Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia
Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia
The experience has made me feel better disposed towards Wikipedia. I agree with the editorial in the BMJ last year, proposing that 'Everyone should have research practices at least as good as the Wikipedians'. I would go further. I think that editing Wikipedia could be a useful learning exercise for medical students and junior doctors. It could help them understand how knowledge is created, and how consensus is established. It would improve their ability to spot questionable information, not just on Wikipedia itself, but more widely. It might even be worthwhile to prescribe this for them as an exercise in critical appraisal. For doctors who have never written academic articles, or succeeded in publishing any, Wikipedia would be an excellent laboratory for practising the art of writing, in short bursts, with fairly little risk, and getting an immediate response.
There is an even better reason to write for Wikipedia. Most people believe what it says, whether or not they should. Words carry magical power. Unless people happen to know evidence to the contrary, they will assume that what they read is correct. If you read that Albert Einstein's middle name was Franz, it will stay in your mind, even though it is untrue. In due course you may well pass it on, saying "I'm sure I read it somewhere". Out of the 8000 people who consult Wikipedia every second, the vast majority are unlikely to question what they read, or have the time or motivation to check it. They too will pass on what they remember. By setting the facts straight on Wikipedia, you will do everyone a service.
Learning Exercise
The experience has made me feel better disposed towards Wikipedia. I agree with the editorial in the BMJ last year, proposing that 'Everyone should have research practices at least as good as the Wikipedians'. I would go further. I think that editing Wikipedia could be a useful learning exercise for medical students and junior doctors. It could help them understand how knowledge is created, and how consensus is established. It would improve their ability to spot questionable information, not just on Wikipedia itself, but more widely. It might even be worthwhile to prescribe this for them as an exercise in critical appraisal. For doctors who have never written academic articles, or succeeded in publishing any, Wikipedia would be an excellent laboratory for practising the art of writing, in short bursts, with fairly little risk, and getting an immediate response.
There is an even better reason to write for Wikipedia. Most people believe what it says, whether or not they should. Words carry magical power. Unless people happen to know evidence to the contrary, they will assume that what they read is correct. If you read that Albert Einstein's middle name was Franz, it will stay in your mind, even though it is untrue. In due course you may well pass it on, saying "I'm sure I read it somewhere". Out of the 8000 people who consult Wikipedia every second, the vast majority are unlikely to question what they read, or have the time or motivation to check it. They too will pass on what they remember. By setting the facts straight on Wikipedia, you will do everyone a service.
