tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11326364.post2716048747672987243..comments2024-03-12T05:05:15.167-04:00Comments on <center>CasesBlog - Medical and Health Blog</center>: Wikipedia used by 70% of junior physicians, dominates search results for health queriesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11326364.post-1020699359646427422009-07-09T16:03:21.233-04:002009-07-09T16:03:21.233-04:00"last year I distinctly recall a transitional..."last year I distinctly recall a transitional student in surgery using wikipedia to find out if he/she should use a cephalosporin or a tetracycline for gram negative coverage. I vehemently disagree with this "point-of-care" usage."<br /><br />Exactly. Wikipedia can (and is) edited by anybody. No patient care decisions should be based on a text that could have been changed an hour ago by a prankster.Clinical Cases and Images - Bloghttp://casesblog.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11326364.post-51828721905024535402009-07-09T15:55:53.911-04:002009-07-09T15:55:53.911-04:00Another thing to consider... primary reading and r...Another thing to consider... primary reading and research by junior physicians may involve textbooks and journal articles. This takes up a significant amount of time to log in through the library website and enter very specific search queries.<br /><br />Wikipedia and google(though not really Web 2.0) are fast and as stated earlier, "good enough" to jog your memory about something. I think of it as a reminder or a refresher. It is something to confirm what you already know.<br /><br />However, last year I distinctly recall a transitional student in surgery using wikipedia to find out if he/she should use a cephalosporin or a tetracycline for gram negative coverage. I vehemently disagree with this "point-of-care" usage.Clintonhttp://notmysecondopinion.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11326364.post-78264966181895185032009-07-09T09:44:09.359-04:002009-07-09T09:44:09.359-04:00Thank you for your comment.
"Question is why...Thank you for your comment.<br /><br />"Question is why? students use wikipedia. I presume it is because the information is generally in one place, rapidly searchable, comprehensive and "good enough."<br /><br />Yes, this is the general perception. Also, Wikipedia is free. If UpToDate were free, not many med student would go to Wikipedia... :)<br /><br />"Nice thing about wikis, if you don't like what's out there, you can be like @berci, and change it."<br /><br />This is very time consuming and most doctors (at least those in the U.S.) are already very busy.Clinical Cases and Images - Bloghttp://casesblog.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11326364.post-21848316829842440942009-07-09T09:38:48.292-04:002009-07-09T09:38:48.292-04:00I do think a wikihuman or similar could have a cha...I do think a wikihuman or similar could have a chance because the user interface for current wikis is so dull. So much more could be done. Also, all these collaborative communities, like those in the real world, are dependent on the rules of the bodies that create them. What rules would you enforce for the ideal medical wiki or wiki human? What would be the best interface for education and/or reference? How could a wiki mimic how good docs THINK about medicine?<br /><br />Question is why? students use wikipedia. I presume it is because the information is generally in one place, rapidly searchable, comprehensive and "good enough." <br /><br />The authoritative bodies, should get involved to create something similar, but it would be hard, if not impossible, to organize. To many competing agendas, and wikis already have that component.<br /><br />Nice thing about wikis, if you don't like what's out there, you can be like @berci, and change it. You likely won't change users efficient and "good enough" habits for using the precious little time they have to get information to make a decision.Leonard Kishhttp://www.leonardkish.comnoreply@blogger.com