Future Now
The IFTF Blog
Medical experts wanted
By now, I think that it is safe to say that Wikipedia plays a ubiquitous role in the world of online information. This is even true for health information. At our Spring 2007 conference on Biocitizens and New Media Technology, Health Horizons Program Director Rod Falcon noted in his presentation that, "Wikipedia is the most frequently cited source [of user-generated health content] and appears on the first page of 63% of health searches" (emphasis is mine--I marvel at this phenomenon).
A new player will soon be entering the field of online medical information: MedPedia.
While still in development, with an expected launch by the end of 2008, MedPedia will offer an online medical encyclopedia aimed at the general public. But what will set it apart from Wikipedia is that rather than allowing anybody--you, me, or your Aunt Bertha--to edit the content, only MDs and PhDs in the biomedical sciences will be accepted as volunteer editors. However, anyone will be able to make suggestions about content, which the editors will then review for incorporation.
TechCrunch observed last week,
There is obvious competition with established medical resource sites like WebMD and MayoClinic. Those sites have done really well, but there’s always room for disruptive technology like this. Look at what Wikipedia did to Britannica, a 250-year old encyclopedia publisher. The advantage MedPedia has is its large range of medical professionals who create content based on their specialties, rather than having several in-house doctors creating content on a range of topics they aren’t formally familiar with.
Tech Crunch goes on to suggest that, "This system is advantageous both to MedPedia and the medical professionals. MedPedia benefits from their knowledge and experience, and the doctors are able to promote themselves in their specific field of expertise." (my emphasis added)
Hmmm. The motive for experts to participate will be the opportunity to self-promote?
Okay, I am being cynical, and the language I emphasized is TechCrunch's not MedPedia's. The website offers that,
Editors get involved for many different reasons including passion for their subject, the drive to contribute to an important resource of knowledge and the ability to increase their reputations in their field of expertise.
I should note that MedPedia is working with some of this country's finest medical institutions to develop its initial content, including Harvard Medical School, Stanford School of Medicine, Berkeley School of Public Health, University of Michigan Medical School, and other leading global health organizations.
MedPedia's FAQ also sheds light on how the website will make money: good old-fashioned advertising, driven by ad networks such as Google’s AdSense or Healthline’s third party ad service.
I don't often spend much time reading the comments on other blogs, but I was curious about what kind of response MedPedia was getting. Some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog:
There are WAY too many sources of medical information already. And restricting it to ‘real’ doctors is just one more way to stroke those massive egos.
It will be good if a document is being written by research doctors. At least it would provide some credibility in the world of too many people claiming to be expert.
This resource already exists. It is called www.wikidoc.org. Over 70,000 chapters of open source content in medicine with no industry support and no adds [sic].
Lots of wiki’s out there - these guys are late to the party, like Cleveland Clinic’s AskDrWiki free initiative.
. . . I think that it is important to note that medical wikis have been around before medpedia. We started askdrwiki.com over 18 months ago and since have obtained 501c3 status as a non profit company and have been free of advertising. The site was started by physicians and is maintained by physicians, residents, and medical students.
The first two quotes address the perceived value of information available online from different sources. Is content from anonymous users "better" than information from the established medical community? Obviously, each of us will have our own opinion about who a trusted source for information might be on the Web.
The last three quotes shift focus a bit more to the business case for MedPedia. It is entering a crowded(?) field in which others are already doing what it is proposing to do. eMedicine, WebMD, and askdrwiki, have all been around for a while and are reliable sources for medical information. Do we need another player in this space? Or ask TechCrunch suggested, "There is obvious competition with established medical resource sites. . . . Those sites have done really well, but there’s always room for disruptive technology like this"? Is there not?