Students Using Wikipedia

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
E

EMTDoc22

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Members do not see this ad.
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...

you silly silly man
 
EMTDoc22 said:
Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...

Yes.

What would you expect the administration to do about it?
 
How to handle it? Don't. People can use what they want , good or bad. YouTube taughtt me surgical knots. I'm pretty sure I didn't kill somebody because of it.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...

I do it quite often. Before I fully engage here, what is the "problem" you are referring to, and how are these things going to lead to misinformation on/to patients?

I suspect you are talking about wiki and youtube not being peer reviewed sources and therefore containing the potential for incorrect info. This is why undergraduates are told not to use wiki as a primary source. Here is the thing, however..... insistence upon primary literature or textbooks for your information does not demonstrate the increased level of intellectualism you seem to identify with it. Rather, you have demonstrated an inability to sift through and synthesize information.

i.e. you essentially admit to being unable to detect falsehoods in these sources. This is what separates the medical professional from the patient. These sources are out there, and most are mostly good. However a patient will be unable to tell when something is inconsistent, or when conclusions are drawn inappropriately. In contrast, a medical student using it as a succinct source to clarify something still has the original lecture notes at hand, and should very easily be able to tell when something posted on such a resource is inconsistent with lecture materials. If you have difficulty doing such things, I would recommend you stay the course and avoid such resources but I would suggest you not criticize your peers who have not over-dramatized the warnings of their freshman lit professor who told them wiki isn't a citation-worthy source for your term paper 👍

So... here is my question for you: where exactly does the problem lay in using such sources? There is a phenomenal youtube video on complement activation and wiki is nice for a quick refresher on some minutia that has nearly zero clinical relevance anyways.
 
Siggy said:
Yes.

What would you expect the administration to do about it?
Click to expand...

I guess what I would imagine is some sort of lecture about gathering information from proper sources... which sources to reject/view with skepticism. At my school most of my classmates don't even buy textbooks, let alone read them.

At the end of the day, some people still might go back to whatever they were doing, but I think a sort of standard process for finding additional sources should be given by schools...considering the amount of responsibility we have and how our knowledge base directly influences our practice.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
I guess what I would imagine is some sort of lecture about gathering information from proper sources... which sources to reject/view with skepticism. At my school most of my classmates don't even buy textbooks, let alone read them.

At the end of the day, some people still might go back to whatever they were doing, but I think a sort of standard process for finding additional sources should be given by schools...considering the amount of responsibility we have and how our knowledge base directly influences our practice.
Click to expand...
Most people covered this in undergrad :meanie:

but if you are talking about how to effectively navigate medical literature that is another issue.


my school has such activities. They never condemn using wiki or youtube for clarification or personal use and help with topics, but we all have the common sense not to report on those as sources. We have seminars every so often on how to do efficient pubmed searches and have primary literature requirements for small group papers. That is all that is really necessary. A part of CME will be review of literature and you just need to know how to do that. But for passing a test there is just nothing wrong with wiki.


sylvanthus...... ouch :meanie:
 
Dude Ive actually had professors use wikipedia as a lecture source. Hell, for OMT they linked us to some youtube videos from some chiropractic website for a few lectures.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
I guess what I would imagine is some sort of lecture about gathering information from proper sources... which sources to reject/view with skepticism. At my school most of my classmates don't even buy textbooks, let alone read them.

At the end of the day, some people still might go back to whatever they were doing, but I think a sort of standard process for finding additional sources should be given by schools...considering the amount of responsibility we have and how our knowledge base directly influences our practice.
Click to expand...

As someone else said earlier, the problem is that you are having issues vetting information. Heck, I used Wikipedia... last week... in the hospital... because I wanted to confirm SIRS criteria. It's all about being able to recognize misinformation, which is extremely easy if you are simply looking for a refresher. Similarly, looking for things like specific exam techniques (screw you, ortho tests), there are plenty of videos out there from legitimate sources demonstrating techniques.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I do it quite often. Before I fully engage here, what is the "problem" you are referring to, and how are these things going to lead to misinformation on/to patients?

I suspect you are talking about wiki and youtube not being peer reviewed sources and therefore containing the potential for incorrect info. This is why undergraduates are told not to use wiki as a primary source. Here is the thing, however..... insistence upon primary literature or textbooks for your information does not demonstrate the increased level of intellectualism you seem to identify with it. Rather, you have demonstrated an inability to sift through and synthesize information.

i.e. you essentially admit to being unable to detect falsehoods in these sources. This is what separates the medical professional from the patient. These sources are out there, and most are mostly good. However a patient will be unable to tell when something is inconsistent, or when conclusions are drawn inappropriately. In contrast, a medical student using it as a succinct source to clarify something still has the original lecture notes at hand, and should very easily be able to tell when something posted on such a resource is inconsistent with lecture materials. If you have difficulty doing such things, I would recommend you stay the course and avoid such resources but I would suggest you not criticize your peers who have not over-dramatized the warnings of their freshman lit professor who told them wiki isn't a citation-worthy source for your term paper 👍

So... here is my question for you: where exactly does the problem lay in using such sources? There is a phenomenal youtube video on complement activation and wiki is nice for a quick refresher on some minutia that has nearly zero clinical relevance anyways.
Click to expand...

Misinformation could translate to poorer patient care...that is pretty clear I would think...

Something like complement activation, of course that is something that won't come up in the clinic daily. But who knows what other students are looking at and which topics they are using these sources for. If they look for videos on complement activation or embryology on Youtube...maybe they will Google pathology / treatment as well. Yeah, these videos/wiki articles are convenient, but shouldn't we be holding ourselves to a higher standard than say, high school kids?

I see what you are saying about just looking for a quick refresher. But I am more talking about when students are learning something for the first time or don't understand the material to begin with, and so they go to Youtube for say the complement video (I know which one you are talking about). Say they don't pay attention to the lecture and of course don't read the textbook. Then they pick up false information from other sources. That can accumulate in the long run.
 
I watched dissection, eye mm movement, and larynx mm movement videos on youtube. Oh and the branches of the axillary artery and the lumbosacral plexus.

I am a bad, bad girl.
 
I'm going to go through and address each problem I find here.... I think you are blowing this whole thing way out of proportion.

EMTDoc22 said:
Misinformation could translate to poorer patient care...that is pretty clear I would think...
Click to expand...
1) you haven't established that misinformation is being seen or learned, or that these students are unable to separate out misinformation
2)You are in what year? if it is 1-2 there is nearly no chance you are learning anything that will impact patient care anyways. These are ground work years. Learn the science, pass boards, then learn medicine somewhere around PGY2 😉

Something like complement activation, of course that is something that won't come up in the clinic daily. But who knows what other students are looking at and which topics they are using these sources for. If they look for videos on complement activation or embryology on Youtube...maybe they will Google pathology / treatment as well. Yeah, these videos/wiki articles are convenient, but shouldn't we be holding ourselves to a higher standard than say, high school kids?
Click to expand...
I certainly don't know what else they are looking up. But I also certainly don't think not knowing this is worth getting bent out of shape about.

We ARE holding ourselves to a higher standard. Per my first post, the HS students lack the ability to intelligently and responsibly use such sources. Highschoolers are also not allowed to drink. Does consumption of alcohol by adults (necessarily) equate to behaving at a lower standard? Telling your freshmen not to use wiki is useful because most highschoolers and even undergrads are too dumb to know when they are reading something that is complete crap. They also have only enough motivation to complete the work assigned and don't really have the drive to understand or learn like many/most professional students do.

I see what you are saying about just looking for a quick refresher. But I am more talking about when students are learning something for the first time or don't understand the material to begin with, and so they go to Youtube for say the complement video (I know which one you are talking about). Say they don't pay attention to the lecture and of course don't read the textbook.
Click to expand...

There are a number of pretty good equalizers here. Namely boards. If you learn enough of these things wrong enough, you won't pass and it is a non issue. If you don't learn them wrong enough you will pass and it is still a non issue.
Then they pick up false information from other sources. That can accumulate in the long run.
Click to expand...

Can it? for someone holding legitimate sources in such high esteem.... i think you just posted a wiki snippet :laugh:. Do you have any data that suggests that use of such sources by students translates into poorer outcomes?

You seem to want to equate a medical student on wiki to a scared/naive patient on webMD self diagnosing their hypochondriasis incorrectly. These things are just way different.
 
If you can't learn to filter the fact from the crap you'll have a long professional life.

If people are relying fully on "bunk" information from wikipedia, youtube, or any other source it is going to bite them in the butt.
 
thecgrblue said:
If you can't learn to filter the fact from the crap you'll have a long professional life.

If people are relying fully on "bunk" information from wikipedia, youtube, or any other source it is going to bite them in the butt.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is relying fully on such things as resources.
Also, nobody has all concepts from basic sciences mastered. Is learning the occasional factoid wrong really any worse from simply not understanding it in the first place? I bet wikipedia has a better accuracy rating than the average med student has on any particular test.

This whole thing is just over-extended crap from undergrad being nonsensically held on to. Nothing more.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...

I don't trust books myself.
 
AFMD said:
I don't trust books myself.
Click to expand...

me neither. I can never tell what they are plotting, or if they intend me some sort of harm. The threat of papercuts ever present...... They are shady fellows, for sure.
 
sylvanthus said:
Dude, you are worrying about legit sources and verifiable, scientific evidence and you are in DO school. Have fun with OMT.
Click to expand...

I feel like this post isn't getting enough love.

Anyway I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia. The only textbooks I own are the atlas's and those were given to me.
 
Textbookversion said:
I feel like this post isn't getting enough love.

Anyway I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia. The only textbooks I own are the atlas's and those were given to me.
Click to expand...

OMT is separate topic but yes I have my questions about OMT as well. I am a first year though so who knows.
 
I look up stuff on wiki. Mainly because I want to know what's on wiki because my patients are looking up stuff on wiki (or webMD) and reading the stuff. I want to know if what is written in wiki is reliable, or if there are issues that I should address (ie if there are posting of anecdotal reports listed in wiki).

Using wiki should also be used as a complement to your medical education (which students/residents are doing), instead of using it as the sole basis of education. Just as you shouldn't cite UpToDate or Dynamed as references when you write papers, you shouldn't cite Wiki either (but they are good starting point)

Besides, I find that wiki lacks the details that I need when I truly need to look something up.

But wiki is a good source to find ICD9/ICD10 codes quickly 😀
 
EMTDoc22 said:
I am a first year though so who knows.
Click to expand...

that explains a lot :meanie:

just chill dude. Nothing you are doing yet means anything anyways and you have 2 years in the clinic for attendings and residents to beat any ill-found wiki knowledge out of your skull 😉
 
EMTDoc22 said:
I guess what I would imagine is some sort of lecture about gathering information from proper sources... which sources to reject/view with skepticism. At my school most of my classmates don't even buy textbooks, let alone read them.

At the end of the day, some people still might go back to whatever they were doing, but I think a sort of standard process for finding additional sources should be given by schools...considering the amount of responsibility we have and how our knowledge base directly influences our practice.
Click to expand...

Oh wow you mean they don't buy those overpriced textbooks that come out with a new edition every two years just to make your old one worthless to resell and contain no new information? lol this has to be one of the dumbest reasons to be upset I've ever seen.

btw Wikipedia has been consistently found to be no more or just barely more inaccurate than Britannica or other encyclopedias. Ironically enough, there's an article on Wikipedia reliability on Wikipedia (it's fairly unbiased and has links to the direct papers which I'm assuming you'll want to read).
 
group_theory said:
I look up stuff on wiki. Mainly because I want to know what's on wiki because my patients are looking up stuff on wiki (or webMD) and reading the stuff. I want to know if what is written in wiki is reliable, or if there are issues that I should address (ie if there are posting of anecdotal reports listed in wiki).

Using wiki should also be used as a complement to your medical education (which students/residents are doing), instead of using it as the sole basis of education. Just as you shouldn't cite UpToDate or Dynamed as references when you write papers, you shouldn't cite Wiki either (but they are good starting point)

Besides, I find that wiki lacks the details that I need when I truly need to look something up.

But wiki is a good source to find ICD9/ICD10 codes quickly 😀
Click to expand...
depending on what we are doing, citing uptodate is often OK. I wouldn't cite it in an abstract, but if I was told to give a brief presentation concerning specific clinical managements or protocols, uptodate usually has a very specific entry on the subject. I could cite every meta analysis they cite, but it isn't really necessary.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
depending on what we are doing, citing uptodate is often OK. I wouldn't cite it in an abstract, but if I was told to give a brief presentation concerning specific clinical managements or protocols, uptodate usually has a very specific entry on the subject. I could cite every meta analysis they cite, but it isn't really necessary.
Click to expand...

Agree, depends on what you are doing. If you are just doing a quick bedside presentation to your team on rounds, then uptodate is appropriate. If you are giving morning report, then UpToDate may be used (but use with caution, but using their graphs/tables is OK) ... I would not cite Wiki as your source on bedside rounds or morning report since it might raise a few eyebrows from your residents and attendings 😛


For formal presentations like grand rounds, abstract submissions, poster presentation, etc., I would not cite Wiki or Uptodate. (you can, it's not illegal ... but expect to take a hit on your perceived scholarly knowledge when it comes time to grade you)
 
group_theory said:
I would not cite Wiki as your source on bedside rounds or morning report since it might raise a few eyebrows from your residents and attendings 😛


For formal presentations like grand rounds, abstract submissions, poster presentation, etc., I would not cite Wiki or Uptodate.
Click to expand...

Right. I guess I feel like these things are just common sense nowadays....


Honestly, I used wiki all throughout UG and as an MS1. Never as a reference, but it is a really good starting point. Sometimes I would be in a situation where I knew so little about a subject that I plain didn't know where to start but was expected to write a short paper (usually outline style) on it. Wiki to the rescue :shrug: get my bearings, THEN I would know enough to search appropriately in UpToDate, THEN I would know enough to go to pubmed and find a few primary sources and present like a boss 😎

The OP is 9 weeks into medschool. I'm pretty sure he will chill out a little by this time next year :laugh: maybe even check out wiki a time or two and realize how much faster it can be as long as you keep your head about you.
 
Wiki/google gives you what you need quickly. I don't have 3 hours to shift through 3 books, seminal papers in biochemistry and other indepth sources. I just need a quick confirmation or explanation on w/e process I'm looking up.

Wikipedia is sourced just as well as any other biochemistry book; they cite the same papers and are peer-edited by experts in the field. For the most part, wikipedia is extremely reliable.
 
notbobtrustme said:
Wiki/google gives you what you need quickly. I don't have 3 hours to shift through 3 books, seminal papers in biochemistry and other indepth sources. I just need a quick confirmation or explanation on w/e process I'm looking up.

Wikipedia is sourced just as well as any other biochemistry book; they cite the same papers and are peer-edited by experts in the field. For the most part, wikipedia is extremely reliable.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this, I have yet to have an instance wherein medical topics were incorrectly described on wiki; of course I wouldn't ref it on any kind of rounds or real presentation, but for quick and dirty self-education it gets the job done!
 
Bones DO said:
I have to agree with this, I have yet to have an instance wherein medical topics were incorrectly described on wiki; of course I wouldn't ref it on any kind of rounds or real presentation, but for quick and dirty self-education it gets the job done!
Click to expand...

I think this is the key. Most of the medical articles are too obscure for people to care about vandalizing and medical students, as a whole, should be better able to pick out flaws based on our background.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...
I am a 4th year med student...I love joking that I probably got about 1/4 of my med school education on Wiki....maybe not that much but there is nothing better for looking up esoteric terms as you trod through tons of medical literature
 
Oh yeah, and there is nothing like YouTube to review how to do Neuro, musculoskeletal, or optho exams
 
I don't remember much of anything I learned as a 1st or 2nd year. Most of my medical knowledge as a third year come from a very thorough board review of first aid this summer that had an errata PDF file covering mistakes on over 100 pages that I pick and chose to correct. My patients are doomed.
 
The problem isn't that there are problems or errors with Wikipedia, the problem is the assumption that textbooks by default contain unadultered truth. Textbooks are still only considered "expert opinion" and is really a summary, with a whole lot of interpretation and bias thrown in, of the actual research. When you know little about the topic in a professional sense (i.e. all of us with regard to biochem) then you don't know enough to question the source nor the context, so we take textbooks for their word. If the errors in biochem textbooks are unacceptable, you're welcome to comb through all of the actual literature until you're able to fully critique sources. When you've reached that point, sometime in the next 10-15 years, you can come back to master micro. After you hit rotations you can then be upset realizing how little of it had clinical relevance.
 
I have found no less than 10 mistakes in the current Netter's Atlas... So what do you say when the textbook is WRONG... Happens, sometimes Wiki is wrong, and sometimes it's not... Most of the time it isn't wrong because when people look up a subject and see incorrect information on wiki, they change it...
 
I think the sooner you stop caring what your fellow students are doing and concentrate on making yourself succeed in medical school, the happier you will be.

Your residents and attendings aren't going to allow you or your classmates to harm any patients, and by the time you graduate you will have developed appropriate methods to look up information that you need.

And yes, Wikipedia is often an appropriate source for a quick refresher.
 
Googling something and finding it on Wikipedia in 5 seconds > searching through a 10lb textbook with **** that's way more detailed than I need.
 
EMTDoc22 said:
So I have noticed many other students using Wikipedia/YouTube to look up terms and concepts they do not know that are covered in lectures... This goes for basically every class -- biochemistry, immunology, embryology, etc. I am seeing YouTube links passed around and people reading Wikipedia articles. People will simply Google something if they don't know what it is.

I strictly use only textbooks and the electronic sources provided by the school... however, mentioning these other options to classmates seems to be futile.

I found this highly disturbing and I seem to be the only person who even realizes the problem with what other kids are doing. I am imagining the terrifying potential future consequences of misinformation on patients.

Is this common at your school as well? Has the administration ever addressed this issue? I'm wondering how to handle this one.
Click to expand...

Uh....dude who cares?

Youtube is GREAT for the physical exam stuff, seeing certain neuro movements, etc.

Why would anyone with a brain think YouTube or Wiki is that bad...?
No offense, but you're acting like Wiki is wrong most of the time. Which is FALSE.
Textbooks for the most part are expensive and not worth it. Especially for med students.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Smile12
Reminder: How is your school using AI?
Replies
1
Views
671
turtleai
T
Mr.Smile12
HPSA/SDN Poll: How are you using AI?
Replies
1
Views
379
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
D
Students of LECOM-Bradenton DO program: How is it?
Replies
0
Views
2K
deleted1151110
D
OMSWeebHours
Curious About Discussions with Current Students/Residents/Physicians
Replies
8
Views
1K
Stranger00120
S
M
DO student, international, and anesthesia
Replies
3
Views
913
Ho0v-man
Ho0v-man
Top