The document discusses the appropriate use of Wikipedia for biomedical research. It provides background on Wikipedia's collaborative editing model and ongoing issues with vandalism and biased content. Two studies are summarized that found Wikipedia articles related to medical topics often lacked clinical detail and unsupported statements. While Wikipedia can be used for initial background information, it is not considered an authoritative or credible sole source for biomedical research due to variability in author expertise, objectivity, accuracy, and currency of information. The document recommends verifying information with credible sources and consulting specialized library resources for clinical questions.

1. Wikipedia and Biomedical Research?

3. About Wikipedia Articles Articles are never finished products and many are incomplete .

7. Wikipedia Disclaimers “… no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer

8. Wikipedia on Researching on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia You must always use additional sources to support your research!

10. Information should always be verified with a credible source. Author Purpose Objectivity Accuracy Currency Links Reliability & Credibility

12. Wikipedia broken down Credibility Factors Wikipedia Author Anonymous, no credentials Purpose Too variable, ideally educational Objectivity Attempts neutrality, but under constant debate Accuracy Cannot guarantee accuracy Reliability & Credibility Too variable Currency Not regularly updated Links Supporting evidence not always present

13. Cytomegalovirus Article in Wikipedia Obvious Errors

14. Vandalized Version Corrected Version

16. Looking for… Drug Information / Interactions Free Free Credible Content Questionable Content MedlinePlus Wikipedia MICROMEDEX Paid by DML Authoritative Authors Credible Content Authoritative Authors Anonymous, Unreliable Authors

17. Clinical Questions Treatment | Diagnosis | Prognosis | Etiology Free Questionable Content Wikipedia Anonymous, Unreliable Authors Free Credible Content Professional Associations Authoritative Authors DML Resource Paid by DML Authoritative Authors Credible Content

18. Patient Information Health Consumer Free Questionable Content Wikipedia Anonymous, Unreliable Authors Free Credible Content Academic Health Centers Authoritative Authors .gov & .org Free Authoritative Authors Credible Content

19. Two Studies about Wikipedia and Biomedical Research

24. Wikipedia in a Health Sciences Context http://jmlacasestudies.blogspot.com/2006/11/wikipedia-in-health-sciences-context.html Results Medical Topic Wikipedia Entry Respiratory failure “… not clinically useful as the information presented is sparse and not clinically detailed.” Acinetobacter “… no external reference is provided for independent verification. One section of the entry is marked as needing considerable re-write.” Chronic Liver Failure “ It clearly lacks the needed information in context to the clinical question.”