For medical articles we at svwp are very wary as there exist very good
webpages issued by the health authorities related to all healthproblems
and we certainly do not want our wp pages to contradict those.
We encountered severe problems when the English(American) articles were
first introduced at svwp, as their recommendation differed from what is
recommended here. For example when you have an urinary tract infection,
it is here often not treated at all here, as bacteria is seen as normal,
not to be taken away. But the big problem was he different
recommendation of use of antibiotics and penicillin, which are
prescribed much more restricted here then in US.
In our case we came to a proper article but only after long discussion,
and most of us are laymen in medicin, so not able to check as closely
all articles. And actually we at svwp are quite happy that the webpages
from the authorities on health is ranked higher then our pages, at least
when articles have sections around treatment and recommended prescriptions.
Anders
Oliver Keyes skrev den 2015-04-05 19:36:
Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage
that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's
pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that
we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health
issues.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
(I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete
that earlier version?)
"Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and
everybody uses it." — Freeman Dyson, "How We Know" The New York Review of
Books, 10 March 2011.
(Discussing recent UK survey results.) "We're trusted slightly more than
the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all
know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could
do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20
points ahead of us." — Jimmy Wales, "State of the Wiki" Wikimania speech,
10 August 2014.
The Wikimedia Foundation vision: "Imagine a world in which every single
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our
commitment."
But "knowledge" of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While
Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge.
This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its
vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust.
It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is
factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already
stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its "knowledge graph".
Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from
(often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on
page two.
The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action
[3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading "Focus on
knowledge & community" is "Improve our measures of community health and
content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives.
The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is
reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an
important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose
purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic
initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people
can trust?*
Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to
measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no
resources were allocated and it did not happen.
1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 "Google wants to rank websites based on
facts not links" New Scientist
2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 "Google's fact-checking bots build vast
knowledge bank" New Scientist
3.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action
4.
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality
Anthony Cole <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
