Regarding expert review, Doc James has just announced that a version of Wikipedia's article "Dengue fever" has passed peer review and been accepted for publication by the journal Open Medicine. I think this is a special moment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MED#This_conversation_is_notable Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM, rupert THURNER <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Andreas, you seem to have pre-determined that Wikipedia's medical > articles > > > are all terrible and riddled with errors. > > > > > > > > And I think you are being needlessly defensive. I have an open mind as to > > what the results might be. What I am sure of is that neither you nor I > nor > > the Foundation really know how reliable they are. Why not make an effort > to > > find out? > > Anybody interested can do it. Now. Anybody interested can improve it. Now. > Why it does not happen? It happened for other domains as well. > > In my experience there is only one single measure to improve quality: point > out the single error which cam be corrected. If you can propose a system, > either human or automatic, to do this, feel free. > > What imo is the bigger problem: many medical articles are written in a > language a mortal cannot understand any more. > > > > > > Realistically, they're amongst > > > the most likely to receive professional editing and review - > Wikiproject > > > Medicine does a much better job than people are willing to credit them. > > > > > > > > > Yes, and many editors there are sorely concerned about the quality of > > medical information Wikipedia provides to the public. > > This is the core value of wikipedia since its beginnings: provide a big > enough gap to fill. > > > Incidentally, there was a discussion of the JAOA study in The Atlantic > > today: > > > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/can-wikipedia-ever-be-a-definitive-medical-text/361822/ > > > > A member of WikiProject Medicine is quoted in it, as is the study's > author. > > > > —o0o— > > > > So both sides acknowledge: There are errors in Wikipedia’s health > articles. > > And that’s a problem, because people use them. > > Internet literacy includes learning beeing sceptical on what you read i > guess .... Wikipedia is not Jesus and never will be, in no domain :) > > Rupert > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
