Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/11

 that in a free, online, traditionally edited database (Medscape Drug Reference [MDR]). In a report establishing the internal validity of Wikipedia entries for 39 of the most commonly performed inpatient surgical procedures in the U.S., 100% presented accurate content while 85% of the entries contained appropriate information for patients. Interestingly, there was a correlation between an entry's quality and how often it was edited. In another case study, medical experts reviewed 35 Wikipedia articles on conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media with entries on similar topics from other popular online resources frequented by medical students. The results found Wikipedia entries to be the easiest resource in which to find information. In addition, although Wikipedia entries were reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics and contained some factual errors. The report concluded that Wikipedia entries were thus unsuitable for medical students. Nevertheless, in a recent report published in Psychological Medicine, ten researchers from the University of Melbourne concluded that 'the quality of information on depression and schizophrenia on Wikipedia is generally as good as, or better than, that provided by centrally controlled websites, Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook'. For schizophrenia and depression, two commonly encountered psychiatric conditions, Wikipedia scored highest in the accuracy, timeliness and references categories – surpassing all other resources, including WebMD, NIMH, the Mayo Clinic and Britannica Online.

In one study, among the humanities and the social sciences, Wikipedia was not found to be a reliable source of historical articles, with an overall accuracy rate of 80% compared to 95–96% among the other sources, which included Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Dictionary of American History and American National Biography Online. Wikipedia's performance in articles on Philosophy was found to be mixed in one study, with high rates of coverage and accuracy but high rates of omissions as well. In an impressive review of thousands of Wikipedia articles in political science, about every major party gubernatorial candidate who ran between 1998 and 2008, the author found that Wikipedia was almost always accurate when relevant articles on the topic existed. The coverage of topics was often very good especially for recent or prominent topics, but not as good on older topics. Omissions were, however, found to be frequent.

Prior to Nature's seminal study in 2005, Wikipedia assessed the quality of its entries through its 'featured article' and 'good article' peer review process, and more recently through an ongoing pilot study to collect feedback , which involves readers and editors rating articles according to trustworthiness, neutrality, completeness and readability, as well as rating 11