Why and how medical schools, peer-reviewed journals, and research funders should promote Wikipedia editing.

WIKIPEDIA; ELECTRONIC encyclopedias; MEDICAL schools; SCHOLARLY peer review; PROFESSIONAL standards review organizations (Medicine); WIKIMEDIA Foundation Inc.; YOUNG adults; HIGHER education

Do academics, both directly and indirectly involved with healthcare, have a moral mandate to ensure that Wikipedia has the most accurate, up-to-date and understandable information? From the perspective of a physician who is also a long-time Wikipedia editor, the ethical, moral, and power dynamics of the medical community's interaction with Wikipedia are explored in this paper. An attempt is made to reconcile and identify the key stakeholders affected by Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility, including medical institutions such as peer-reviewed journals, medical schools, research funders and academic reward systems. These stakeholders act as the true guardians of Primum non nocere – first to do no harm. Finally, suggestions are made on how to increase the sharing of medical knowledge on Wikipedia by focusing advocacy towards these 'true guardians' rather than relying on the benevolence of individual academics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studies in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)