Wikipedia Dicey as Medical Info Source
Researchers who compared peer-reviewed articles to the Wikipedia pages for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S. discovered incorrect information on nine out of 10 pages. Dina Fine Maron reports
By Dina Fine Maron
SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Health
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Feeling a bit sick? Maybe you checked your symptoms on Wikipedia before seeing a doctor. And maybe your doctor checked Wikipedia before seeing you. Up to 70 percent of physicians and medical students admit to using Wikipedia as a reference, too.
But Wikipedia can be shockingly wrong. Researchers who compared peer-reviewed articles to the Wikipedia pages for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S.—including heart disease, back pain and osteoarthritis—discovered incorrect information on nine out of 10 pages. Only information on concussions appeared to be accurate. The study is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. [RT Hasty et al, Wikipedia vs peer-reviewed medical literature for information about the 10 most costly medical conditions]
Earlier research suggested that Wikipedia is roughly comparable to peer-reviewed sources. A study in the journal Nature in 2005 found Wikipedia was about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, even about science topics. But that analysis looked only at 42 entries among the millions on Wikipedia. Since then the site has exploded, now including tens of millions of entries. The new results suggest we should all take online info with a grain of salt.
—Dina Fine Maron
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
