Students Using Wikipedia

[valkener]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Wikipedia is free and it's a great way to start out on researching something. It's not the ultimate source and not peer reviewed, but it's good for a small snapshot.

 

[munchymanRX]

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.

This is an issue?

What's funny is that many online sources (wikipedia included, as well as other popular resources like uptodate and epocrates) source peer-reviewed articles, medical texts, and established databases. If those don't live up to your high standards of information I don't know what will.

You sound like a troll, but in any case, use whatever resources work best for you to learn the information. If you like books, great-use em. If you like the internet and learning more visually via youtube channels (many of which are put together by fellow students and medical school professors), then use those.


Fun fact: Doctors google symptoms/drugs/diagnoses in the hospital ALL THE TIME. 🙄

 

[FirefighterDoc]

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.

OP, though I won't start med school until next fall I agree with you completely. I find it highly disturbing the no one else in this thread feels the same way. As future physicians we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We owe it to our future patients. Though you may not be able to convince your current classmates of the error in their ways, there is something you can do about it. If you do well on your own tests and boards ( by ONLY using textbooks) you can land a good residency. Then you could work your way back as a professor at the med school you currently attend. Once you work your way up to dean, you can BAN Wikipedia and YouTube from being used at your school. I'm sure the IT department can do something about that. But don't stop there, once your dean you can convince the COCA to ban it from every osteopathic school. Actually, why don't you just get that filth taken off of the Internet. It's ridiculous that people are free to post whatever they want on those sites. You owe it to future patients and med students to make sure that no misinformation is available to them.


You know, you could either do that or worry about yourself and get off your high horse. Either way




</sarcasm>

 

[KnuxNole]

Explain how Wikipedia has lots of misinformation. If you were to go on Wiki, there are lots of true information. The people ITT don't only use Wikipedia, but it's a good quick source. It's not like they study for their exams only on Wikipedia. And our future patients benefit from being good clinicians. I'm sure when you get to the hospital, you'll see some attendings check Wikipedia for some obscure fact check.

Youtube...why would you ever want to ban such an innocent little wesbsite? It can extremely helpful with cool supplement videos of physical exam stuff.

I dunno if this is a generation gap thing(although I know older people who love Youtube 😉), or what.

I'd probably roll my eyes or have no respect for a lame dean who wants to ban Youtube.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Wikipedia is free and it's a great way to start out on researching something. It's not the ultimate source and not peer reviewed, but it's good for a small snapshot.

Wikipedia isn't peer-reviewed, but neither is your textbook. Both sources use peer-reviewed research though. A textbook is nothing more than a bunch of editor's opinions on what research is the most important to know for that given subject. Wikipedia is much the same. Ideally, both sources should come to the same conclusion, in that case, why not use the quicker, more friendly source for 99% of your needs?

 

[valkener]

Here's an ugly truth about many doctors.

Many egomanic doctors hate wiki/webMD with a passion. They hate that patients have access to free information (that admitidly, is sometimes false, or half-true, and can create hypochondriacs). It can also help people tremendously to learn about their disease or get tips, advice on how to cope/counter.

Doctors often hate these sources because they no longer are on complete control of the information. They aren't the gods in white any more and patients don't take every word that they say as the ultimate truth.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Here's an ugly truth about many doctors.

Many egomanic doctors hate wiki/webMD with a passion. They hate that patients have access to free information (that admitidly, is sometimes false, or half-true, and can create hypochondriacs). It can also help people tremendously to learn about their disease or get tips, advice on how to cope/counter.

Doctors often hate these sources because they no longer are on complete control of the information. They aren't the gods in white any more and patients don't take every word that they say as the ultimate truth.

I've never encountered a doc who has an issue with informed patients. Its misinformed that is the problem

 

[valkener]

I've never encountered a doc who has an issue with informed patients. Its misinformed that is the problem

Well I have met exactly such doctors.

And you can't have informed patients without free information (which also has some misinformed patients as a product). Benefits outweigh the risks here.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well I have met exactly such doctors.

And you can't have informed patients without free information (which also has some misinformed patients as a product). Benefits outweigh the risks here.

I'm not arguing that the risks are not great. I agree. I just think doctors that dislike such sources because it takes the power out of their hands are a minimal minority. The issue is misinformation. And for every properly informed patient there are 100 misinformed patients. Without the proper training you have a better chance of getting Shakespeare from a typewriting monkey than you have of interpreting wiki and webmd correctly

 

[valkener]

I would have to disagree here on the shakespeare part. Shakespeare is written in old English whereas Wikipedia is written to be understood by the average citizen. A lot of people are also unfortunately still uninsured and/or can't afford health care, so I am glad we have it.

I think we basically agree if not then that's fine too.

 

[KnuxNole]

Wait why would doctors be mad that patients can be educated on certain things? Those are usually the doctors that noone likes to talk to anyway..

 

[SpecterGT260]

I would have to disagree here on the shakespeare part. Shakespeare is written in old English whereas Wikipedia is written to be understood by the average citizen. A lot of people are also unfortunately still uninsured and/or can't afford health care, so I am glad we have it.

I think we basically agree if not then that's fine too.

Wut........?

You must be unfamiliar with the old adage about monkeys, Shakespeare, and typewriters. Its about probability, not language. Google it.

The point is that most people can't really understand wiki or webmd in a medical sense without training. Webmd readers tend to be hypochondriacs who demand unnecessary tests. Without the training and experience of being a physician many of these sources are a detriment to those who use them.

 

[museic]

There have been studies that show wikipedia is just as accurate as the britannica. I would link the article but I'd have to use google to find it and you would probably use that against me...

With that being said, yes there are topics on wikipedia that are more or less sabotaged by personal opinions. It is up to you to figure out what sounds wrong, it's not that hard. Heck my grade school books talked about some supreme being creating the world 6000 years ago...I was six and I knew that was BS...

I highly doubt that someone is going to go on wikipedia and sabotage an article about some body part just because...it's the controversial ones that have issues, such as evolution. The beauty of wikipedia and the whole internet 2.0 stuff is that it CAN change instantly and evolve to reflect current knowledge. Your textbook from 2009 can't and at any instant a new discovery, no matter how small, could make a piece of knowledge in a textbook obsolete. Welcome to 2012, I suggest you evolve.

 

[PJ meowerton]

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.

OP - do you read out of the book for every class for every lecture? How do you have the time?

 

[hrandani]

Yeah I would agree that the danger to your patients is more likely to come from some ill-advised clinical pearl that's 30 years out of date from the fossil who runs the pulmonology department of your local IM ward than wikipedia.

 

[toxicwombat]

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.

Well said.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yeah I would agree that the danger to your patients is more likely to come from some ill-advised clinical pearl that's 30 years out of date from the fossil who runs the pulmonology department of your local IM ward than wikipedia.

👍

 

[toxicwombat]

Yeah I would agree that the danger to your patients is more likely to come from some ill-advised clinical pearl that's 30 years out of date from the fossil who runs the pulmonology department of your local IM ward than wikipedia.

Precisely. There are two particularly wonderful features of Wikipedia:

1) It's super easy to quickly access the citations and read the original articles yourself.
2) If someone adds stupid **** to an often-referenced page, that change is quickly removed (if it even gets added at all -- keep in mind the fact that a lot of science page changes need to go through the equivalent of a review board to get posted).

Only the ignorant have problems with Wikipedia.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Precisely. There are two particularly wonderful features of Wikipedia:

1) It's super easy to quickly access the citations and read the original articles yourself.
2) If someone adds stupid **** to an often-referenced page, that change is quickly removed (if it even gets added at all -- keep in mind the fact that a lot of science page changes need to go through the equivalent of a review board to get posted).

Only the ignorant have problems with Wikipedia.

Wiki also alerts posters via email when their content is changed. So trolling wiki doesn't last for long