Recently, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the progress of one academic attempt to wrestle with the problem of how to harness the power of network collaboration while still producing credible — or shall we say “accredited” — information. As Maria José Viñas writes in “Medical Wiki Backed by Prominent Colleges Will Go Live by Year’s End”:
Medpedia, a new online medical encyclopedia to be written and edited by a collaborative group of thousands, with support from several leading medical schools, is calling for volunteers. But not everyone will be accepted. Only those who hold an M.D. or Ph.D. in a biomedical field need apply.
The project’s founder, James Currier — an internet entrepeneur, not a doctor — notes the advantages of having potentially 1000s of contributors with different kinds of expertise, the speed of updating infromation the wiki format will provide, and the transparency of the process that should help weed out those with drug-company affiliations or other conflicts of interest. The article goes on to note that the exclusionary nature of the publication is meant to offer its own reward for participation, since contributing an entry would help scholars establish their international reputation.
The project seems representative in many ways of the Next Big Step in Web 2.0 wiki writing. As Wikipedia has grown creaky under its own weight and has begun to think through questions of not only what more to add but, crucially, what to take out, a number of more subject-specific wiki projects have emerged. (Some of these, like the Muppet Wiki, devoted to all things Henson, or the Star Wars-focused Wookiepedia, are part of Wikipedia’s own Wikia spinoff project.) And as the unreliability of Wikipedia remains an issue, other projects (such as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger’s Citizendium) have attempted to build more peer review and credientialed authorship into the process.
The open question for all such next projects is the question of balance: how to balance the economy of scale possible through open access with the economy of focus possible through limited subject matter or limiting authorship. Medpedia is attempting to limit both content and authorship, and it will be interesting to see whether they can pull it off and whether they can offer something for which both medical researchers and medical consumers will discover a need. As Viñas concludes: “First reactions to the Medpedia project announcement seem enthusiastic: The online-encyclopedia team received about 3,000 applications during the project’s first 24 hours.”
7 Comments
September 10, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I think that Medpedia will set an example for future 2.0 projects: whether or not the site fails miserably or succeeds with gold stars is not the idea. It is simply the fact that the medical world is attempting to form a base of information online for access around the world is amazing. Though, it will be interesting to see if the balance that the organization is striving to maintain actually works. Since Wikipedia is still struggling with “how to balance the economy of scale possible through open access with the economy of focus possible through limited subject matter or limiting authorship,” it is still restricted to allowing anyone to post anything at anytime. Whereas, this new medical website has restrictions in place so that the information may be “regulated” by it’s administrators to better the pool of information shared by the medical community, in addition to providing quick feedback on a variety of subject matter. This website has manipulated (I believe, in a positive way) its form to best serve its function.
September 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I believe that sites like Medpedia are the future. It is these places that academics will escape to use for a giant database. The idea of contributors being screened before being allowed to post is a progressive step. Now the next problem is academic rivalry and opposing views. This super database of information is not always going to exist in harmony. With authors being known fairly easy, academic jealousy and dishonesty can now creep into these sites with vendettas. Then you also have to deal with those “academics” whose degree comes from a questionably legitimate place. These new problems are far better than previous problems, therefore the 2.0 version works. Lets just hope 2.1 can deal with the new problems
September 10, 2008 at 11:48 pm
The most important step in starting to increase a credibility of a website is to set higher standards for the author. It sounds as though Medpedia has decided to take this next step in creating a website that has valid and accredited information. This website, because it will be deemed more likely correct (in the academic spheres), will be a much larger success than similar websites that may not seem as credible. When authorship of a website it unregulated, or unlimited, it is easy for faulty or biased information to get onto the site. As they mentioned, they do not want drug companies to publish on the website- as their motives will be for monetary profit from their drug. The purpose of this website is to share accurate information, and by the high standards set for the authors- it seems as though that will be the case.
September 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Medopedia certainly is the first of its kind and, pending its success, will lead a generations of sites like it. Websites such as “Wikipedia” are used in great demand as references for everyday information. Many students actually use the website to start projects, as it is quick, easy, and doesn’t cost anything. The only thing keeping websites like “Wikipedia” from being used as sources in actual academic papers, is its credibility. Medopedia, with its limited membership, will create an easy accessible website with credible information. The website marks the beginning of a brand new era in how we access information.
September 15, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I agree with Alison in saying that the next step in starting to increase the credibility of a website is by setting higher standards for the author. With Medpedia taking the next step by increasing its credibility, other sites may also follow suit depending on Medpedia’s success. No longer will teachers degrade the credibility of sites such as Wikipedia or other “communitive” information sites. However, some authors of Medpedia can view topics differently based on their experiences, which in turn, may cause a conflict when it comes particular information (i.e. how to treat certain sicknesses).
November 24, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I am curious to see how Medpedia deals with the commercial drug industry. Wikipedia has already had its problems with the natural remedies advocates posting unverifiable information. The commercial drug industry has a lot more money behind it and I can’t see it refraining from trying to get its hand in this site.
December 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This idea of Medpedia is extremely beneficial to not only users who read the information from this site, but also to the users who post them. There is nothing quite better than a win-win situation. I am a huge fan of the concept of network collaboration, as long as the information is credible, which in the situation seems to be the case. I definitely agree with the notion that more and more network collaboration is going to come into play with the Web 2.0 era taking stance. However, sites such as this need to make sure they live up to the standards of Wikipedia, and have people making sure that the information posted is accurate and not being abused my pranksters.