Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Medical Articles Found To Have High Error Rate
Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "A group of researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association found that 90% of the Wikipedia articles they sampled contained errors regarding common medical conditions. Unsurprisingly, they recommend your General Practitioner as a more reliable source, while noting, '47% to 70% of physicians and medical students admitting to using [Wikipedia] as a reference.' At issue in the study is the small sample size the researchers used: 10 medical conditions. There are also ongoing efforts to improve the quality of Wikipedia's articles. According to a Wikipedia spokesman, '... especially in relation to health and medicine.' The BBC has more approachable coverage."
A /. article mentions that Wikipedia has an error in 90% of medical articles /. itself has an error in x% of news items posted here /. has a 0% error rate...
Now, keep in mind that
So, the actual error rate of Wikipedia medical articles should be (1-x/100)*90 % shouldnt it?
Assuming it is actually 90% would lead to the conclusion that
Oh, you can accept wisdom from osteopaths. First, you have to take a single drop and put it in a vat of thousands of gallons of water. Then you distill that until one drop is left. Put that drop in a second vat of thousands of gallons of water, take one drop of the result, and then go to the NIH and get them to fund a study. Complete the study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a real journal. Then you'll have accepted wisdom from osteopaths. Trust me, it's the homeopathic way.
You took the wrong path there. Turn around before you get hurt.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
We're talking about osteopaths, they wouldn't know their arse from their elbows...