Todays New Scientist (vol 203 no 2718 page 20/21) has an interesting article
on the veracity of online medical information; with several somewhat
inconsistent references to wikipedia.
It admits that several studies have found us "almost entirely free of
factual errors", though does criticise us for incompleteness, alleging that
some drug firms have been removing negative info about their products. But
it also finds it disconcerting that 50% of doctors use Wikipedia.
It ends with the assertion that "The Wikipedia of the future, it seems,
looks set to become a far more reputable place." Having quoted one pundit
who thought it would be easier to improve wikipedia.
One interesting contrast is with sites that only allow qualified Doctors to
edit them, but it seems that New Scientist's current substantive criticism
is our incompleteness, not our veracity.
--
WereSpielChequers