Wikipedia is often cited as the most visited website in cases where users require basic facts, and this is especially prevalent in cases of health information. Despite statistical evidence that Wikipedia’s content is viewed frequently by users searching for health information, no concrete review or research has been conducted concerning the role of the online encyclopedia in the health context. A study revealed that searching through other resources that are directly related to health research and concerns, such as OVID Embase, OVID Medline, CINHAIL, Wilson’s Web, LISTA, Web of Science, and AMED, Wikipedia was recorded a few times and for varying reasons (Smith, 2020). For instance, it was cited to be under investigation of quality, its role in education, and understanding its utility in research, which suggests that it is not a reliable source. This is due to a variety of factors, which include the user-based editing process, irregularities in translations, and potential bias of editors.
MedlinePlus is often referred to as a wide-reaching and overall most reliable source for health and medicine information. It is directly operated by the National Institutes of Health’s U.S. National Library of Medicine and has no advertisements due to being supported by tax resources. T. Additionally, it is scientifically based, and peer-reviewed with only certified individuals with MDs, PhDs, or RNs able to add, modify, or detract information (Ahmed, 2019).
Besides user-editing, missing dates, and lacking accreditation, Wikipedia is also susceptible to bias due to an editor’s tone, opinion, and other factors that may influence the written text. The issue is mostly grounded in the fact that systematic bias occurs through editing while still following the vague and broad guidelines Wikipedia provides (Martin, 2017). This bias can manifest itself in actions such as deleting positive material, adding negative material, sticking to resources that are one-sided, magnifying the importance of certain topics, and other editing conduct. Though such motions can correct the available information, the fluctuating nature of the encyclopedia can be problematic in terms of important research. This makes Wikipedia a complicated case but also largely unreliable in the context of academic study.
Turning to specialized and moderated resources is often effective in removing at least certain aspects of writer bias and inaccurate information. For instance, the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements is a good resource for medical information, specifically pertaining to dietary needs and issues. It is scientifically verified and has exclusive and detailed information on vitamins and supplements that are rarely covered by other sources (Dwyer et al., 2018). The NIH Office of Dietary Supplements citation also offers direct access to the peer-reviewed articles used in their articles and papers, allowing readers to have deeper and self-directed insight into medicine and health.
References
Ahmed, T. (2019). MedlinePlus at 21: A website devoted to consumer health information. Information Services & Use, 39(1), 5-14. Web.
Dwyer, J. T., Coates, P. M., & Smith, M., J. (2018). Dietary Supplements: Regulatory Challenges and Research Resources. Nutrients, 10(1), 1-24. Web.
Martin, B. (2017). Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses. Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 379-388. Web.
Smith, D. A. (2020). Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 15(2). Web.