Putting Wikipedia to the test: a case study

From WikiLit
Revision as of 18:12, April 3, 2013 by Ochado (Talk | contribs) (Corrected topics)

Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study
Authors: Michael P. Pender, Kaye Lasserre, Lisa Kruesi, Christopher Del Mar, Satyamurthy Anuradha [edit item]
Citation: The Special Libraries Association Annual Conference  : 1-16. 2008. Seattle, Washington, USA. Special Libraries Association.
Publication type: Conference paper
Peer-reviewed: Unknown
Database(s):
DOI: Define doi.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: No but verified
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study is a publication by Michael P. Pender, Kaye Lasserre, Lisa Kruesi, Christopher Del Mar, Satyamurthy Anuradha.


[edit] Abstract

BACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clinical information resources is an important role of the medical program, we wondered how well Wikipedia, given its popularity with students, compared with long-standing resources.

METHODS: Blinded to the information resources, medical academics compared conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media entries from Wikipedia against those from AccessMedicine, eMedicine and UpToDate, using a scale developed to rank their accuracy, coverage, concision, currency and suitability for medical students. Medical librarians assessed their accessibility and usability.

RESULTS: The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented. Although reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics, and contained some factual errors. Wikipedia was thus judged unsuitable for medical students. AccessMedicine entries were judged the most suitable resources for medical students by two of the reviewers; the third was critical of the lack of emphasis on empirical data.

CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information.

[edit] Research questions

"How well does Wikipedia with long-standing resources for students' use of clinical information?"

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness, Currency, Readability and style, Reliability [edit item]
Domains: Health, Education [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: [edit item]
Research design: Content analysis [edit item]
Data source: [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Wikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information."

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]

Review at http://fnielsen.posterous.com/putting-putting-wikipedia-to-the-test-a-case

Facts about "Putting Wikipedia to the test: a case study"RDF feed
AbstractBACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clBACKGROUND: As guiding students’ use of clinical information resources is an important role of the medical program, we wondered how well Wikipedia, given its popularity with students, compared with long-standing resources.

METHODS: Blinded to the information resources, medical academics compared conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media entries from Wikipedia against those from AccessMedicine, eMedicine and UpToDate, using a scale developed to rank their accuracy, coverage, concision, currency and suitability for medical students. Medical librarians assessed their accessibility and usability.

RESULTS: The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented. Although reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics, and contained some factual errors. Wikipedia was thus judged unsuitable for medical students. AccessMedicine entries were judged the most suitable resources for medical students by two of the reviewers; the third was critical of the lack of emphasis on empirical data.

CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information.
ia to ensure it provides best information.
Added by wikilit teamNo but verified +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
ConclusionWikipedia was found currently unsuitable fWikipedia was found currently unsuitable for medical students in

isolation from other medical information resources. Traditional information resources would be improved by having in-text referencing to strengthen the link to evidence. Perhaps experts should contribute more to Wikipedia to ensure it provides best information.ia to ensure it provides best

information.
Conference locationSeattle, Washington, USA +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Putting%2BWikipedia%2Bto%2Bthe%2BTest%3A%2BA%2BCase%2BStudy%22 +
Has authorMichael P. Pender +, Kaye Lasserre +, Lisa Kruesi +, Christopher Del Mar + and Satyamurthy Anuradha +
Has domainHealth + and Education +
Has topicComprehensiveness +, Currency +, Readability and style + and Reliability +
Pages1-16 +
Peer reviewedUnknown +
Publication typeConference paper +
Published inThe Special Libraries Association Annual Conference +
PublisherSpecial Libraries Association +
Research designContent analysis +
Research questionsHow well does Wikipedia with long-standing resources for students' use of clinical information?
Revid8,966 +
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitlePutting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study
Unit of analysisArticle +
Urlhttp://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:193433 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2008 +