Wikipedia - bastion of Truth? Nope - 90% wrong on medical issues. What else can we find out?

Hi ATS,

Really quick thread for once, regarding the quest for Truth, and specifically, can we 'fact check' the fact checkers, by systematically dismantling the foundations on which they base their edicts?? We certainly can, at least in a percentage of cases.

This proposal is based upon the fact that in a recent meta analysis (the best kind of study, which studies studies..) Wikipedia has been found to be INCORRECT, on 90% of health-related issues. Does that surprise us? No, not really. I think most people know that Wikipedia is largely a controlled environment these days. If indeed, it was ever a free environment, which perhaps it is unlikely to have been at any point in time.

There are articles discussing this 'bombshell-that's-not-a-bombshell' on Time Magazine site, on the Times Newspaper site, and various other sites, many of which are behing a paywall (which is weird, as I was unable to access my 'free trial articles' on any of those sites, if I was selecting the Wikipedia article. Perhaps that means nothing, but I wouldn't put it past such publications to be deliberately glossing over a story they can't NOT write up, where they would, however, like to minimise the public's exposure to the information.

Here's a brief excerpt from Time Magazine:

A new study has found that Wikipedia entries on the costliest medical conditions contradicted the latest medical research 90% of the time.

A team of U.S. scientists said they found “many errors” in Wikipedia articles concerning the 10 costliest medical conditions. The researchers cross-checked Wikipedia entries on coronary disease, lung cancer, hypertension and back pain, among other ailments, against the latest research from peer-reviewed journals.

Nine out of 10 entries analyzed on the crowd-sourced encyclopedia contained assertions that were contradicted by the peer-reviewed sources. Only the entry on concussions escaped the review error free. The authors noted that the article appeared to have contributors with a greater degree of expertise, mimicking the peer-reviewed process.

“Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care,” wrote the study’s authors in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

The authors laid particular stress on medical professionals; a recent study found that 50 percent of physicians admitted using Wikipedia as a reference source.

Time Magazine - Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says

And here's the full story from the Daily Mail:

Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts

* Problem caused by allowing ordinary users to create, delete and edit pages
* Drug companies have been accused of deleting data about side effects
* Researchers from Campbell University, US, said medical staff also use site

When you’re feeling under the weather, it’s only natural to want to find out what is wrong with you...fast.
But turning to the internet to determine the cause of your symptoms can be a bad idea, according to a study by doctors.
It found that nine in ten Wikipedia entries on common medical conditions contained factual errors.

This is because, unlike a traditional encyclopedia, the hugely popular website lets ordinary users create, delete and edit entries – increasing the risk of mistakes. Lead author Robert Hasty of Campbell University in the US warned: ‘Researchers should not use [Wikipedia] as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals. 'The best resource when looking for a diagnosis is to speak with your physician, who can take into account your medical history and other factors to determine the best course of treatment.’

Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has become the most popular general reference site on the internet. It contains more than 31million entries in 285 languages. At least 20,000 are health-related.

The team, who looked at information on conditions such as diabetes, lung cancer and back pain, said: ‘Wikipedia’s prominence has been made possible by its fundamental design as a collaborative database. ‘However, it is this very feature that has raised concern in the medical community regarding the reliability of the information it contains.’ Errors on Wikipedia included an entry which stated that to correctly diagnose high blood pressure, high readings must be obtained on three separate occasions. The researchers said that is not true and could lead to a dangerous delay in treatment. Another entry said antidepressants were not beneficial for children. But according to the researchers, this is incorrect and could prevent parents from allowing their children to be treated with medication.

Drug companies have also been accused of editing Wikipedia to remove references to harmful side effects.In 2009, employees at AstraZeneca allegedly deleted a sentence claiming that a treatment for manic depression made teenagers ‘more likely to think about harming or killing themselves.’ Worryingly, the researchers said that even medical staff turn to the site from time to time.

Previous studies have shown up to 70 per cent of doctors and students of medicine admit using it as a reference. The researchers wrote: ‘Physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.’ Dr Hasty said while many of the mistakes were relatively minor, some ‘could have clinical implications’. He urged fellow doctors to get involved in editing Wikipedia entries to improve their accuracy.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, backs up surveys showing as many as a quarter of women have misdiagnosed themselves on Google. A survey of 1,000 women in 2012 found they often wrongly diagnosed themselves as having breast cancer, thrush, diabetes, high blood pressure and asthma.

Do NOT try to diagnose yourself on Wikipedia! 90% of its medical entries are inaccurate, say experts

Firstly - 'Dr Hasty', in a story about doctors relying on Wikipedia for references? Yeah right.

But aside from this silliness from the stalwart edifice of journalism we know & love as the Daily Mail, what else could be discovered about Wikipedia which is plain wrong? Probably a great deal. I don't doubt we could learn a lot from tapping real experts to help us untangle the mess that is their specialist subject on the Big W. ATS frowns on the use of Wikipedia as a reference, so it's pretty horrifying to learn that it's being used by medical doctors for that purpose.

Of course, the implications for those pesky 'fact checking' sites is pretty huge, because they typically open their argument with a quote from Wikipedia, simply because it's an environment the information warfare agencies can control & massage as often as they need to. And of course, any reputable scientist of note who decides to come down heavy on the disinformation surrounding the NWO COVID-19 racket will fall foul of the Wikipedia editors hatchet job as the first of many hatchet jobs!

It's funny how an internet article tells you that you can't believe everything you see on the internet. The next statement is true, but the previous statement is false.

Same troll farms running most of the internet. Mostly, Bio-Med Industrial Complex funded, largely incel AGP pedos.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's funny how an internet article tells you that you can't believe everything you see on the internet. The next statement is true, but the previous statement is false.

It was either Ben Franklin or Abraham Lincoln said that. I know, 'cause I saw it on the internet.

There's only one example in the second link. No examples in the first link. And the link the to actual study is dead.

It would be sensible to read the study.

What if 99% of these errors were spelling mistakes or similar and the report is just being used as sensationalist crap to push a story for hits and clicks? The article even states that the mistakes were relatively minor.

But if course, this is the NEW ATS where we don't GAF about validating and research.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Yeah ,,, I personally boycott Wikipedia.

It is propaganda for whoever runs this place / world, and nothing further.

Truth? Hah. There is some, but it is manipulated, and it is generally twisted -- even when present.

Propaganda. Almost completely.