Story

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists

Preview

An Encyclopedia Is Not A Medical Journal. Film at 11. (Score: 4, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-29 16:26 (#1YP)

I read through most of that. They compare WP summaries with peer reviewed scientific journals, and find discrepancies.

What if they had compared against a print encyclopedia? Against a batch of NY Times articles? Against a stack of Dr. Oz books and videos? How would these other popular layperson resources stand up to this same scrutiny?

This seems like a stretch for attention on someone's part (the study authors or the subsequent publicizers).

Frankly I think Wikipedia does a great job of explaining most things, and completely unlike the other popular resources available to people (including most medical sites) WP cites the heck out of its claims right in the article.

Re: An Encyclopedia Is Not A Medical Journal. Film at 11. (Score: 3, Insightful)

by spacebar@pipedot.org on 2014-05-29 17:14 (#1YQ)

Agreed. Not to mention they have one of the most anal groups of editors (the users...) of any website. While not all of these people are qualified, it seems like the ones who are are the most whiny--which is great.

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2014-05-29 18:26 Insightful +1 kerrany@pipedot.org
2014-05-30 14:47 Interesting +1 rocks@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk