Half of US Doctors Use Wikipedia for Diagnosis

MORE THAN half of US doctors use Wackypedia to work out what is wrong with their patients, according to a study published by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.

While US doctors charge their victims, er patients, huge amounts of cash, their actual tool of choice seems to be the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

According to New Scientist this means that people with made up doctorates and Daily Tech readers with chips on their shoulders and axes to grind are effectively treating people with serious illnesses.

To be fair to Wackypedia, its medical coverage is not too bad. Studies conducted by the medical community show that the online encyclopedia is almost free of factual errors. Generally its pages get better with time.

However there is the problem that some of Wikipedia's volunteer editors sometimes get bees in their bonnets about certain types of treatment and fill up pages with negative information about some types of drugs.

It also has information on only about 40 per cent of drugs questions and often skips information that is too dull for the editors to want to write. For example you should not take St Johns Wort with the HIV drug Prezista even if you are really depressed about your illness, but you won't find that out at Wikipedia.

There are also potential complications and side effects that Wackypedia's editors can't be bothered to mention, but they are just the sorts of things that doctors need to know when they are prescribing drugs.

Article cited: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...rely-wikipedia
Original source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...m-the-web.html

Sounds like bullshit but I wouldn't be surprised.

GTFO Grav, don't post this stupid shit. This isn't a Foxnews forum.

I have a friend that works in IT at a hospital and he says that a lot of the doctors use WebMD, so I'm not surprised at all.

I have a friend that works in IT at a hospital and he says that a lot of the doctors use WebMD, so I'm not surprised at all.

WebMD is a licensed medical informatin source, wikipedia is user uploaded articles that can be fabricated to say anything. There is a HUGE difference. I figured you would've known.

Yeah, while I still wouldn't want my doctor using WebMD, it's a lot better than Wikipedia. It's actually a pretty darn good website.

WebMD is a licensed site. They aren't going on there to learn how to perform an operation, they are going there to reference something that they are unsure, or unaware about. Actual doctors use WebMD and post their own articles and sypnosises for others to use as simple references.

I personally use it almost every day for various tasks but with an actual account through WebMD there is access to a highly vast amount of information that is not available to all general public. <3 webmd.

I'd still rather my doctor not need it. They don't go through an absurd number of years of school for nothing.

I'd still rather my doctor not need it. They don't go through an absurd number of years of school for nothing.

This.

I'd still rather my doctor not need it. They don't go through an absurd number of years of school for nothing.

So you would rather a doctor just guess on something that there wasn't education for while he was in school. Let's say the Doctor is 60 years old. That would mean he probably went to school roughly 40 years ago, right? Maybe finished 30 years ago, there have been a ton of changes in medicine since then, and not all platforms are able to be covered.

Like I said, WebMD is fine, wikipedia is not.

Hence Medical Journals...

So you would rather a doctor just guess on something that there wasn't education for while he was in school. Let's say the Doctor is 60 years old. That would mean he probably went to school roughly 40 years ago, right? Maybe finished 30 years ago, there have been a ton of changes in medicine since then, and not all platforms are able to be covered. Like I said, WebMD is fine, wikipedia is not.

But it is funner for Dr. to use wiki...
Look up something, end up clicking a link, going to something else, something else, something else...

I love wikipedia...

So you would rather a doctor just guess on something that there wasn't education for while he was in school. Let's say the Doctor is 60 years old. That would mean he probably went to school roughly 40 years ago, right? Maybe finished 30 years ago, there have been a ton of changes in medicine since then, and not all platforms are able to be covered. Like I said, WebMD is fine, wikipedia is not.

Just because it's been a long time since the doctor was in school doesn't mean anything. If anything, that should mean they're more familiar with the every-day ailments that people are going to go to the doctor for. So my point stands, I'd rather my doctor just not need to use WebMD.

But it is funner for Dr. to use wiki... Look up something, end up clicking a link, going to something else, something else, something else... I love wikipedia...

OMG, I actually agree with Skurai.

Heart Wikipedia.

Hence Medical Journals...

They're logged on WebMD.