Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Likelihood of Complaining about the Government vs. Voting Habits | Uses of Q-tips Next »
Make your own using our Graph Builder or upload your own files, images or videos. All our charts are user-submitted.
« Previous Likelihood of Complaining about the Government vs. Voting Habits | Uses of Q-tips Next »
This utterly frightens me if it is true. I will now only see OLD doctors who were licensed pre-internet!!!
No kidding, that’s really really scary dude…..at least be swooft enough not to tell everybody…
Wikipedia has quite possibly the best chemical database anywhere. It’s truly amazing.
Don’t go see Quantum of Solace. I know this isn’t totally relevant, but it’s good advice regardless. I love you guys. I just don’t wanna see you get hurt.
Crap! I already saw it! -_-
Oh well, I guess there’s worse things…
Such as the fact that the dutch version of Wikipedia really SUCKS, so I hope our Med students don’t try to do the same thing…
I really don’t want want to die because of some annoying kid who thought it’d funny to edit Wikipedia and change “mild sedative” to “DEATH”.
Well, just remember … the guy who graduates at the bottom of his class still gets to be a doctor!
Same thing that is getting me through pre-law!!!!
Remind me to never be represented by you….
And someone else remind me to never go to be a patient under this guy’s practice.
That’s sort of what I was thinking… this is a little scary, but probably terrifyingly accurate!
8-0
Hell, it’s how I got through middle school and high school.
and it will be my reason for flunking you if you end up in my class when you get to college.
if you get to college…
Any of your students who use Wikipedia as a source need not tell you since generally there are citations of other works included in the entry. The internet is here; rather than foolishly demand of your students that they not use the most efficient tools available to them, the wise and useful thing to do would be to teach them how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
the students don’t have to tell me. or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that they can’t help BUT tell me.
after reading hundreds of term papers, i can tell the difference between people who have read something, understood it, and thought about it before typing it into their computers. there is a qualitative difference between people who write about something after having read a passage in a book (even if they then type it word for word themselves) and skimming something on line then cutting and pasting it into their paper.
the difference does not necessarily have to do with the quality of the source (though this is at times a problem), but with the type of reading that leads to actual learning instead of superficial manipulation of data.
Yes, because ‘using wikipedia’ means cutting and pasting. Just like ‘driving a car’ means crashing into a wall.
get with the times grandma
grow up and get a clue, junior.
(though i am in my 20s, actually. sorry to burst your cozy little view of the world)
also, i need you to flip my burgers… not perform life-saving surgery.
Replace med school with pharmacy school and now we’re talking!
second’d
I’m a GP, and I regularly use the peer-reviewed and utterly unbiased journal known as google. Just don’t do it front of patients!
i SO agree with that!
Remind me to never go to the doctor ever again.
great now i’m even more afraid to see a doctor. mine still gives me medicine im allergic to, and i have to go to the big book of fucking pills and the pharmacy to make sure its the proper medicine or not…and now i get to find out docs are using fucking wikipedia? great….
Go see a different doctor.
Actually, doctors are NEVER going to be your best source of info about medicine. Why? Because THEY find out about new meds from the reps who sell them, and also, drugs are not what doctors focus on (although they do glean information from using them in practice). That’s not a slam on doctors; they can’t know everything.
ESPECIALLY if you are allergic to any medications, always go to the same pharmacy, and make sure they know about your allergies. They should tell you if there are any potential problems or interactions.
Medicine and drugs are not one in the same. Use the same pharmacist for your medicines. But to say that doctors only learn about drugs through the reps is ridiculous.
If you think you Dr doesnt use it you are just kidding yourself
Second-year med student here, and I concur. You’ll see profs get stuck on a bit of trivia, and pull up Google to check- it’s often more up-to-date than the texts.
Different casey here. It’s tru, tho, profs mis-speak like it’s their job. Wikipedia is a great quick fact check, in vet school anyway.
Don’t worry all you angry patients and clients out there–we have books too. They are just not quick in a pinch.
The worst part is not the fact tha medical students use Wikipedia much more often. It is when they reference it as a source of their work! Such hilarity!
grammar error: it’s “what’s”, not “whats”. further proof the internet is compromising modern education…
*singing while performing surgery*
“the hip bone’s connected to the… crap what was it again?”
*uses wikipedia*
“Oh ya! The hip bone’s connected to the head bone”
*lawsuit*
And where are fingers connected to?
Your fingers?
Someone else’s penis bone.
HA!
This graph definitely needs House, M.D. as a third option… with around 30%!
It’s Lupus. It’s always friggin’ Lupus. Just remember that if you go into diagnostic medicine.
It’s never Lupus.
Except that one time it was.
True. I had to do a report for my anat/phys class and was supposed to use medical journal articles. Found 3 that were totally unhelpful, and threw in web md to fill out the…whole paper. Made no bones about the fact that my whole report was internet based, still got a great score.
I told my office staff yesterday that I’d wished wiki had been around when I was in medical school. We all lol’d when this popped up today. Wiki would have made things so much easier. I dont think the public should be alarmed that docs look things up in wiki. No one can remember everything, but having a reliable nearly instant source is invaluable in my practice.
Reliable source?!
Yes, I don’t know if you are a medical expert or just a cynic, but as an MD, I have yet to find a substantial error in an entry I’ve read. If so, I’d edit the entry since I am a registered user. And yes, I would recognize an error. I was a junior member of Alpha Omega Alpha (wiki it), graduated at the top of my class and am board certified in my specialty. No, I don’t use wiki as a reference for surgical planning, but for medications, rare diseases, and details of physiology, it is reliable and I wish it had been there when I was hitting the books.
Another med student weighing in here…
Wikipedia may not be citable as a source, but to be perfectly frank, few of the textbooks on my bookshelf are as up-to-date – or even as accurate, in many cases – as Wikipedia. And really, as long as you pass the exams, who gives a damn where you learned the material?
And House? Unorthodox ways of digging up information that leads to textbook diagnoses. Got me through first-year neuro. Of course it helped that almost every episode seemed to include material from a lecture that same week…
Yeah this is actually true. My sisters in med school right now. And when I showed her this she burst out laughing and started saying stuff like. “So damn true..”
Oh good, now I know I’m in safe hands with a doctor that got all of his/her information from Wikipedia, the most accurate encyclopedia ever.
I guess you’ve misunderstood wikipedia. It is a community effort. I can testify that watching the medical content of wiki expand over the last couple of years that it is due to the hard work of medical students, sharing knowledge and correcting each others deficiencies, that has made this reference reliable. You need not worry. Medicine will only be made stronger by this effort. And PS, we don’t get all of our info from wikipedia; most of it is gleamed from trying to decode the scrambled data people like you give us as a medical history…It teaches us to question the source and rely on ourselves and what we know.
I actually had an opportunity to rethink what I posted, and I’ll just say the only problem I’ve got with Wiki is the same thing I love about it: it’s open source, so anyone can edit it. That said, any jack-off who thinks it’s funny to change the symptoms of the common cold from “sneezing, coughing, etc.,” to “blindness, anorexia, and swollen testicles” can do so. Granted, if you need Wiki diagnose a cold, you shouldn’t be alive anyway, but still, apply that to a more dangerous disease, and Wiki’s greatest strength becomes its greatest weakness.
I love all the FUD based around Wikipedia, as if it’s the worst source of information ever; nothing could possibly be right on it because everyone is obviously going around vandalizing all the pages, and no one spots and corrects the vandalism, and they’re all writing utterly incorrect information. It would suck to make use of a good database that is kept up to date with information on an unparalleled amount of topics. Have any of you skeptics ever actually TRIED using Wikipedia for homework or something or relative importance? I have, and the answers are right somehow. You just need to realize that when it says that “Emporer Gayington was defeated at the Battle of Waterpoop”, maybe you might not want to use that. The interweb is a powerful tool if you’re competent enough to use it.
Totally agree. It depends on the topic. I wouldn’t necessarily trust a politically charged topic to be “truthful” or accurate in wiki, but from what I’ve read, the majority of the mundane or scientific topics have been well researched and vetted. One should digest everything with a degree of skepticism, especially the main stream media. If one is a competent user of wiki or a careful, skeptical user of any source of information, one can draw meaningful and useful data from whatever source used.
Scotch, precisely; I’m in law school and while people routinely vandalize articles about Stephen Colbert, not so much with Pierson v. Post or any other obscure legal precedent. It is not as though I just read Wiki and forget about my casebooks, but sometimes if you are unclear on a fact pattern or a point of law, Wiki can be a great reference. Several of my professors have copped to writing or editing articles on Wiki and it seems like it’s largely law students honing the articles. While I certainly always read the text of the opinion and the notes in my casebook, to have one article on a case being continually shaped by students and attorneys across the country is, IMHO, a fairly interesting resource.
It certainly got me through the biochemistry modules of my course.
Apparantly though one of my lecturers (for a different module, thank god) would deliberately alter the articles so they were full of false information, then fail anybody presenting work with that information in.
Other lecturers insisted on work being completed by hand… apparantly the first two drafts of my dissertation should have been done by hand before I even started typing them up on the computer. Screw that…
Wow… I’m surprised that prof hasn’t been banned yet for consistently and deliberately supplying false information. False info doesn’t usually survive on Wiki very long… if at all. They are very good at keeping the riff raff out and if they can’t vet the info, it says so right at the top of the article. Prof might of gotten away with that in the beginning of Wiki when anyone COULD say anything and it would go unchecked for WEEKS…. but I doubt they do it much anymore.
might HAVE.
I hate going on less than two hours of sleep.
What’s even funnier is that I failed an exam after revising from the notes I’d been given, then revised for the resit 100% on wikipedia and passed with no problems
OMG – this is a frightening thread.
I hope those of you out there who are still studying are learning the skills to at least use other sources of information that are regarded as being more conventional.
As a person who is a potential consumer of medical services, I sure as h3ll don’t want my doctor to be schooled by the University of Wikipedia, where at any given moment, some malicious little entity could have subtly edited the entry on which you know nothing. Oh the confidence that gives me…
As a librarian that teaches undergrads research skills – I admit to being addicted to Google and liking Wikipedia – for looking up info on TV shows, and suggest that if students must use Wikipedia, it is a good starting point if they don’t understand the topic, to get concepts and keywords, and then use subscription databases, unless they like the decorative aspects of red pen on their assignments.
Most of the supportive posts smack of laziness and an unwillingness or inability to do the actual research – but I guess that’s what the instantaneous nature of information has created these days (and no – I’m not a thousand years old either)
OMG – you are one that thinks that medical science is TRUTH and that it is gleaned from sacred edifices like Harrison’s Internal Medicine or Nelson’s Pediatrics or Sabiston’s textbook of Surgery. Most first year medical students are told on their first day that half of what they are about to learn is false; the problem is the dean and professors have no idea which half is false. THIS should give you pause. Science is not truth. It is a way of discovering and challenging truth, helping us in the never ending quest to discover what is true. Wiki stands as a testament how these new tools of information can be used by expert consumers, eg doctors, to apply what is thought to be true. Do you really think a malicious entry in Wiki vis a vis medicine would survive very long, much less make a difference?? Maybe as a librarian you should look beyond referencing Mork & Mindi, Happy Days, and Friends and try to learn what a bunch of hard working medical students can do with a tool like wikipedia
[citation needed]
Yes god forbid that future doctors use (gasp) heavily edited electronic resources rather then rely on half arsed explanations from professors, or references that go out of date every few months. Go ahead with your “conventional”, wiki-free doctor: you deserve the medical care you get.
Use a hyphen, moron. “Evidence-Based”
Not using a hyphen does not make him a moron, although calling someone a moron on the internet does make you boorishly rude.
Thanks, keep up your great post !
This doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Several years ago, I googled my own symptoms to essentially diagnose myself with Sjogren’s syndrome, using what I’d found to demand a blood test from my *old school* physician, who told me I probably just wasn’t drinking enough because “women your age don’t get Sjogren’s.” If he would have used the internet a bit more, his knowledge might have been more complete.
Good job, Ev! You should demand that you get the care you deserve. Unfortunately not everyone who walks into a doctor’s office has the savvy to figure out what’s really wrong and use it to negotiate a proper diagnosis.
Docs are meant to be the experts, but not all of them keep up with the current information, and in the internet age, many older physicians are getting left in the dust by the wealth of information and the new information that is now available. When your doc was younger, I’m sure what he told you was a legitimate diagnosis, but now that so many genetic disorders have been identified and studied, empiric diagnoses like that are becoming less and less acceptable.
Yep. Also, I didn’t mean to sound all “doctors suck” because I don’t think that at all. This one in particular just irritated me because he was very condescending, and I basically had to demand a blood test. (Thank goodness I didn’t have to rely on differential diagnosis.) I always check stuff out online because:
1. The five minutes the doctor is going to spend with me doesn’t allow a lot of time for exploratory discussions. It goes better if I’m prepared.
2. I’m in my body, and I know my symptoms better than anyone else.
3. I want to know why things happen, what my treatment options are, and how else I can help myself.
I think what you did was awesome. I really think it’s annoying that there is this “doctors are gods”/”doctors are idiots” dichotomy out there. People either totally depend on their doctors to know everything about them, or expect that they’re morons and only need to go to them to get a signature on a script. The truth of the matter is somewhere in between. Doctors are people too. They are fallible, and they will never know your body (as you correctly pointed out) as well as you do. Their diagnoses depend not only on the tests they choose to run, but also on your observations.
I can’t agree that the doctors learn about drugs from drug reps-the reps are usually pushing their niche drug, and can’t be trusted to provide accurate or complete information about all the options that are available for a particular course of treatment. That’s why there are databases out there like UpToDate, and the National Institutes of Health publishes evidence-based research comparing many different drugs of a similar class or several classes of drugs used for a particular treatment.
Right you are. Doctors learning about drugs from Eli Lilly reps–well, let’s just say the system isn’t set up to keep physicians informed in an unbiased and thorough manner.
Most of my pharmaceutical learning comes from Up-to-date (google it). I usually never remember who is sponsoring the lunches and giving out those free pens.
Never fear, oh intrepid users of medical services. There are other databases out there that are peer-reviewed legitimate sources for doctors to use, such as UpToDate and STATRef. The reason many MDs now turn to online resources is because they have more up-to-date, peer-reviewed information than traditional print books, most of which contain data that is at least four years old by the time the book is published. Medicine is an ever-changing field, and thus needs dynamic reference sources.
I do not personally rely on Wikipedia for the information I use, and while I do not think it is acceptable for a doctor or medical student to admit that it was used as a source for information on diagnosis or treatment of a disease or condition, I see it as a good place for general information. For example, to get a general review/overview of a rare genetic disorder like the Sjogren’s Syndrome mentioned above, Wikipedia is a decent first-point reference (as a patient, you could also get information on MedLinePlus or the Mayo Clinic’s reference pages). And, I guarantee that there are thousands of science professors and medical professionals out there watching Wikipedia like hawks and swooping in to correct any little error they may notice on a daily basis–I know of at least five first-hand. However, when it comes to what specific tests should be used for diagnosis, or how much of a drug to give for a condition, there are other more reputable continually updated databases out there.
What this is meant to convey, and what it should be seen as, is a joke.
As a second year medical student, I have heard professors harp on Wikipedia over and over. Any classmate who has ever used Wikipedia as a source even in casual conversation has been immediately harpooned for it at my institution. It is generally not an acceptable primary resource, and as long as the medical entries on the site are available for anyone in the public domain to edit, it never will be.
Lighten up, people.
Report to your librarian immediately! because there are much better resources on the web than wicked-pedia.
For all the idiots posting “OH NOES MY DOCTOR IS A STOOPID”:
Yes, wikipedia has errors. Most of those errors are due to subjective opinions or bad sourcing. They are also prominently located on low traffic, low review articles.
The fact is that there is really only one right answer for “what are the approved uses of Mechlorethamine” and if med students, professors, doctors and researchers in the field of oncology are all using the wikipedia article about it, errors will be caught and corrected MUCH MUCH faster than in a textbook. For technical reference with respect to uncontroversial _facts_, wikipedia is not something to be afraid of. It will save more lives in the long run than more traditional methods.
Should an oncologist know what this drug is and how to use it off the top of his head? YES. But doctors are people too, with fallible memories, and students need reference materials to learn. If your MD is pulling out his iPhone during consultation in order to figure out which end to put the thermometer in, you have bigger problems than where he is getting his answers from. If he is researching the latest advances in rare disease diagnosis and treatment on his laptop, be grateful for the internet you luddite retard.
Wikipedia is a great jumping off point for any research! It should never be your only source but it’s fabulous for getting started.
My only concern is that they use the Truthiness for studying and think that your guts have more nerves than the brain.
Gist of a question from my physiology test this morning:
Which system has more nerves than the spinal cord and approaches the complexity of the brain?
Answer? The enteric (gut) nervous system.
Crazy, I know.
They flunked me out of barber college for using that wooki thingy.
On the news today they were saying that, with Google’s search monitoring capability, they are able to spot trend in illness some significant time before the standard trendspotting mechanisms.
If a group of people in a region suddenly start typing in “sniffles” and “cough”, they can track a cold’s progress, for example.
Quite facinating, really.
I love seeing just how ignorant most people are about what actually goes on in medical school.
As others have already pointed out, most errors in medically relevant pages are either a) blatant and immediately ignored by the smarter-than-average people who actually need the information or b) not errors at all – more digging shows that the error is with the textbook [which, if you're lucky, might be updayed before you graduate - unlike Wikipedia, which will most likely be fixed by the end of the week].
Wikipedia’s integration and breadth [there is no 'proper' academic resource available with anything close to the same scope in terms of everything from the basic biochemistry, through physiology, all the way out to epidemiology - if there was, we'd buy it] makes it invaluable. Wiki let’s medical students access more material, more efficiently, than any other resource.
But hey, if you want your medics to be *minimum* a year out of date [textbooks lag at least a year behind journals, which lag several months behind electronic resources] then you look for the ones with no internet.
This answers my confusion.. as to why it took doctors 11 months to figure out the reason why I had to take a burning piss every 10 minutes was because of 4 developing kidney stones…
I hope God somehow smites you and interferes with your graduation, as in FOREVER PREVENTING IT FROM HAPPENING.
Just to clarify how idiotic these 5 doctors were.. (from 5 different practices)…
“Gee, she has no infection, her blood is normal, she has no STD’s, but there’s blood and calcium oxalate in her urine.. I wonder what ELSE it could be?”
Here I am, screaming KIDNEY STONES! KIDNEY STONES! “No no no, it can’t be that.” I’m not even a medical student, and I knew what to do next. I had to demand the cat scan that proved there were kidney stones.
These days, you have to be your own doctor because most of the doctors these days GOT their education through wikipedia. It’s great for quick answers, but NOT a study guide for a life-long profession which others depend their lives on.
If they didn’t get a horrible education, they have such a horrible emotional detachment from their patients. I understand some sort of detachment is necessary to maintain sanity, but showing complete apathy is enraging. My grandpa almost died from heart failure because one doctor wanted to hurry off early because he didn’t want to miss his daughter’s basketball game. It didn’t matter this 75 year old man was crying from the chest pain because of his 99% clogged artery. If you aren’t ready for the profession’s sacrifices, then get a new job.
I’ll be fair and say not all doctors are like this, I finally found a good one out of the many I went to. But for those of you saying wikipedia is a great way to get through medical school, please do not ever practice in the Dallas area.
Doctors “these days,” generally speaking, weren’t around wikipedia in school – wikipedia is pretty new.
And for the record, books and things that are published by “reputable” people aren’t any more reliable. I’ve found countless books chock full of bullsh*t at the university library, full of horrendously wrong information. How many people do you think check texts for errors before they’re published?
Kidney stone lady, all I can say to you is “pearls before swine”
You’re welcome to self diagnose all you want so don’t bother walking into an emergency room next time you feel that twinge of chest pain.
I’m sorry ma’am but you are quite the moron and throw down judgment like it’s a light lunch.
You cannot SAY that doctors got their education one way or another because you lack both the first-hand knowledge of becoming a doctor, and apparently the privilege of ever speaking to one as a friend. These doctors that you went to..these “quacks” who did not know a kidney stone from an STD, did you ask them whether they’d ever used Wikipedia for their knowledge? I can assure you that you are absolutely lacking in perspective because had you the forethought to see this from their shoes you would not say things like “you have to be your own doctor because most of the doctors these days GOT their education through wikipedia.” You would also not put your grandfather before another humans relationship; because your grandfather has lived longer does that mean his relationship with you is more important than a father and a daughter? You would rather be treated by the kind of person who isn’t their for a child/doesn’t care for them?
But I digress, my point was that you do not know where which doctor got his education because you simply have not asked. You also have not yourself been a doctor; don’t know and cannot say what is best for knowledge, you only follow what I’m sure your friends have told you..that Wikipedia is a big ol’ rotten apple, corrupting the minds of cute little children who will one day rule this great world. And as many future doctors have stated here – Wikipedia is a better source of information than just about any of the textbooks offered.
So please do get off your very high horse, and do be careful not to hurt yourself on the way down as I’m sure you would hate to be rushed to a hospital with Wikipedia infested doctors.
honestly, this is getting blown way out of proportion. as a med student, yes, we use wikipedia when we need to look up small details, or things that need some clarification. there are two reasons for this. one, wikipedia is a lot clearer usually than a textbook. two, wikipedia gets straight to the point.
further, if any med student solely used wikipedia to learn, they’d fail. we use our notes to get the bulk information, and then wikipedia to fill in the small gaps and clarify things. as a quick reference, it’s great. but wikipedia doesn’t go into enough depth that we would need to pass. all med students know that. me personally, if i don’t understand my notes on a topic, i refer to wiki, then i go BACK to my notes to cover it again, and i almost always understand it by then.
lastly, this is just a joke. you know, an exaggeration? everybody makes exaggerations to make a point or to make a joke even funnier. wikipedia isn’t an end answer at all, everyone knows that. it’s a stepping stone to make it easier to get to the end answer. if anyone actually thought otherwise, really, you need to take things less seriously.
I’d wager that most of the WIKIISSATANOMFG!! brigade couldn’t tell a triqeutrum from a trampoline.
Ya gotta love the insistence that med students can’t manage to handle more than one source of information – at the minute firefox sits looking at me with probably a dozen Wiki tabs, a slew of my online textbooks and a host of primary and review journals all at once. Then there’s the stack of paper resources beside the laptop, the notes on the shelf over my head and the assorted pile of gumph on the floor. That’s just to prepare for tomorrow, and it’s a slow day.
Haha I’m a med student too and this is so true! Our lecturers always tell us not to use Wikipedia, but it is so handy for easy definitions and information.
It’s not like you all have to worry about doctors relying solely on Wikipedia – if they did that they are too stupid to be a doctor anyway. We only use it for quick information or to check something. I get the majority of my information from textbooks and scientific journals.
Dude. I’m a medical librarian, and I swear, if I ever meet the person who came up with “evidence-based medicine” I will beat him until he can study his own intestines.
Totally agree. I’ll be right behind you with my bat. EBM sounds good on paper, which is why so many academics and paper-pushers have latched on to it, but in practice, eh.
Everyone in my med class right now uses wikipedia.
It’s great!
So, the consensus is that the people who actually have a clue what they’re talking about are quite happy to use wikipedia as a resource and the people who *think* they have a clue because they’ve seen Scrubs and buy Reader’s Digest aren’t so happy.
While I’m at it, I’d suggest the Kidney Stones up there should go check out the relevant wiki page [nice summary of presentation, clinical findings, investigations and treatments] and maybe recommend that all those mean awful doctors *start* using the site.
The public is so funny about medicine. Yes those “mean” doctors who probably keep their patients sick to earn more money. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Epocrates on your palm, anyone? That’s free software too.
Wikipedia has good information most of the time, even for medical school level material. It’s an excellent choice for a really quick reference. I use it occassionally to look up terms like choledocholithiasis while going thru seemingly infinite piles of other material each day. Sure beats the medical school library.
Dear god, what the hell is happening to doctors these days! Well, i honestly dont care but if I come in and YOU’RE the doctor I am sure as hell having another doctor come in.
yeah, cause you totally know who made this graph.
Another med student here agreeing that wikipedia is very useful. Probably the best thing for GPs to come out of electronic records is that google is now at their fingertips. The fact is that medicine changes so fast that like others have said there is no way for books to keep up. A surgical prof of mine had the saying “10 years to get in a book and 20 to get out” So yes I use wikipedia for quick facts and definitions, If I need more info I’ll go to uptodate or similar
I’m studying for med exams right now….and wikipedia is definitely my major study tool. I’m also pretty sure my professors pull their notes straight from it as well.
Good to know that my possible future doctors are getting their medical information the same place I am.
Really, not being sarcastic, nice being on the same page (so to speak).
For anyone worried about an article being edited with false information because it’s funny: I actually did this once, and it was changed back within 2 minutes. They monitor changes, atleast on english wikipedia, like you wouldn’t believe. And this was to a relatively uncommon article for someone to look up. So don’t worry that because it’s open source that the articles will be littered with errors, they are quite serious about accuracy.
This actually is very truthful. The amount of information you have to know results in no time to learn it. I’m a medical student and many of my classmates use this source all the time.