Browse wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study
Abstract BACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clBACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clinical information resources is an important role of the medical program, we wondered how well Wikipedia, given its popularity with students, compared with long-standing resources. METHODS: Blinded to the information resources, medical academics compared conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media entries from Wikipedia against those from AccessMedicine, eMedicine and UpToDate, using a scale developed to rank their accuracy, coverage, concision, currency and suitability for medical students. Medical librarians assessed their accessibility and usability. RESULTS: The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented. Although reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics, and contained some factual errors. Wikipedia was thus judged unsuitable for medical students. AccessMedicine entries were judged the most suitable resources for medical students by two of the reviewers; the third was critical of the lack of emphasis on empirical data. CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information.ia to ensure it provides best information.
Abstractsub BACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clBACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clinical information resources is an important role of the medical program, we wondered how well Wikipedia, given its popularity with students, compared with long-standing resources. METHODS: Blinded to the information resources, medical academics compared conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media entries from Wikipedia against those from AccessMedicine, eMedicine and UpToDate, using a scale developed to rank their accuracy, coverage, concision, currency and suitability for medical students. Medical librarians assessed their accessibility and usability. RESULTS: The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented. Although reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics, and contained some factual errors. Wikipedia was thus judged unsuitable for medical students. AccessMedicine entries were judged the most suitable resources for medical students by two of the reviewers; the third was critical of the lack of emphasis on empirical data. CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information.ia to ensure it provides best information.
Bibtextype inproceedings  +
Has author Michael P. Pender + , Kaye E. Lasserre + , Lisa M. Kruesi + , Christopher Del Mar + , Satyamurthy Anuradha +
Has extra keyword Wikipedia +
Has keyword Clinical Research + , Information literacy +
Has reference Representation of medical informatics in the Wikipedia and its perspectives + , Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia + , Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference + , Internet encyclopaedias go head to head + , Wikipedia 2.0, with added trust + , WikiMedia +
Language English +
Number of citations by publication 3  +
Number of references by publication 6  +
Pages 1-16  +
Peer-reviewed Unknown  +
Published in The Special Libraries Association Annual Conference +
Title Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study +
Type conference paper  +
Year 2008 +
Creation dateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 8 January 2013 19:27:10  +
Categories Publications without license parameter  + , Publications without DOI parameter  + , Publications without remote mirror parameter  + , Publications without archive mirror parameter  + , Publications without paywall mirror parameter  + , Conference papers  + , Publications  +
Modification dateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 8 January 2013 19:27:10  +
DateThis property is a special property in this wiki. 16 June 2008  +
hide properties that link here 
Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias + , Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage + , Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments + Has reference
Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study + Title
 

 

Enter the name of the page to start browsing from.