June 10, 2014

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

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American