Medical dictionary wiki

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Note: This idea, due to its legal nature, is very, very likely to cause arguments and disputes. Please read the entire proposal before commenting on it, so you understand the measures that can be taken to ensure that this is a safe project.

This is a recent proposal. If you feel anything is missing from the text, you have a question, or you'd like to bring something up, please bring it up on the talk page. This has also been discussed on the mailing list.

Update: A test wiki has been established for developing the typical idea of an article, as well as our policies and self-identity.

The eventual goal of the Wikimedia Foundation is to provide neutral and factually accurate information for the entire world for free. Part of that goal should include the ability to treat illnesses and provide medical assistance in areas where medical professionals aren't widely available. With the assistance of legitimate medical resources, as well as the cooperation of Wikimedia, developers, administrators, and the people worldwide, the goal will be reached. First, we must start a wiki.

For that purpose, a medical dictionary wiki (name pending) has been proposed to accomodate the development of a copyleft medical resource. As well as information about the illness in question, articles on the medical dictionary wiki would contain information on how to treat/cure the illness and who/where in particular to go for information. While this wiki would get into specifics, each reader is reminded that the website is for background information. It would not be a replacement for a medical professional; not even WebMD can make this claim.

A highly controversial aspect of this proposal is the legality of offering such information; by law, only medicine doctors may give medical advice. However, a medical dictionary wiki would not be giving medical advice per se — it would be retelling medical advice from legitimate sources, including scientific journals and critically acclaimed medical references on the Internet. Additionally, a mechanism may be set up to accomodate tagging people as medical professionals via a verification process through the post, allowing original research under the condition that the author indeed knows and understands the subject. It may be years before such a classification network is established, but the idea is that we are to use references with trusted veracity.

With veracity in mind, a number of precautions would have to be taken to ensure that bad information doesn't leak into the open. Remember, for every piece of misinformation published, lives are at risk. That is why a different method for editing is in order: one different from the typical wiki. The main namespace would be naturally protected from editing (in other words, only admins would be capable of editing it). In order for the regular person to make edits, they would have to edit the draft copy of the page. The draft page, of course, would be equipped with warnings about how it is used for planning. The benefit of this is that all vandalism would be restricted to draft pages not generally in the public view, therefore maintaining quality on the "official" version. When legitimate edits are indeed made, references are a must. Any edits that do not cite sources must be immediately reverted. Editors would be, of course, welcome to re-add the information citing appropriate sources. When the information has been verified, an administrator would copy the information to the main article.

In the course of work, alternative medicine will be most definitely brought up. While there is a possibility that an alternative medicine treatment may work, we aren't the ones to decide. Simply put: if there is no documentation in the scientific community that it works, we don't include it.

If the community cooperates, we can make this work.

Contents

[edit] About namespaces in this wiki: proposal

To help make this wiki more useful to people, we would seriously need to consider how people will be searching for information on it, and when they'd want to use it. The ideal situation is that when someone, anywhere, has an illness or is hurt, they can come to this wiki and get good answers. But what if they've got some illness with a name they don't even know - how can they possibly get the information they need?

Various systems of automation will help this. I suggest also having articles titled by symptoms (e.g. cough, leading to cough (disambiguation), listing chesty cough (details), tickly cough (details), etc., pointing people to the right symptom. The ultimate article tells them what to do about it, or suggests possible ailments they might have based on their other symptoms.) I wouldn't suggest putting these articles in the main namespace though, so Symptom:Cough might be in order.

As far as I'm concerned, namespaces are used to designate different types of pages, not categorize articles. You'd have a project space for meta content, portal space for portals, and the main namespace for the actual content. Symptom pages could indeed be their own pages, but I wouldn't want a namespace for them. Messedrocker 22:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supporters

  • Messedrocker 06:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Scepia 06:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Gyre 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (I doubt I'd be much use, but I give my support)
  • GangstaEB 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; this would be FUN! I'd help! There would be lots of preparatory work before the project ever went live. See my comments in Talk. --Allamakee Democrat 02:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Robinson0120 I can't say I could really contribute anything, but I definitely support this.
  • Aeetlrsk 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I LOVE this idea.
  • Ccool2ax (en Wikipedia) 11:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Naming time: Wikimedical? Doctor Wiki? (although that one will bring more legal trouble) MedWiki is the best I can come up with. This idea sounds awesome.
  • User:Alfakim
  • Pegasus1138 Yes it would be controversial but I think it could definitely be a helpful resource and one that we could make work. Pegasus1138 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Nippoo (en-wiki) 09:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Sounds good. Perhaps you could have flowcharts to find out what disease you might have. I.E. one page called, say, Flowchart:Cough would have a starting box with a question and a few lines coming off (depending on the result). Just a suggestion.
  • thiste Totally in favor of this. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to spread knowledge -- any knowledge -- as widely as possible. If an online medical wiki is to ever be created (and trust me it will be, sooner than later), wikimedia should be the place to do it. Thiste 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • --Ahmed 14:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Winston 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)This is a very good idea but one of the big problems with a medical page is breaching the gap between descriptions of medical issues for lay persons and those with medical backgrounds. I would think that every technical desription should have a parallel piece in lay terminology. This requires some degree of consensus as to how statistics, for example, would need to be communicated.
  • Winston 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) You should also consider the problem of evidence. Currently there are well established systems for categorising evidence according to quality.
  • If the proper procedures are put in place to maintain reliability, this would be an excellent addition. My only suggestion is that maybe there should be two different user groups that can edit protected pages: admins (who would handle policy, etc - like on the other projects) and the medical professionals (who could edit the "official" page directly, but wouldn't necessarily be involved in policy). The medical professionals (need a better name for that) would need to undergo an extensive verification process, but it would be good for them to be able to bypass the draft copy. -- Imperator3733 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambivalence

  • Iamnotanorange 19:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC) WOW ok, great idea. I really love it, but Doctors barely have time for the sick. They don't have the time to edit open source medical encyclopedias. So you might have some problems with the credentials of those editting, unless you are just looking for wikidermatology. Otherwise I think this is a great idea. Is there some way of uploading PDF's? I'm not sure if this is possible now, but there are a lot of copyrighted medical papers that I'd like to cite as a source. Perhaps a way for PDF's to only be seen by administrators? Just to ensure the veracity of the medical content.
    • Retired doctors could help. How can you assume that all doctors (or at least the ones with computers/internet) are constantly busy? Ccool2ax 15:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course there is no one better with computers than the elderly, but there are lots of people with some medical knowledge. I would suggest some way of uploading the PDF of a medical article. Getting around the legality of this may be difficult; perhaps by using just the title and authors with the rest whited out? Remember, this is the profession where many advocated mercury to sterilize wounds... popular opinion can easily dwarf poorly publicized facts. Iamnotanorange 01:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposers

  • The Doc already exist wiktionary for terms an books for books on medicine, the latter is more indicated if we want give skills (i really don't know how a dictionary could...) 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Davidruben terms can be defined (without legal risk) in wikitionary, and conditions & treatments are well covered by wikipedia (NPOV, requirements to cite in order to verify and 'no original reseach' covers legal risks). To start advocating a specific line of therapy (i.e. excluding alternative and non-gold standard conventional treatments) has legal risks, seems like a fork (duplication of info), requires double the number of edits/contributions by editors. Who is to vet the credentials of editors being doctors (would anyone know if I made up a Maldives medical certificate and posted it to a wiki administrator in the US ?), some acredited doctors have very unconventional ideas - who acts as judge of acceptable info being added by a real Dr X whose hidden agenda is to promote a FlavourOfMonthicillin drug on behalf of the company they work for ? 17:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some Wikipedia editors have hiiden (and not-so-hidden) agendas to promote their sites. It's exactly the same as Wikipedia: the revert tool was made for vandalism like this. Ccool2ax 15:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't need a Medical dictionary.--Nick1915 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even with precautions taken such as a statement that releases wiki from liability, the legal risk is too high. Lawyers can find holes and work around a release. We are not just providing information, but information that could effect a person's life if used incorrectly, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or is wrong in the first place. Yes, others can edit the information as in all wikis, but there could be a lag time for deadly, even fatal errors, to be corrected. Just look at the current debate over punitive damages and how often doctors are sued. I don't think there should be involvement in a project that can possibly affect a peron's physical health in a negative way.
  • El Tony *"information that could effect a person's life if used incorrectly, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or is wrong in the first place" this would go for all pieces of *info*,e.g. political science, weapons, drugs,poisonous plants, poisonous jellyfish, bombs, chemicals, etc., not only medical. These can, if misused(in the best belief possible), "affect a persons physical health in a negative way". I don`t really understand this argument, is scientific research bad because it brought up the atomic bomb and biological warfare? Should we ban all information on molecular biology and nuclear physics?
  • El TonyI think myself that general info on medical topics for the general public is well enough covered in the medical articles in wikipedia, it is growing, and there is no need to separate it from other areas of knowledge.
  • What I would myself like to propose, as a medical student, is to develop a Medical diagnostical manual for the medical professional, developed by professionals; e.g. MDs, Physiotherapists, bioengineers, medical biologists, senior nurses etc. using standard latin nomenclature and with links to national guideline sites. The information provided ofcourse will be used and evaluated by professionals, without any liability on wikimedia`s part.
  • All diagnostical manuals that exist are shittily expensive, and none of them complete, especially when it comes to rare and "imported" diseases. The wiki-format a good platform to develop a global database on such info.
  • That your GP seldom has time to see you doesn`t mean that there aren`t thousands of medical professors and University Hospital Dr.s out there that would love to contribute a few hours to this project.


  • Oppose as per Davidruben. Duplication of done work!--I'll bring the food 06:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Providing medical information in a reliable manner is within Wikipedia's goals. “how to treat/cure the illness” is business of medical doctors and related professions, it’s not placeable within the possibilities of a wiki. It’s not just about providing information but also about individual differences, anamnesis, the whole complexity of being ill and applying medical treatment. --Polarlys 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's an awful idea for several reasons: 1. Wrong information could be contained within it. As you said, there will be a verification processes, but still, mistakes can always happen, and then who is responsible if those mistakes actually lead to someone being wrongly treated and being hurt or even worse, dying? And I'm not only talking about legal responsibility, but also moral. 2. Medical information can be embedded into wikipedia, and there presented in its context providing aditional background information (e.g. anatomy, physiology, genetics, whatever). Creating a medical dictionary would just create redundancies. 3. Treating a disease isn't like cooking, where you follow a recipe, but it involves the direct interaction with patients, experience and many other things that can't be replicated using just text. Textbooks are important, but if they were sufficient we wouldn't need medical schools. 4. Why should we reinvent the wheel? There's plenty of medical textbooks out there, and this project would just lead to using 4 others to make a fifth (albeit a free version, but still). Lennert B 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Full ack to David, Polarlys, Lennert. Greetings -- Andreas Werle 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki"
Personal tools