Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Maflynn · Nov 25, 2008, 02:51 PM

Am I missing something here.
msnbc has a story about wikipedia not having all pertinent information about medicine and that could be harmful for people.

I generally don't rely on wikipedia for life and death decisions and not having a complete comprehensive set of information regarding medicine is on that level.

wikipedia is great if I want to know something about when Alexander the Great expanded Greece's territory into India but not if I want cold hard facts about medicine that could save or hurt me.

BasketofPuppies · Nov 25, 2008, 03:10 PM

You know not to look to Wikipedia for life and death decisions, but not everyone does. Wikipedia is seen by many as the be-all-end-all source for information.

It isn't, of course. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry, and as a result, Wikipedia it is full of biased, incomplete, misinformed, uninformed and intentionally inaccurate data. And it isn't always clear that this is the case. Hopefully news articles like that one will make people aware of this.

ghporter · Nov 25, 2008, 04:40 PM

Ummmmmm............... Like you'd go to Wikipedia instead of the manufacturer's site? Name a drug that's in Wikipedia, and I don't think I'd have a problem finding its manufacturer's site for that drug. Are there really people who depend on and trust Wikipedia THAT MUCH? I'm astounded.

::maroma:: · Nov 25, 2008, 05:27 PM

Hmm... I think Darwin would have a chuckle over this one.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 25, 2008, 05:38 PM

I take it none of you are graduates of Hollywood Upstairs Medical School?

Patrick · Nov 25, 2008, 08:16 PM

Ahem, that's Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.

It is entirely possible these articles could be edited by people in the pharmaceutical industry or stockholders who have an interest in not presenting the entire picture, just to sell more product.

Anybody can edit articles anonymously, and may bias an article simply by choosing what information to include, how much of it, what to leave out, etc. Wikipedia's concept of NPOV is a joke; in reality, there is no such thing.

turtle777 · Nov 25, 2008, 08:39 PM

Let's sue the intarweb.

And all ISPs.

And Al Gore.

-t

TETENAL · Nov 25, 2008, 08:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...cal_disclaimer

msnbc didn't discover anything new here. Wikipedia itself always said so.

Chuckit · Nov 25, 2008, 09:04 PM

If you're following your doctor's instructions, this shouldn't be a problem. Unless your doctor depends on Wikipedia for his medical knowledge, I guess, but then you have an entirely different problem.

zro · Nov 25, 2008, 10:57 PM

What happened to asking your pharmacist?

Also, I can't think of anyone who doesn't take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

Maflynn · Nov 26, 2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Let's sue the intarweb.

you can't, its made of tubes

Andrew Stephens · Nov 26, 2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by zro

What happened to asking your pharmacist?

Also, I can't think of anyone who doesn't take Wikipedia with a grain of salt.

It's not that wikipedia is or isn't accurate, it's that is is normally accurate enough. Not for life or death stuff obviously but for school homework it's probably good enough.

ghporter · Nov 26, 2008, 10:10 AM

Wikipedia is GREAT for anatomy questions, chemistry questions, and other science-related issues. But it's also subject to the whims and whimsy of the people who provide the content. I've seen more than one historical entry that was marred by bias, omission, and lack of fact-checking.

It's a great place to start research, but not a great place to base research on.

turtle777 · Nov 26, 2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

you can't, its made of tubes

Best argument evar.

-t