We are a generation of Wikipedia doctors (quacks). 50% use it. Do you wiki?

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

Dr McSteamy

sh*tting in your backyard
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
2
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.500-should-you-trust-health-advice-from-the-web.html


50% of docs use it for health info.


I use it a lot as a med student.

I confess, I'm guilty. Wiki is usually my first source.
I get lost in the ocean of text in Harrisons.

it's just so easy when you're only looking for tidbits of info without too much detail.

I am going to be a Web MD. 😀👍
Members don't see this ad.
 
I use wiki to look up stuff...but not for school. Normally when googling things, it links me to Wikipedia first, so sometimes I don't even bother with Google and go with Wiki.

One of our professors thinks med students should be "proactive" and look things up...but I block that psycho lady out and usually stick to the notes only 😀
 
KnuxNole said:
I use wiki to look up stuff...but not for school. Normally when googling things, it links me to Wikipedia first, so sometimes I don't even bother with Google and go with Wiki.

One of our professors thinks med students should be "proactive" and look things up...but I block that psycho lady out and usually stick to the notes only 😀
Click to expand...

You have to be really careful with wiki, it's full of tons of wrong info. I have seen more than a few people get burned quoting such "facts" to attendings during pimp sessions. For medicine, stick with things like emedicine and uptodate, or the lack of factchecking will catch up to you eventually.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I definitely agree that it's filled with lots of wrong facts, but honestly, that still doesn't stop me from using it for pretty much everything. I don't think I could've done well in undergrad without wiki. Hell, the only reason I passed anatomy (and understood the brachial plexus!!!) was because of wiki😀

Guilty as charged!
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with using wiki for a quick fact check or to remember some detail that you've previously learned. I don't think any responsible med student or doc would use it to educate their patients or guide tx.
 
Oh, and yeah, I've definitely used it..a lot. *another key: it cites facts to journals a lot of the time, so it helps lit search.
 
I used it for undergrad for my humanities courses since even if it's wrong, it doesn't matter. Could just be considered an opinion or something.

But when someone's health is involved, I feel responsible to look up the consensus of medical knowledge, not just whoever edited the page last on wiki.

Of course its probably not the most efficient way to go about things, probably waste tons of time doing it the old way compared to someone who uses wiki, and all for that very small chance that might not even come up in my lifetime when it will matter.
 
pretty sure there are electronic databases/texts that are vetted official treatment guides, and they can be loaded onto handeld devices.

doctors the only people in the world who have legitimate need of an iphone?
 
I use it for very general, non-political things.
 
cgscribe said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with using wiki for a quick fact check or to remember some detail that you've previously learned. I don't think any responsible med student or doc would use it to educate their patients or guide tx.
Click to expand...

But how do you know if it's wrong then?
 
wiki got me through the pre-reqs just fine. It is peer reviewed in a way, so common knowledge is usually pretty accurate. it was great for o-chem.

I use it for studying in school. I would never use it as my only source when treating a patient.
 
geogil said:
But how do you know if it's wrong then?
Click to expand...

I could go on a philosophical tangent and ask how we really know anything, but for this question, you can always scroll down to the bottom for the citations and read those if you're worried about the editor's interpretation being incorrect.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I usually use it for extremely quick factoid checks - like, "What the hell is Exforge? Oh, it's amlodipine/valsartan" or "Hmm, why would this pregnant patient be on 17-OH progest? Ah, to delay labor."

It's fairly useless for researching topics at my level now. I need more detail, and I need to be quite sure of it. Specialty textbooks are pretty nice for that.
 
Uptodate/FirstConsult is where it's at. Otherwise I use Epocrates (they also have a Dx and Sx section that is good for reference outside the traditional Rx) and Stedman's. I try to stay away from wiki ever since last year when I had used it and gotten one or two questions wrong on a test because of what I had read on there (my own stupidity though).
 
I use it for very quick things as in was it this or that stuff mostly, like most people said here- not for researching things. However, in atleast in immuno it helped me set things into perspective. Otherwise it's usually emedicine!
 
working in the hospital this summer I haven't used wikipedia to answer questions, but last year for biochem/histo/anatomy I used it all the time. If you're looking for "standard of care questions" I think wiki is a poor source, but for very detailed basic science questions it's useful. I found a lot of info in more detail (with references) for random proteins and molecular bio stuff on wiki than in the textbook.. jmo.
 
reedman said:
wiki got me through the pre-reqs just fine. It is peer reviewed in a way, so common knowledge is usually pretty accurate. it was great for o-chem.

I use it for studying in school. I would never use it as my only source when treating a patient.
Click to expand...

It's not "peer reviewed in a way". It's the absurd opposite, where the village idiot's opinion counts as much as the organic chemist on topics of organic chemistry. That's why it's dangerous. Those of us who have seen many falsehoods in the things we know well will assure you that it's a very dangerous tool for obtaining an actual knowledge base.
 
Law2Doc said:
It's not "peer reviewed in a way". It's the absurd opposite, where the village idiot's opinion counts as much as the organic chemist on topics of organic chemistry. That's why it's dangerous.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust anything related to the pre-med sciences on wikipedia, merely because every neurotic, cut-throat pre-med around the world has the opportunity to spread misinformation in an attempt to sink classmates who may rely on online information.

The WikiSurgery/radiologyWiki they mention seems promising, however. If only doctors are allowed to edit there must be some authentication process, and thus there is both authority and accountability in the mix.
 
I use Wikipedia all the time, and when I'm done using it, I edit the pages I used to make the facts wrong, so nobody else can use it.
 
VoiceofReason said:
pretty sure there are electronic databases/texts that are vetted official treatment guides, and they can be loaded onto handeld devices.

doctors the only people in the world who have legitimate need of an iphone?
Click to expand...

Go ahead and buy me said electronic device or iphone and pay for my service and I'll gladly do that.

Otherwise, yes I too have used Wiki to clarify.

My main study are lecture notes and text, but sometimes I need a quick check. When the pic of the brachial plexus comes right out of Gray's, I don't feel too bad for looking it over.
 
I find wikipedia good for looking up terms and to get a quick overview. Then I can go look up the details in more carefully compiled resources or journal articles.
 
There was an article that compared the factual accuracy of wikipedia to other encyclopedias and found that wiki was more accurate. Can't remember where I read it...

It's all about how you read it. You also have to take what you read with a grain of salt. For most articles you can usually get a quick general feel of trustworthiness from the tone/style/grammar of what was written. This is less applicable for science stuff but again, all you have to do is check the references. A complete lack of references from an article is usually not a good sign.

Wikpedia also has a rating system for "Good" and "Featured" articles. The article on evolution, for example, has been heavily reviewed and has featured status.
 
TexasTriathlete said:
I use Wikipedia all the time, and when I'm done using it, I edit the pages I used to make the facts wrong, so nobody else can use it.
Click to expand...
And a bot will follow right behind you reverting the changes, because it's well aware of how people will vandalize a site.
 
I don't use it; usually when I need to clarify something Wiki doesn't have it in the detail I need. Also, it's obviously pretty crap for clinical stuff.

For drug and clinical info UpToDate is what I love.
 
Zoom-Zoom said:
There was an article that compared the factual accuracy of wikipedia to other encyclopedias and found that wiki was more accurate. Can't remember where I read it...
Click to expand...

You probably read it on wiki. And it was probably an example of inaccurate posting. Sorry, but I've personally seen enough misinformation on there over the years, and seen enough med students get burned trying to rely on wiki information during pimping and tests, that I'd be hard pressed to trust it for anything med school or physician related. Things like e-medicine are free online and written by faculty of various academic programs. That's the kind of place you ought to start for medical info.
 
I *STRONGLY* suggest you *NEVER* use Wikipedia (or wiki's, or ANY non-verified online resource) for medical information. Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time for non-medical information. BUT you just cannot trust the accuracy of information, and you *CANNOT* use it to take care of patients.

Use trusted sites like peer-reviewed journals, books, and others. I personally use UpToDate for everything.

This is even more important as you start your training, because you just don't know enough to distinguish the difference in good and bad information. Once you start to use 2nd tier information such as Wiki's, then you are creating a habit that will last a lifetime. Wiki's are nothing more than folklore, the potential for misinformation to be passed on over time. We CANNOT let that corrupt medical knowledge and there must evidence based medicine.

I am horrified at how many people here state they use this information.
 
ethat001 said:
I *STRONGLY* suggest you *NEVER* use Wikipedia (or wiki's, or ANY non-verified online resource) for medical information. Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time for non-medical information. BUT you just cannot trust the accuracy of information, and you *CANNOT* use it to take care of patients.

Use trusted sites like peer-reviewed journals, books, and others. I personally use UpToDate for everything.

This is even more important as you start your training, because you just don't know enough to distinguish the difference in good and bad information. Once you start to use 2nd tier information such as Wiki's, then you are creating a habit that will last a lifetime. Wiki's are nothing more than folklore, the potential for misinformation to be passed on over time. We CANNOT let that corrupt medical knowledge and there must evidence based medicine.

I am horrified at how many people here state they use this information.
Click to expand...

wiki articles that are cited correctly are just as good as anything else. its a great jump off point when you dont have access to uptodate
 
I would be curious to see whether it was more likely for a doc to be named in a frivolous lawsuit or for wikipedia to be grossly wrong.
 
Law2Doc said:
You probably read it on wiki. And it was probably an example of inaccurate posting. Sorry, but I've personally seen enough misinformation on there over the years, and seen enough med students get burned trying to rely on wiki information during pimping and tests, that I'd be hard pressed to trust it for anything med school or physician related. Things like e-medicine are free online and written by faculty of various academic programs. That's the kind of place you ought to start for medical info.
Click to expand...

Yeah for medically-related stuff it's a totally different story. But still, it's all about how you read it. You can easily check the references, or use the references as a source for pertinent peer-reviewed info, which can be just as accurate as e-medicine or the like.
 
Last edited:
ethat001 said:
I *STRONGLY* suggest you *NEVER* use Wikipedia (or wiki's, or ANY non-verified online resource) for medical information. Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time for non-medical information. BUT you just cannot trust the accuracy of information, and you *CANNOT* use it to take care of patients.

Use trusted sites like peer-reviewed journals, books, and others. I personally use UpToDate for everything.

This is even more important as you start your training, because you just don't know enough to distinguish the difference in good and bad information. Once you start to use 2nd tier information such as Wiki's, then you are creating a habit that will last a lifetime. Wiki's are nothing more than folklore, the potential for misinformation to be passed on over time. We CANNOT let that corrupt medical knowledge and there must evidence based medicine.

I am horrified at how many people here state they use this information.
Click to expand...

That slipper slope argument is a bit extreme.
 
Law2Doc said:
You probably read it on wiki. And it was probably an example of inaccurate posting. Sorry, but I've personally seen enough misinformation on there over the years, and seen enough med students get burned trying to rely on wiki information during pimping and tests, that I'd be hard pressed to trust it for anything med school or physician related. Things like e-medicine are free online and written by faculty of various academic programs. That's the kind of place you ought to start for medical info.
Click to expand...

On a completely unrelated note, hey L2D, what specialty did you match into?
 
Wiki is a great source of general information. It usually has much better pathophys explanations than UpToDate which often lacks basic science detail. Overall, though, I think eMedicine is the highest yield and much better than either of the above.
 
Wikipedia is awesome. Its not hard to do, but you definitely see a lot more smart people use it.
 
It's fine for simple stuff, like finding out the blood supply to the gallbladder or what's in Ringer's Lactate. NEVER fine for looking up anything to do with diagnosis or treatment.

Two highly recommended sources:
cdc.gov for anything to do with epidemiology and for excellent treatment guidelines for infections
guidelines.gov for treatment and screening guidelines compiled from many reputable sources
 
Last edited:
geogil said:
But how do you know if it's wrong then?
Click to expand...

They usually cite their information to a textbook or journal article. Obviously, nothing is infallible.
 
Law2Doc said:
You have to be really careful with wiki, it's full of tons of wrong info. I have seen more than a few people get burned quoting such "facts" to attendings during pimp sessions. For medicine, stick with things like emedicine and uptodate, or the lack of factchecking will catch up to you eventually.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Uptodate.

Anybody can edit Wiki, and plenty of stuff is left out of the wiki articles... anonymous non-physician randoms could end up directly shaping people's care? 😱
 
i've read a story about an intern being sacked for performing a circumcision on a boy using wiki. The info was wrong on the wiki.
 
I use emedicine mostly. Wikipedia is rubbish and I haven't been able to convince myself to pay for uptodate. I'm hoping that if i bitch long enough the hospital will spring for it.
 
For things that are considered common knowledge, which includes prettymuch all the undergrad sciences, wikipedia is usually very accurate. As soon as some idiot puts something wrong on there, ten people (who could be considered peers) who know what they are doing jump on and change it back. I had a prof one time who bitched at me for reading an article on wikipedia, I guess he didn't know that the other prof who co-taught the class actually wrote the article.

Is it the most reliable source? Not by a longshot. However, wikipedia has never steered me wrong when it comes to basic sciences. And it is just so easy to use.
 
You going to uptodate to read about B cell differentiation or DNA replication?
How about the course of cranial nerve XI? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about using it for. If I miss one exam question because of wikipedia (which is very doubtful), I won't cry about it. Obviously its different if you are treating a patient because that one wrong fact could be disastrous, but I was saying that for pre-med stuff and other basic sciences is is ok.
 
reedman said:
You going to uptodate to read about B cell differentiation or DNA replication?
How about the course of cranial nerve XI? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about using it for. If I miss one exam question because of wikipedia (which is very doubtful), I won't cry about it. Obviously its different if you are treating a patient because that one wrong fact could be disastrous, but I was saying that for pre-med stuff and other basic sciences is is ok.
Click to expand...

I think it's curious that people are parsing between clinical and basic science knowledge acquisition from wiki. A basic science fact can be just as wrong as a clinical one. Wouldn't you rather lay a strong foundation on correct information, even if it's not as directly related to patient care? Let's say your knowledge of pancreatic physiology was gleaned from wiki, you don't think that will influence your treatment of a patient?

THe problem I see here is that people think they can easily distinguish between truth and falsehood on wiki. When there are gross errors, of course this is true, but it's the smaller ones that you're going to miss. You miss the error, and you incorporate that incorrect principle into your understanding of physiology or pharmacology. Eventually you forget where you learned the fact, and the error just becomes part of our background medical knowledge.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the cost-benefit ratio here. Benefit: wiki is easily accessible. Cost: the information contained therein is questionable. So, why wiki again? It's not as if Up to Date and e-medicine are any harder to access than wikipedia, so the convenience argument doesn't hold up. The content argument doesn't work either, if you're diligent enough to check the annotation on wiki, and assess the footnoted sources , then you're going to wind up reading the primary paper anyway, so why wiki in the first place?
 
reedman said:
You going to uptodate to read about B cell differentiation or DNA replication?
How about the course of cranial nerve XI? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about using it for. If I miss one exam question because of wikipedia (which is very doubtful), I won't cry about it. Obviously its different if you are treating a patient because that one wrong fact could be disastrous, but I was saying that for pre-med stuff and other basic sciences is is ok.
Click to expand...

This isnt' covered in your syllabus, lectures, and textbooks?
 
I'll say it again, wiki has never steered me wrong for basic sciences. I would love to see an example of blatantly wrong information that is within the realm of " basic sciences" (please don't go changing things on wiki to make a point).

Yes, my course notes do cover everything I need to know, but wiki is so much faster when I need a quick reminder, or clarification. And it links to lots of other things that are relevant. Of course, I always learn lecture/course notes first.

And I think there is a difference between undergrad type knowledge and knowledge that physicians use in practice. Medical knowledge is constantly changing, and much of what people do is based on institutional preferences and personal experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Smile12
HPSA/SDN Poll: How are you using AI?
Replies
1
Views
483
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Goro
MD & DO Doctors behaving badly
Replies
1
Views
826
DrStephenStrange
DrStephenStrange
SurfingDoctor
Young Doctors Want Work-Life Balance. Older Doctors Say That’s Not the Job.
Replies
14
Views
3K
purpledoc1
purpledoc1
A
Away rotation for neurology - should I do it?
Replies
2
Views
1K
collegestud2013
C
N
Don’t use ChatGPT during rotations
Replies
17
Views
3K
VincentAdultman
VincentAdultman
Top