Health information on Wikipedia
[3] Across Wikipedia encyclopedias in all languages there were 155,000 health articles using 950,000 citations to sources and which collectively received 4.8 billion pageviews in 2013.
[4] A 2024 quantitative content analysis determined that "a sample of popular Wikipedia health-related articles for both sexes had comparable quality.
[4] A 2007 study examined a sample of Wikipedia pages about the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, and found that 85.7% of them were appropriate for patients and that these articles had "a remarkably high level of internal validity".
[8] However, the same study also raised concerns about Wikipedia's completeness, noting that only 62.9% of the articles examined were free of "critical omissions".
[9] A 2010 study found that Wikipedia's article on osteosarcoma was of decent quality, but that the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s page was better.
"[17][18] Following this paper, many other media sources reported that readers should not trust Wikipedia for medical information.
[26] A 2015 study comparing the coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy on several websites found that Wikipedia's articles were broadly pro-vaccine.
The study attributed this pro-vaccine stance to "this highly controversial topic attracting committed editors who strictly enforce the requirements for academic references.
"[27] A 2016 study found that drug information on Wikipedia was less accurate and complete than that on the medical reference site Micromedex.
[33] The readability of Wikipedia's articles on epilepsy was evaluated and found to be low, indicating that they were difficult to read.
[35] Another 2015 study, this one authored by Samy Azer, reported that Wikipedia should not be used to learn about concepts related to pulmonology students.
[36] Another 2015 study by Azer found that Wikipedia entries about cardiovascular diseases were "not aimed at a medical audience" and were mainly inaccurate due to errors of omission.
[43] People who promote alternative medicine have complained that Wikipedia negatively portrays holistic health treatments including energy medicine, Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique.
[47] The majority of people in the United States use the internet as a source of health information.
[51] According to the same report, 50% of U.S. physicians that go online for professional purposes are using Wikipedia to access information.
[53] A 2015 study compared the popularity of Wikipedia's articles on ten of the most common neurological disorders over a 90-day period from April 2014 to July 2014; it found that there was no relationship between the incidence or prevalence of a neurological disorder and the number of page views it received.
[57] In 2013, UCSF School of Medicine began to offer fourth-year medical students a month-long elective centered around improving Wikipedia's health-related articles.
The study found no correlation between the type of resource used and students' performance on the NBME surgery subject exam.
[66] A 2014 study of 259 health professionals in Spain found that while 53% of them used the Spanish Wikipedia to look up medical information during work, only 3% of them considered it reliable and only 16% recommended it to their patients.
[3] The study also found that the "core editor community", who actively monitor and edit most health-related articles on the English-language Wikipedia, numbered around 300 people.
[72] The study found that people who contribute on these topics do so for a variety of reasons, including a desire to better learn the subjects themselves, and a sense of both responsibility and enjoyment in improving others' access to health information.
[78] In 2011, it was reported that Cancer Research UK had started a program whereby some of its staff would edit Wikipedia's cancer-related articles.
The University of California, San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Wikipedia.
