about 2 in 5 US physicians use Wikipedia as a source of information for their practice at least weekly
In 2009, I wrote a post for Ellen Hoenig Carlson’s blog, The Back of the Book, on the importance of Wikipedia. Bertalan Meskó, MD, recently highlighted this topic in “An Open Letter to Pharma: Please Employ a Wikipedian,” so I thought I’d revisit my original points.
Physicians and consumers use Wikipedia
The 2012 Taking the Pulse® US study from Manhattan Research found that about 2 in 5 US physicians use Wikipedia as a source of information for their practice at least weekly. This is consistent with their 2009 survey that reported that nearly 50% of US physicians going online for professional purposes are visiting Wikipedia for medical and health information. A small UK study reported that Wikipedia was used by 70% of junior physicians.
Fifty percent of US consumers search for health information on Wikipedia according to Prevention Magazine’s 2011 Pharmaceutical Direct to Consumer Advertising Study. In Europe, almost three quarters of consumers use Wikipedia for health and medical information per Manhattan Research’s Cybercitizen Health® Europe 2011.
Wikipedia dominates search engine results
Wikipedia appears in the top 10 results for more than 70% of medical queries in 4 different search engines, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association in July 2009. There is no sign of this changing. Both patients and healthcare professionals will continue to be driven to Wikipedia due to its dominance over the search engine results. Whether you agree or disagree with the accuracy of Wikipedia, you have to admit it plays a significant role in the world of health information.
Ensure that Wikipedia provides accurate pharmaceutical information
First, review all of the company, product and condition-specific treatment Wikipedia pages across various countries. If there are errors or factual information is missing, there are ways to ethically update Wikipedia. Companies may want to have one person “officially” responsible for monitoring the site on behalf of the organization; this person should declare their intentions on Wikipedia. Be sure to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding transparency, and add information that is neutral and useful. This is what Dr. Meskó advocates as well. Develop a plan for ongoing monitoring and maintenance.
Create a Wikipedia policy
Since anyone with an Internet connection can edit Wikipedia, companies should create a policy about Wikipedia and other wikis. Both Abbott and Astra Zeneca received negative publicity when employees used company computers to delete negative information from Wikipedia articles. Employees should be educated about Wikipedia and the appropriate process if they see inaccurate information.
Since Wikipedia continues to be used as a significant resource for health knowledge by both patients and healthcare providers, pharma and biotech companies should develop a plan to address the site. What do you think?
(Image courtesy of mikeedesign on Flickr).
About Eileen O'Brien
Share this article:
A well-presented case! Your conclusion is terrific, imo.
You may be aware of an initiative within the public relations community about PR and Wikipedia, culminating in the publication of “Wikipedia Best Practice Guidance for Public Relations Professionals”, a document published by the CIPR in the UK.
I think pharma and biotech companies may find it useful – the ideas, information and conclusions can apply to anyone wanting to contribute or edit content on Wikipedia by way of understanding how Wikipedia works and engaging with the community.
Note the CIPR’s doc is version 1 and opinion is solicited to help develop version 2 – see the discussion wiki for info: http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Neville,
Thanks for your comment. I was not aware of the CIPR efforts on Wikipedia, thanks so much for linking to it so I can check it out.