Independent... It may seem obvious but scientists are warning people to avoid using Wikipedia for medical advice after errors were found in nine out of 10 articles on serious conditions. A US study compared Wikipedia articles with peer-reviewed medical information on lung cancer, depression, diabetes, coronary heart disease and other illnesses.
The report, published in the The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, concluded that patients were putting themselves at risk by using the website as an alternative to GP consultations and even medical students were being misled.
Wikipedia is the most popular site for general reference on the internet and contained more than 31 million articles in 285 languages in March, it said.
Although widespread inaccuracies, either accidental or deliberate, are well-known, it has become a popular source of healthcare information, with between 47 and 70 per cent of physicians and medical students admitting to using it as a reference.
Researchers suspected the actual figure may be higher because people surveyed were reluctant to admit using the site and said it “certainly has an influence” on medical decision-making.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales 'very, very strongly condemns such editing, and this is no exception' Projects are continuing to improve the accuracy of health articles. The lead author of the report, Robert Hasty, from Campbell University’s Jerry M. Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine, said the best resource when looking for a diagnosis is to speak to a GP.
He added: “While Wikipedia is a convenient tool for conducting research, from a public health standpoint patients should not use it as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals.”
Dr Hasty encouraged doctors to familiarise themselves with editing on Wikipedia and join together to improve content.
Stevie Benton, from the website's British arm Wikimedia UK, said there are a number of initiatives to improve accuracy in articles, including WikiProject Medicine.
The project brings experts together to identify articles needing improvements and collaborate to make them more accurate with credible sources.
He added: "It is crucial that anybody with concerns over their health contacts their GP as a first point of call. Wikipedia, like any encyclopaedia, should not take the place of a qualified medical practitioner.”
Wikimedia UK is working with Cancer Research UK on a review of cancer-related articles.
The 10 pages studied by researchers were selected as the most costly conditions in terms of public and private expenditure in the US.
A page on concussions was the only one found to be without “many errors”, some of which were deemed significant.
Poster Comment:
Problem likely stems from Wiki authors being unfamiliar with quackspeak in trying to present concepts in plain English.