[Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia is an Excellent Information Source for Medical Students, Study Finds.

[jmh649]

A study, published on Oct 31st, 2017 in the Journal of Medical
Internet Research Medical Education, has found that Wikipedia helps
Canadian medical students improve their knowledge of medical content.
Wikipedia was compared to UpToDate, a subscription based online
medical resource, and a standard medical textbook.

The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical
students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote
a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian
physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic
resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal
Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During
this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity
to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed
with the notes taken while using their resource.

The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after
accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical
students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater
improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a
trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate.

Full study available under an open license at
https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[Anna Stillwell]

Fantastic news, Doc.
/a

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:09 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A study, published on Oct 31st, 2017 in the Journal of Medical
> Internet Research Medical Education, has found that Wikipedia helps
> Canadian medical students improve their knowledge of medical content.
> Wikipedia was compared to UpToDate, a subscription based online
> medical resource, and a standard medical textbook.
>
> The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical
> students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote
> a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian
> physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic
> resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal
> Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During
> this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity
> to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed
> with the notes taken while using their resource.
>
> The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after
> accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical
> students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater
> improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a
> trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate.
>
> Full study available under an open license at
> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[sailesh patnaik]

Thank you for sharing it Doc James :)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 10:53 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A study, published on Oct 31st, 2017 in the Journal of Medical
> Internet Research Medical Education, has found that Wikipedia helps
> Canadian medical students improve their knowledge of medical content.
> Wikipedia was compared to UpToDate, a subscription based online
> medical resource, and a standard medical textbook.
>
> The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical
> students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote
> a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian
> physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic
> resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal
> Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During
> this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity
> to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed
> with the notes taken while using their resource.
>
> The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after
> accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical
> students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater
> improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a
> trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate.
>
> Full study available under an open license at
> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Sailesh
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[Shlomi Fish]

Hi,

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:09:51 -0600
James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A study, published on Oct 31st, 2017 in the Journal of Medical
> Internet Research Medical Education, has found that Wikipedia helps
> Canadian medical students improve their knowledge of medical content.
> Wikipedia was compared to UpToDate, a subscription based online
> medical resource, and a standard medical textbook.
>

good to hear! Thanks for sharing.

> The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial of 116 medical
> students from four Canadian medical schools. Students initially wrote
> a multiple choice exam similar to that used for licensing Canadian
> physicians. They were then randomized to one of three electronic
> resources, Wikipedia, UpToDate, or Harrison’s textbook of Internal
> Medicine and had 30 minutes to use their assigned resource. During
> this time, they were observed for compliance and had the opportunity
> to take notes. The students then rewrote their original exam, armed
> with the notes taken while using their resource.
>
> The primary outcome was improvement in tests scores before and after
> accessing the assigned resource. The authors found that medical
> students assigned to Wikipedia had a statistically significant greater
> improvement in test scores, compared to the medical textbook and a
> trend towards improved performance as compared to UpToDate.
>
> Full study available under an open license at
> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Summerschool-at-the-NSA/

Larry Wall applies a patch manually quicker than GNU patch.
    — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Larry-Wall/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[pajz]

On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Full study available under an open license at
> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/


If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire then
shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less arbitrary
study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously, picking
the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
"long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and "founder of
[...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."

Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to scientifically
evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades, would
you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?

Best,
Patrik
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[jmh649]

That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
selection beyond that.

James

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Full study available under an open license at
>> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>
>
> If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire then
> shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less arbitrary
> study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously, picking
> the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
> questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
> "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and "founder of
> [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
>
> Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to scientifically
> evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades, would
> you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?
>
> Best,
> Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Hi James,

I finally found time to read the whole article carefully. It is a very well
done article and study, in my opinion.

I have one remark/question. Since the study was conducted over a length of
time (April 2014 to December 2016), was the data analyzed to see if the
increase in the results of good answers in the posttest was higher later
during the study (or not) since Wikipedia (and maybe UpToDate, I am not
familiar with that resource) evolves with time? Maybe even students who
participated in the first iteration of this study went after to improve the
related Wikipedia articles, thus obviously having an impact on the results
since the information about the specific questions that you retained for
the MCQ were "directly" answered on Wikipedia. Is this something that was
considered? I do not see that consideration in the discussion section of
the article.

Thank you,

JP

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:37 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
> downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
> exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
> selection beyond that.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Full study available under an open license at
> >> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
> >
> >
> > If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire then
> > shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less
> arbitrary
> > study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously, picking
> > the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
> > questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
> > "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and "founder
> of
> > [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
> >
> > Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to scientifically
> > evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades, would
> > you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?
> >
> > Best,
> > Patrik
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>

--

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

This could have been alleviated by using a dump of Wikipedia at a specific
time throughout the study. I don't know if it was done or not, I doubt it
since the article do not mention it, I assume they had direct online access
to the current Wikipedia at the time of the iterations during the study.
Also that would lift one of the concerns in the discussion section about
the replicability of the study because Wikipedia evolves, a new study could
be completed with the same dump at the time of that study in order to
replicate the same results (however I wouldn't see the interest, but just
for the sake of having scientifically replicable findings).

JP

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> I finally found time to read the whole article carefully. It is a very
> well done article and study, in my opinion.
>
> I have one remark/question. Since the study was conducted over a length of
> time (April 2014 to December 2016), was the data analyzed to see if the
> increase in the results of good answers in the posttest was higher later
> during the study (or not) since Wikipedia (and maybe UpToDate, I am not
> familiar with that resource) evolves with time? Maybe even students who
> participated in the first iteration of this study went after to improve the
> related Wikipedia articles, thus obviously having an impact on the results
> since the information about the specific questions that you retained for
> the MCQ were "directly" answered on Wikipedia. Is this something that was
> considered? I do not see that consideration in the discussion section of
> the article.
>
> Thank you,
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:37 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
>> downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
>> exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
>> selection beyond that.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Full study available under an open license at
>> >> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>> >
>> >
>> > If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire then
>> > shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less
>> arbitrary
>> > study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously,
>> picking
>> > the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
>> > questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
>> > "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and
>> "founder of
>> > [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
>> >
>> > Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to scientifically
>> > evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades, would
>> > you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Patrik
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> James Heilman
>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> i/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
>
> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
> soutenant Wikipédia
> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
> supporting Wikipedia
> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
>

--

Jean-Philippe Béland

[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
soutenant Wikipédia
Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
<https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
supporting Wikipedia
535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[jmh649]

Okay so followed up with Samir. While the database of questions was
selected by he and I, neither one of us did any specific selection
beyond randomly selecting 25.

With respect to students going and changing Wikipedia / Uptodate, I
very much doubt they would have. There is other students that have
found that even when medical students find errors in WP they do not
bother fixing them. Both WP and Uptodate change slowly over time.

James

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> This could have been alleviated by using a dump of Wikipedia at a specific
> time throughout the study. I don't know if it was done or not, I doubt it
> since the article do not mention it, I assume they had direct online access
> to the current Wikipedia at the time of the iterations during the study.
> Also that would lift one of the concerns in the discussion section about
> the replicability of the study because Wikipedia evolves, a new study could
> be completed with the same dump at the time of that study in order to
> replicate the same results (however I wouldn't see the interest, but just
> for the sake of having scientifically replicable findings).
>
> JP
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I finally found time to read the whole article carefully. It is a very
>> well done article and study, in my opinion.
>>
>> I have one remark/question. Since the study was conducted over a length of
>> time (April 2014 to December 2016), was the data analyzed to see if the
>> increase in the results of good answers in the posttest was higher later
>> during the study (or not) since Wikipedia (and maybe UpToDate, I am not
>> familiar with that resource) evolves with time? Maybe even students who
>> participated in the first iteration of this study went after to improve the
>> related Wikipedia articles, thus obviously having an impact on the results
>> since the information about the specific questions that you retained for
>> the MCQ were "directly" answered on Wikipedia. Is this something that was
>> considered? I do not see that consideration in the discussion section of
>> the article.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> JP
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:37 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
>>> downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
>>> exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
>>> selection beyond that.
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Full study available under an open license at
>>> >> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire then
>>> > shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less
>>> arbitrary
>>> > study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously,
>>> picking
>>> > the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
>>> > questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
>>> > "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and
>>> "founder of
>>> > [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
>>> >
>>> > Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to scientifically
>>> > evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades, would
>>> > you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Patrik
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Wikimedia-l
>>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> James Heilman
>>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>>> i/Wikimedia-l
>>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean-Philippe Béland
>>
>> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
>> soutenant Wikipédia
>> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
>> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
>> supporting Wikipedia
>> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jean-Philippe Béland
>
> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
> soutenant Wikipédia
> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
> supporting Wikipedia
> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

[Jean-Philippe Béland]

Could you share links or titles for those other studies if you have them
please?

And what about you editing the articles :P haha

JP

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:01 PM James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay so followed up with Samir. While the database of questions was
> selected by he and I, neither one of us did any specific selection
> beyond randomly selecting 25.
>
> With respect to students going and changing Wikipedia / Uptodate, I
> very much doubt they would have. There is other students that have
> found that even when medical students find errors in WP they do not
> bother fixing them. Both WP and Uptodate change slowly over time.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Jean-Philippe Béland
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This could have been alleviated by using a dump of Wikipedia at a
> specific
> > time throughout the study. I don't know if it was done or not, I doubt it
> > since the article do not mention it, I assume they had direct online
> access
> > to the current Wikipedia at the time of the iterations during the study.
> > Also that would lift one of the concerns in the discussion section about
> > the replicability of the study because Wikipedia evolves, a new study
> could
> > be completed with the same dump at the time of that study in order to
> > replicate the same results (however I wouldn't see the interest, but just
> > for the sake of having scientifically replicable findings).
> >
> > JP
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <
> [hidden email]
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> I finally found time to read the whole article carefully. It is a very
> >> well done article and study, in my opinion.
> >>
> >> I have one remark/question. Since the study was conducted over a length
> of
> >> time (April 2014 to December 2016), was the data analyzed to see if the
> >> increase in the results of good answers in the posttest was higher later
> >> during the study (or not) since Wikipedia (and maybe UpToDate, I am not
> >> familiar with that resource) evolves with time? Maybe even students who
> >> participated in the first iteration of this study went after to improve
> the
> >> related Wikipedia articles, thus obviously having an impact on the
> results
> >> since the information about the specific questions that you retained for
> >> the MCQ were "directly" answered on Wikipedia. Is this something that
> was
> >> considered? I do not see that consideration in the discussion section of
> >> the article.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> JP
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:37 AM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That bit of the paper could have been a bit clearer. I simple
> >>> downloaded 100 questions at random from a website that hosts lists of
> >>> exam question. Am checking with Samir regarding if he did any further
> >>> selection beyond that.
> >>>
> >>> James
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 2:30 AM, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> > On 31 October 2017 at 17:09, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Full study available under an open license at
> >>> >> https://mededu.jmir.org/2017/2/e20/
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > If one gets to chose the questions and assemble the questionnaire
> then
> >>> > shown to all study participants, I would submit that more or less
> >>> arbitrary
> >>> > study results can be generated by, consciously or subconsciously,
> >>> picking
> >>> > the "right" questions. Curiously, the two people that "reviewed" the
> >>> > questions here were "a Wikipedia editor and administrator," and a
> >>> > "long-term volunteer editor and administrator of Wikipedia" and
> >>> "founder of
> >>> > [...] the Wiki Project Med Foundation."
> >>> >
> >>> > Not being negative or anything, but if you're trying to
> scientifically
> >>> > evaluate whether a given exam prep book improves students' grades,
> would
> >>> > you let the editors of the book prepare the test exam?
> >>> >
> >>> > Best,
> >>> > Patrik
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >>> i/Wikimedia-l
> >>> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> >>> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> James Heilman
> >>> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >>> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> >>> i/Wikimedia-l
> >>> New messages to: [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Jean-Philippe Béland
> >>
> >> [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> >> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
> >> soutenant Wikipédia
> >> Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
> >> <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
> >> supporting Wikipedia
> >> 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Jean-Philippe Béland
> >
> > [image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada
> > <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr>, chapitre national
> > soutenant Wikipédia
> > Vice president — Wikimedia Canada
> > <https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en>, national chapter
> > supporting Wikipedia
> > 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec)  H2L 2P3,[hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> James Heilman
> MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>