Great points, Ab! I’ve always pushed the idea that information on a wiki can be useful and of good quality. I think wikis are so new in the medical profession; they will find their way eventually. It’s nice to see more of a movement towards open access and open sharing of knowledge in that profession (or in any profession). And yes, doctors and librarians do make an excellent pair; we’re both professions that require equal amounts of curiosity and skepticism.

Librarians and physicians make a wicked combination, eh Meredith?!

I totally agree with you that all information needs to be evidence based and that is exactly what we will require if content is added to our Wiki. There is always some “Art” to medicine but anecdotal information published not based on scientific literature will not be allowed. The four main editors have all been trained for 12 years including medical school and our medical knowledge extends beyond Cardiology. We all have published articles in peer reviewed journals and we all practice evidence based medicine. We have spent a lot of time reading and reviewing the literature and all of us have reviewed articles for scientific publications.

I think as you see more medical wikis started all will have different “personalities” based on what their editors allow to be published. I can assure that we will only allow evidence based medical information to be published and we will be vigilant in deleting inaccurate information. I feel that larger non-medical Wikis such as Wikipedia will have a difficult time coming up with a consensus opinion regarding what is allowed or not allowed on the wiki.

Concerning the topic of “credentialing” authors which it sounds like Pubdrug is requiring. We have not YET had problems with non-qualified authors. Our only problem has been with some vandalism which was not malicious and done to prove that wikis can be tampered with, but honestly it has not been an issue. The reason we are not locking it down is that I feel that by initially restricting users or creating obstacles we will not build a community. The wiki technology is well known but in the medical community we have lagged decades behind in our use of Information Technology and the use of wikis or even blogs is foreign. I am sure you have come across the article on the accuracy of info as the number of edits increase on Wikipedia ( http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070226/full/070226-6.html). I can promise you that all of us are primarily physicians and all believe “First Do No Harm”. If information was published that was not accurate on our wiki I would shut it down.

Concerning paying for Up to Date. Wikis are global. A lot of our hits come from outside the United States where they do not have access to Up to Date. Imagine a physician practicing medicine in rural America or in a village in Africa. With a laptop and an internet acess you have Up to Date information. What a great use of Information Technology at No cost.

Medical Wikis are a powerful tool and if used correctly can improve the quality of care in a community but if abused as both you and David have pointed out can be dangerous.

I assure you that we will take advice and criticism from anyone on how to improve this technology as it grows.

Thanks for highlighting the topic.
Ken Civello