Comments on: Medicine in Wikipedia: Reliable Information?

By: 2011 Autumn Semester Week 6: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First University Course About Medicine and Web 2.0

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 10:14:03 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: s'wiadectwa energetyczne

s'wiadectwa energetyczne — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:54:34 +0000

Usually We donít comment on you but I wanted to inform you I’ve positioned a hyperlink for your page on my small weblog. I was convinced that you may could benefit from my personal visitors since we now have fairly similar pages.

By: 2011 Spring Semester Week 5: Wikipedias and Medical Wikis « The First University Course About Medicine and Web 2.0

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:23:54 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: Internet in Medicine University Course: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « ScienceRoll

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:40:28 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: 2010 Autumn Semester Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First University Course About Medicine and Web 2.0

Sun, 17 Oct 2010 09:07:07 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: Internet in Medicine Course Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « ScienceRoll

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:54:06 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: 2010 Spring Semester Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First University Course About Medicine and Web 2.0

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:10:35 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: Semester 3 Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First University Course About Medicine and Web 2.0

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:32:24 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: Radiopaedia: Section Editors Needed « ScienceRoll

Radiopaedia: Section Editors Needed « ScienceRoll — Mon, 11 May 2009 04:21:04 +0000

[...] Medicine in Wikipedia: Reliable Information? [...]

By: Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter? « ScienceRoll

Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter? « ScienceRoll — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:52:02 +0000

[...] Medicine in Wikipedia: Reliable Information? [...]

By: Dr.Neelesh Bhandari

Dr.Neelesh Bhandari — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:22:19 +0000

Its always a pleasure to read Berci.
This serves as an impetus to join some wiki projects. Citizendium, here i come

By: Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First Medicine 2.0 Course

Week 4: Wikipedia and Medical Wikis « The First Medicine 2.0 Course — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:28:48 +0000

[...] Encyclopaedia Britannica vs Wikipedia; my analysis [...]

By: Dangers of Web 2.0: In Medicine « ScienceRoll

Dangers of Web 2.0: In Medicine « ScienceRoll — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:04:07 +0000

[...] our articles. We only focus on inserting proper peer-reviewed references into our medical articles. In this post, I mentioned plenty of projects and tools with which we fight against false medical information in [...]

By: Healthocrates: building a medical library « ScienceRoll

Healthocrates: building a medical library « ScienceRoll — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:34:08 +0000

[...] Medicine in Wikipedia: Reliable Information? [...]

By: Wikipedia Scandal: Secret Mailing List « ScienceRoll

Wikipedia Scandal: Secret Mailing List « ScienceRoll — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:39:35 +0000

[...] Medicine in Wikipedia: Reliable Information? [...]

By: Bertalan Meskó

Bertalan Meskó — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:39:54 +0000

I’ve been working in Wikipedia for nearly 2 years now, but I have never experienced that hierarchy or the power of cliques. There are so many possibilities to make a complaint when you have a problem.

Anyway, my problem is that if we create newer and newer encyclopaedias, it’s getting more and more complicated to improve them. While you have only one, we could all focus on that.

If the professional editors of Citizendum and the masses of Wikipedia could work somehow together, for me, that would be a perfect solution.

Just an idea: editor-in-chief for each section while anybody can edit? What do you think?

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:58:10 +0000

So are we–we are convinced of the power of the masses. That’s why most of our “Citizens” are not expert editors, but authors. But Wikipedia does not empower the masses very well; to do that, you need a rule of law in an online constitutional democracy. Instead, Wikipedia empowers cliques, and an arcane hierarchy that was already developing when I left in 2002, and which has become Kafkaesque in the intervening years. Most Wikipedians are smart, decent, well-meaning people, and good writers. It’s the others who have ruined things.

By: Bertalan Meskó

Bertalan Meskó — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:03:56 +0000

I’m on your side, Larry! Just as a Wikipedian, I know the good parts of Wikipedia and I’m realy convinced by the power of masses.

By: Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:03:45 +0000

You’re actually mistaken; Health Sciences is one of CZ’s biggest, most active workgroups, and getting doctors and others interested in CZ has not been difficult at all. And that’s precisely because articles can be approved. Individual edits, of course, don’t have to be approved. Once you’ve got an account, you’ll see that it’s just as much (if not more) of a robust wiki as Wikipedia.

We don’t want to compete with Wikipedia for its personnel; we have not tried to “win over” current Wikipedians. That really wouldn’t be fair play, I think. If they want to join us, though, of course, they’re more than welcome.

By: Bertalan Meskó

Bertalan Meskó — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:43:22 +0000

Great to see you here, Larry!

It’s hard to convince health professionals to edit Citizendium while their edits should be approved by others. Anyway, you should contact the medical editors of Wikipedia. We have a pretty big medical community.

I wish you the best to create a comprehensive medical database in Citizendium!

Berci Meskó