What I wanted to do in this blog was summarise an article I read in a journal recently. It’s the sort of journal the general public don’t get access to and so most people don’t get the information. The study tried to compare the “scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia” with the information on a well established, reputable, edited, objective website (The Medscape Drug Reference Database).

It’s good to see someone doing this study. These days it’s extremely common for people to research their condition on the internet. There’s a real plethora of information, but how do you know if you can trust it? It’s a fantastic resource, because we can learn so much, but there can be problems if the information is inaccurate.

You might start by entering your symptoms and try to come up with a diagnosis. Then, once you think you have figured out what you’ve got wrong with you, you might look up what you should do about it. Should you go see someone about it, and if so, who? Are there stretches or other exercises you can do to help relieve your pain? Are there any medications or supplements that might help? At any of these stages mistakes can be made, and usually it’s not a big deal, but if you’re going to start taking advice on medications you would probably want to be pretty sure that you could trust that advice.

Why does it matter so much if Wikipedia’s information is accurate? Well, its one of the top listings you will come up with anytime you search something. So it’s probably something you will end up reading, and maybe something you will use to make a decision. And the name Wikipedia, because of the ‘pedia’ bit, sounds authoritative, almost like it’s an encyclopaedia. But it isn’t.

As you would probably all be aware, pretty much anyone can get on Wikipedia and edit it, so obviously one should be particularly wary with relying too heavily on anything it says. And that’s exactly what this study showed – the authors concluded that “Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission than the comparator database”. And weren’t the authors just the masters of understatement: “Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0%”. POORLY?!?! Yes, you could say that.

Most of you reading this would never think of taking medications based purely on some website’s recommendation (and most meds you can’t even obtain without a prescription), but some of you out there would take it on, you know you would, so bear in mind that there are good sites whose information you can trust, and according to the authors of this paper, Wikipedia is not at the top of the list.