Accuracy of Medical Information on Wikipedia

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

There has been a buzz around a recent study that looked at the accuracy of Wikipedia for medical info (it was bad).

Steve Novella did a good summary of the research here: Medical Information on Wikipedia

Having said that, can anyone find any inaccuracy on this Wikipedia page: :empathy:

Man flu

Non-scientific term purporting a unique male experience of colds and flu

Man flu is a colloquial term referring to the perception that males can experience more severe symptoms when afflicted with the common cold or flu-like illnesses. Originating in Britain, the term has become widespread, and is frequently used in a deprecating manner.^[1] Some scientific inquiries verify the existence of a unique response to the flu on the part of males as a constellation of effects, including the negative correlation between testosterone levels and antibody response,^[2] while others have argued that the term relies on and perpetuates gender stereotypes that invite ridicule towards men who show weakness or seek help for medical conditions.^[3]

1. ^ "Man Flu: A Man's Illness?". ABC News Medical Unit. Retrieved 24 July 2011.
2. ^ "The science behind "man flu"". The British Medical Journal. Retrieved 21 January 2026.
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Read More

 

So true! I tried to correct the article on Dyshidrosis. If you read my stuff on this forum, you will see that dyshidrosis aka pompholyx is a burning interest with me, I research it constantly, I have patients with it, I write a blog on it. (www.dyshidrosis.co.uk) I have a cure for it, when not tinea related (53 patients cured and counting.) but can I correct the Wikipedia page? NO. I complained and found the writer is a software engineer!! and he has had me blocked from editing the page as a vandal. Wikipedia does not want to know.

 

Here is some good commentary on Wikipedia accuracy:
Stop Wikipedia Shaming

 

Unfortunately the health care journals are not much better, with authors reviewing their own papers
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/...m-how-authors-are-reviewing-their-own-papers/

And publication bias
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/13/publication-bias.aspx

Regards

Dave

 

That is becoming a problem.

That is also a problem. What is also a problem is I would trust nothing written by Mercola!
9 Reasons to Completely Ignore Joseph Mercola
Joe Mercola: Quackery pays
Joseph Mercola

 

I just did a quick search for Ben goldacre's video on publication bias and posted the link. I have no idea who Mercola is. I guess I'm just another example of poor researching haha.

 

Steve Novella weigh in:
Wikipedia vs Quackery – Standards vs Chaos

 

Now you have me doubting Science-based medicine website. They are against the registration of Naturopaths. Why? Surely if all Naturopaths were registered, their training would be scrutinized. It could only be a good thing. I am studying Naturopathy. (I was trying to do podiatry via CQU: 2 hours of video streamed lectures, that were interrupted by questions we couldn't hear, and turned off before the lecturer had finished speaking, Versus, 3 hour lectures in live classes of 8 to 12 students plus an hour's tutorial in Naturopathy at ACNT.) It is a much harder course than Podiatry. MUCH! The science is rigorous. The teachers are incredibly enthusiastic, and their breadth of knowledge immense. I found someone's (I do know his name) whole 5 years of med school notes in paper recycle a few months ago. I now know I am studying the same as a medical student, but without surgery but with a far greater knowledge of pharmacy. I have to know chemical pharmacy and plant based pharmacy. I would rather be studying podiatry, as it has status and Naturopathy is for hippies ...right?
I am still curing people of dyshidrosis. Still can't get my Wikipedia article up thanks to the software engineer. Sorry about the rant. I can't help but think Science in Medicine is funded by Big Pharma or their ilk. Here in Australia, some health funds give rebates on Naturopathic treatments. Some body like the Science in Medicine tried to stop it. I subscribe to Mercola, and have for years. I do think he's gone for the dollar and the more he sells, the lower his credibility sinks. Usually you can find references at the end of every article.

 

Controversial Science Topics on Wikipedia

 

Is Wikipedia a Conspiracy? Common Myths Explained