-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Step I Anyone else using Wikipedia to study?
Started by 02115
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Wikipedia is a dicey source, because its open to anyone to post info. They do not have to be an expert on the subject. Id rather use eMedicine searches, since they are backed up by research. Wiki stuff can lead you in the right direction, but dont take it at face value too often.
I use wikipedia all the time. The entries relating to science are generally the most accurate of all because they've been written by professionals (as opposed to an entry on, say, Britney Spears, that might have been edited by a 12 year old). I've found the text to be very reliable and well-written. Most medical textsbooks are often written poorly with convoluted, long-winded sentences. Wikipedia never seems to go down that road.
My favorite use of wikipedia is to look up obscure sounding drugs that pop up on QBank. If there's no wikipedia entry, I don't bother learning it.
I am using wikipedia.
In fact, it is more accurate than peer reviewed Britianica.
So don't think that there are numerous bad facts. In general, the "general public" likes to perserve the truth. It is more up-to-date etc...
There have been studies to compare the truthfulness of wikipedia articals and they have always held up.
There are exceptions, the more controversial the subject, the more likely one's opinion will be injected into the subject. Eg. Israel and middle east issues.
But for stuff like albuterol and chagas.... now way.
Use it for behavioral science. The DSM-IV sections are excellent.
In fact, it is more accurate than peer reviewed Britianica.
So don't think that there are numerous bad facts. In general, the "general public" likes to perserve the truth. It is more up-to-date etc...
There have been studies to compare the truthfulness of wikipedia articals and they have always held up.
There are exceptions, the more controversial the subject, the more likely one's opinion will be injected into the subject. Eg. Israel and middle east issues.
But for stuff like albuterol and chagas.... now way.
Use it for behavioral science. The DSM-IV sections are excellent.
