The Signpost

In the media

Reliable or not, doctors use Wikipedia

The month of May saw significant coverage concerning the reliability of Wikipedia's medical articles. A study entitled Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions (available here on the National Institute for Health's website) concluded that nine out of the ten Wikipedia articles on the costliest medical conditions have factual errors. Wikipedia's medical editors vehemently disagree. MastCell wrote: "I don't doubt that we need to improve the accuracy of our medical articles, but I agree with James that this particular study is utterly meaningless and isn't worth the electrons it's printed on."

Other editors questioned the neutrality of the The Journal of the American Osteopathy Association, with one editor asserting they have a vested interest in "trashing" Wikipedia. The Guardian noted the study, and seemed to support its findings:


Regardless of its reliability, Men's Health reported that a majority of doctors use Wikipedia at least occasionally, and suggested the websites of the Center for Disease Control and the United States Department of Health and Human Services as alternative sources.

In brief


















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-06-04/In_the_media