Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-03/Drug comparison

~~What the heck makes a fact low-level?~~ Raised on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#"low-level facts" 69.228.208.167 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying, Paraphrasing and Considering the issue

In short, I understand this page to say that Medscape performed a comparison of its druig database with similar information found on Wikipedia. The comparison led the researchers to conclude that the Medscape drug database provides a more comprehensive presentation of this data. Wikipedians believe this is to be expected because we have chosen a different target audience and we deliberately do not include clinicians amoung the audience when a clinician is performing their job.

A representative for Medscape then wrote that the Wikipedia community should probably reconsider the scope of their drug-related content and that Wikipedia should consider increasing its scope because there are people who use information from "the Internet" to make decisions that are (potentially) either safe or unsafe, based on the information obtained.

Unstated by either is the fact that people are also limited to making a decision within the scope of their education and abilities. So, if the information taxes their ability to comprehend the underlying subject then they are already limited in their ability to act appropriately.

It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia limits the intended scope of the drug information it provides. However, it is also potentially irresponsible to knowingly exclude information that it knows might impact someone's well being. The limit in scope removes a certain moral and/or ethical obligation to include particular information but it does not prevent a writer from doing the "right" thing -- which sounds as though may be the addition of missing information.

There is an unspoken benefit to people all over the world, if Wikipedia were to ackowledge this view. The field of medicine does not own the information that it typically is held responsible for knowing, yet much of this information is not readily available to anyone who is not in an academic institution, in preparation for obtaining their license.

It sounds to me like there is a need to be filled and this need can be filled by Wikipedia contributors, perhaps better than any others. It is a moral obligation, not one of convenience, if this is the case.

Am I in need of sleep so badly that I completely missed the point of the article I think I'm discussing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Medscape that performed the comparison, it was a team of academic researchers. The recommendations for how Wikipedia ought to improve its drug coverage also come from those researchers, not Medscape. But yes, I think most Wikipedians agree that improving our drug articles is a worthy goal, and one we are working towards. As for the specific issue of whether or not to include dosage information (something that in the past, the community had decided not to do, in part because such info can vary in different medical regimes, and in part because wrong info could be very dangerous), that remains an open question.--ragesoss (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]