Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • AAP Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Policy
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effect on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Insights
  • AAP Career Center
  • Subscribe
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • AAP Policy
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • Policy
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effect on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Insights
  • AAP Career Center
  • Subscribe

Journals Blog

  • Visit AAP News on Facebook
  • Follow AAP News on Twitter

Is Wikipedia a High Quality Evidence-Based Resource?

Dr Bud Wiedermann, MD,MA, Evidence eMended Editor, Grand Rounds
August 30, 2016

The cop-out answer to that question is "sometimes." Wikipedia is a nice resource, but beware, the hidden dangers of unreliability are likely on the upswing.

Pinsker J. The covert world of people trying to edit Wikipedia - for pay. The Atlantic, August 11, 2015. Accessed from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/.

I came across the above article in the Atlantic about a year ago, and it's taken me all this time to come up with an opening to include it in my blog. Folks who read Evidence eMended regularly know that I will frequently put in a link to Wikipedia as a way to give interested readers an avenue to more detailed explanations. Why would someone who preaches the value of evidence-based medicine also refer to a web site that anyone (and it really is anyone) can edit?

Pinsker's essay really caught my eye; he very convincingly described instances where hired guns attempted to alter medical content in Wikipedia to present products in a more favorable light. The primary example he used involved the orthopedic procedures of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, likely equivalent to placebo in efficacy for treatment of vertebral compression fractures associated with osteoporosis according to the best data available. In 2013, the medical editor for this Wikipedia page noticed that someone had wanted to edit the comment that the procedures' effectiveness are "controversial," replacing that word with the phrase "well documented and studied." That's a big change in the meaning of the sentence.

Long story short, some dogged detective work by the editor revealed that the source of the edit was an employee of an orthopedic hardware company that sells devices used for kyphoplasties. This employee subsequently complained to the editor that the Wikipedia posting was "scaring prospective patients and insurance companies;" although not explicitly stated by the employee, of course this bad publicity jeopardizes the company's profit margin.

Wikipedia has sought to prevent such hired gun tactics by changing its terms of use to discourage edits by individuals with serious conflict of interest, but the extent to which this has decreased the practice is unknown. My own (previously unwritten) policy in use of Wikipedia in Evidence eMended is that, for medical content, I'll check out the veracity of the post on at least one other high-quality web site, such as a professional society practice guideline or via original articles in the scientific literature.

In the past few weeks, I deliberately tried to use Wikipedia a bit more often than I usually do, so I'd have some illustrations for this posting.

For example, on August 9 I linked to a page about comparative effectiveness research. That's a topic I try to follow fairly closely, so it didn't require any extra PubMed searching. I thought the Wikipedia post was concise, accurate, and didn't require a doctorate in statistics to understand the main points. On August 16 I linked to Wikipedia's take on fee-for-service pricing, but this time I did check with a few other sources for accuracy. Again, the page was concise and didn't require an MBA to understand.

My favorite recent Wikipedia link, however, was on July 26. This illustrates my other use of Wikipedia, for the multitude of nonscientific, opinion discussions of pop culture. This one in particular was to see if anyone actually pays attention to the phrases I use (in this case, plagiarize) from popular culture. I'm sure all the Beach Boys aficionados got the reference without my Wikipedia link. Sometimes guys just wanna have fun while they blog.

So, use Wikipedia if you want, but, like any other information source, be sure to verify the accuracy if the content is important to you. That's a key principle of evidence-based medicine.

Further Reading
  • Understanding Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews
  • PICO Questions: What Are They and Why Bother?
  • Grand Rounds on Facebook
  • AAP Journals on Twitter
Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Pediatrics

Advertising Disclaimer »

Download PDF
Share
Is Wikipedia a High Quality Evidence-Based Resource?
Dr Bud Wiedermann, MD,MA
August 30, 2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email Blog Post

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is Wikipedia a High Quality Evidence-Based Resource?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Digital Edition Current Issue
  • Latest Daily News
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Columns
  • Advertising
  • Subscribe to AAP News Magazine
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
  • 2021 AAP Journals Catalog
  • Pediatrics
  • Pediatrics in Review
  • Hospital Pediatrics
  • NeoReviews
  • AAP Grand Rounds
  • AAP Career Center
  • shopAAP
  • AAP.org
  • AAP News
  • Visit AAP News on Facebook
  • Follow AAP News on Twitter
American Academy of Pediatrics

© 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics