Wikipedia

The most recent hat tip for alerting me that one of my articles was published goes to @redheadedpharm, who also has one of the most thoughtful pharmacist authored blogs out there IMHO. I should note that by drawing my attention to the article, TRP does not endorse the contents nor see eye-to-eye with me regarding pharmacists, pharmacy, or social media. And that's ok. I have to think no rational person just wants an echo chamber. In fact, I may revisit the whole 'landscape of pharmacist blogs' in a future post if I can figure out a way to do so that doesn't involve generating the hate e-mail and widespread snark that the AJHP article did.*

The verdict is in. The quality of health information in Wikipedia is inadequate as a sole source for pharmacists [1], medical students [2], dentists [3], and patients [4]. However, it is good enough for use by nursing students [5]…well, sort of.

Determinations about adequacy are based on studies which evaluated the freely editable, online encyclopedia based on characteristics such as reliability, scope, and accuracy. A clear consensus has emerged from that body of literature collectively rendering a decision that Wikipedia is not a suitable resource for high level consultation or citation. The use (and citation in particular) of Wikipedia by healthcare students and professionals seems to irk practitioners and educators moreso when there are high quality alternatives, suggesting the perception that citing Wikipedia in those cases simply reflects a lack of awareness and laziness. To be fair, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has been unwavering in his stance that no encyclopedia should be used as a reference source for college level work or above.