Wikipedia: Final Discussion

I've been a huge fan of Wikipedia from the beginning (we even donate to their site).  I'm a big believer in the power of collaborative projects, especially when it comes to knowledge sharing and on-line projects.  With that being said, I was interested in this project from the beginning.  Like I said in a previous post, I use Wikipedia frequently and my own anecdotal feeling mirrored the results my more official scientific study confirmed: that Wikipedia covered many topics and was generally accurate.  Common sense says that if Wikipedia was as terrible as some academic heads claim it wouldn't be the 6th most visited website in the world. 

As mentioned, I had an interest in this topic to begin with, but I became more interested in the question as I progressed through my study.  As it turns out, there have been many previous studies published questioning Wikipedia's content, including studies regarding their medical content.  Many of the prior studies regarding Wikipedia's medical content found similar finding as my study: Wikipedia has a broad scope and is generally accurate, but lacks completeness.  Beyond these results, two of the more interesting studies showed (1) Wikipedia has been found to be more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica and (2) the accuracy and content of Wikipedia's articles improves with time and modifications to its articles.  Both of these results lead me to believe that with time, Wikipedia will continue to improve and be a more reliable source of information.

For my study, my results are encouraging and I got approval for a poster presentation of my study at the 2013 ACOFP conference at Las Vegas.  I plan on further development of my study in hopes of getting it published in a journal or journals. 

Wikipedia is the major elephant in the academic room.  My study, along with several other published studies show that it is a reliable source of accurate information, though it is somewhat incomplete.  It has been shown that as time progresses and the more an article is edited, the article becomes more accurate and improves.  This suggests that as time passes, Wikipedia will become more and more accurate.  My suggestion to those in academia is to quit denying Wikipedia and embrace it.  All of the available evidence says Wikipedia is a mostly reliable source that improves with time.  It has too large of an online presence to deny, and studies have shown its quality improves with time.  Some scientific journals even require Wikipedia publication before one's article will get published in their journal.  Wikipedia is here to stay.  It's pretty darn good.  All of the evidence says so.

Wikipedia: Final Results

Below are the results to my Wikipedia study.

• I found Wikipedia's scope to be impressive.  It had an article listing a treatment regimen for greater than 90% of the medical diagnoses I encountered this past summer.
• The completeness of their articles was lacking.  Most articles were quite incomplete in the treatment regimens they listed.
• However, the treatments that were listed were mostly or completely accurate a majority of the time.

 Wikipedia almost always had an article for a particular diagnosis, regardless of how obscure.  The treatments listed were mostly or completely accurate an overwhelming majority of the time.  However, the biggest strike against Wikipedia that my study found was that it wasn't complete.  As an example, if disease A has 5 treatment options, Wikipedia might only list 2 treatments.  And while the two treatments listed would be completely accurate, it frequently leaves out a lot of good information.

The purpose of my study was to determine if Wikipedia is a good source for patients to go to for medical information.  I wanted to answer this question because Wikipedia is such a popular source for information.  I did a side study to determine Wikipedia's popularity in Google searches for medical terms.  I searched the top 88 most commonly used medical diagnoses used in family medicine, and Wikipedia had an article for the diagnosis searched on the first page of search results 98% of the time.  The average search result place in Google was third.   It's the 6th most visited website in the world according to Alexa. 

Given the above results, I think Wikipedia is a good source for patient's to utilize for introductory health information.  Because it lacks completeness, I would suggest another source such as familydoctor.org (a patient information source from the American Academy of Family Physicians) for more complete information.  However, due to Wikipeida's enormous online presence, patients are highly likely to access it for health information. 

I Hate Winter & Wikipedia Update

Not only does the condition of my skin get horrible during the winter, the temperature outside has been so cold my automatic car starter isn't working (the car needs an extra long crank on the ignition which the auto starter just can't do).  Additionally, the temperature has been so cold a pipe in our apartment froze and busted, resulting in a flood in our apartment.  I'm writing this post on my computer from my living room as half of our apartment has been evacuated.  All of the stuff in that half is surrounding me, piled up as if it were in a storage shed.  Additionally, there are multiple loud and industrial fans trying to dry the carpet, making for great ambience for a Friday night.  Suffice it to say it has ruined my week a bit.  See Sarah's blog for more detail.

Back to my Wikipedia project: Wikipedia is one of the most popular and visited websites in the world.  It is an online encyclopedia which contains articles that can be written and edited by anyone.  It's ease of use makes it a popular source for information on the internet.  However, since it can be authored by anyone many question its accuracy, especially in academic settings.

Personally, I love Wikipedia and use it nearly everyday.  Its ease of use and broad coverage of topics makes it a very convenient source of information.  Based on my anecdotal observations from casually using the site, I find most of what I read on there to be pretty accurate.  I do use the site for my job, though not to dictate medical treatments.  For instance, if I needed to remember what sturge-weber syndrome is, the first place I'd go look is Wikipedia.  The goal of my project was to determine if the information presented in its medical articles was accurate.  Specifically, I was looking at medical treatment regimens for various diseases. 

Over the course of three months, I recorded the diagnosis of every patient I saw in two family medicine clinics where I work.  I then looked up their corresponding articles on Wikipedia and recorded the treatment listed in a file.  Additionally, I recorded the treatments listed for the various diagnoses from Up To Date in a file.  Up To Date is an evidence-based, peer reviewed online source for medical information.  It requires a subscription.  It is the most commonly used online source for secondary medical information in the United States.

After I recorded the treatments for the various diseases, I developed a scoring rubric to compare the two sources.  I graded Wikipedia's articles on three topics: scope, completeness, and accuracy.  Stay tuned later this weekend for the results.