Wikipedia as Informal Self-Education for Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Practice

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620739
Title:
Wikipedia as Informal Self-Education for Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Practice
Authors:
Matheson, David ( 0000-0002-3695-3167 ) ; Matheson-Monnet, Catherine
Abstract:
Background: For almost any topic, a Wikipedia page will appear among the first ten items of a search online. Wikipedia is also a site whose quality and reliability has been called into question. Methods: In this paper, we aim to discuss medical practitioners’ use of Wikipedia, what this consists of and what it might be. We consider the context and history of Wikipedia before discussing the relationship between Wikipedia and the medical profession. In so doing, we will consider Wikipedia as a means of informal self-education and the extent to which it might inform clinical decision-making. We compare with the existing literature results from our two small-scale empirical studies of Wikipedia and clinical decision-making. Results: Notwithstanding issues over quality and reliability, Wikipedia’s rules on verifiability are such that its articles are very heavily referenced, and this is just as true of health-related articles. The Cochrane/Wikipedia Initiative in improving the quality and reliability of medical and health pages in Wikipedia is significant in increasing reliability. Our respondents largely concurred with the results from earlier studies on the use of Wikipedia by medical practitioners. Conclusion: Perhaps the very doubt over Wikipedia’s accuracy is its greatest strength as a means of informal education of doctors. That medical and health articles on Wikipedia can be so fully referenced and still be doubted is arguably a good thing and one whose effects may be spread into other, more trusted, publications. Hence, one might envisage a future where no one source is taken automatically on trust.
Citation:
Wikipedia as Informal Self-Education for Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Practice 2017, 04 (Suppl-1, M2):15 Open Medicine Journal
Publisher:
Bentham Open
Journal:
Open Medicine Journal
Issue Date:
30-Sep-2017
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/2436/620739
DOI:
10.2174/1874220301704010015
Additional Links:
http://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/MEDJ-4-15
Type:
Article
Language:
en
ISSN:
1874-2203
Appears in Collections:
FEHW

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorMatheson, Daviden
dc.contributor.authorMatheson-Monnet, Catherineen
dc.date.accessioned2017-10-10T11:47:02Z-
dc.date.available2017-10-10T11:47:02Z-
dc.date.issued2017-09-30-
dc.identifier.citationWikipedia as Informal Self-Education for Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Practice 2017, 04 (Suppl-1, M2):15 Open Medicine Journalen
dc.identifier.issn1874-2203en
dc.identifier.doi10.2174/1874220301704010015-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2436/620739-
dc.description.abstractBackground: For almost any topic, a Wikipedia page will appear among the first ten items of a search online. Wikipedia is also a site whose quality and reliability has been called into question. Methods: In this paper, we aim to discuss medical practitioners’ use of Wikipedia, what this consists of and what it might be. We consider the context and history of Wikipedia before discussing the relationship between Wikipedia and the medical profession. In so doing, we will consider Wikipedia as a means of informal self-education and the extent to which it might inform clinical decision-making. We compare with the existing literature results from our two small-scale empirical studies of Wikipedia and clinical decision-making. Results: Notwithstanding issues over quality and reliability, Wikipedia’s rules on verifiability are such that its articles are very heavily referenced, and this is just as true of health-related articles. The Cochrane/Wikipedia Initiative in improving the quality and reliability of medical and health pages in Wikipedia is significant in increasing reliability. Our respondents largely concurred with the results from earlier studies on the use of Wikipedia by medical practitioners. Conclusion: Perhaps the very doubt over Wikipedia’s accuracy is its greatest strength as a means of informal education of doctors. That medical and health articles on Wikipedia can be so fully referenced and still be doubted is arguably a good thing and one whose effects may be spread into other, more trusted, publications. Hence, one might envisage a future where no one source is taken automatically on trust.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBentham Openen
dc.relation.urlhttp://benthamopen.com/FULLTEXT/MEDJ-4-15en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Open Medicine Journalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectWikipediaen
dc.subjectInformal educationen
dc.subjectContinued professional developmenten
dc.subjectMedical educationen
dc.titleWikipedia as Informal Self-Education for Clinical Decision-Making in Medical Practiceen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalOpen Medicine Journalen
dc.date.accepted2017-07-
rioxxterms.funderInternalen
rioxxterms.identifier.projectUoW101017DMen
rioxxterms.versionVoRen
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/CC BY-NC-ND 4.0en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-10-10en
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Creative Commons
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.