicine
- Competing interests (ethics)
- Ethics
- Evidence based practice
- Guidelines
- Health informatics
- Health promotion
- Internet
- Public health
More topics ![]()
Fewer topics ![]()
More topics ![]()
Fewer topics ![]()
One issue that this article illustrating some of the strengths of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine does not address is the audience. It also
assumes that for a medical audience we should strive to cater for the very
human wish to have one trusted source of predigested reviewed information,
rather than encouraging cross validation of review articles.
It is interesting to contrast the self reported top 10 most viewed
articles in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Med...)
as of 29th July 2011 which are in descending order: Masturbation, Sexual
intercourse, Anal sex, Asperger syndrome, Human, Bipolar disorder, Female
ejaculation, Vulva, Psychology, Lyme disease and those of GANFYD, a much
smaller medical wiki
(http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?title=Special:PopularPages), which
are:Main Page, Insulin sliding scale, ?Get a note from your doctor,
Axillary lymph nodes, Coagulation and fibrinolysis pathway,
Health promotion - Downie, Fyfe & Tannahill's model,
Analgesic ladder, Small bowel obstruction, Oxyhaemoglobin dissociation
curve, Abbreviations.
It might be suspected that GANFYD's goal of being written by doctors
for doctors is partially responsible for such a contrast. Might such a
contrast affect quality of articles. It seems likely.
I believe doctors should be encouraged to validate information.
Certainly a Wikipedia article on a drug does not consistently offer links
to authoritative reference sources. These can often give subtly different
takes on the place of a drug in therapy. Doctors who relied on the
manufacturer's take of a drug such as rofecoxib did net harm to their
patients. Such is common with the different emphasis of information from
manufacturers, national formularies and health cost-effectiveness analysis
organisations. GANFYD tends to offer prominently on a page links to the
Summary of Product Characteristics, the British National Formulary and
NICE. Shouldn't we discourage doctors from the very human wish to trust
one source of information?
Competing interests: I have contributed to medical articles on Wikipedia and Medpedia to a much lower extent than GANFYD.
Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother Hospital, St Peter's Road, Margate CT9 4AN