The internet! It is a boon and a bane. It is a blessing and a curse. But when it comes to dispensing medical advice, the scales tip towards the negative. We have all had patients come to our offices citing information they gleaned from the internet. Some patients will thoughtfully bring in stacks of printouts from various websites which provide validation for their symptoms, evidence for their requested tests, or expert support for their desired treatments. These patients will often encourage us to read these massive missives to become better informed on things we apparently do not understand.

Approaching these situations requires a tad of tact and a dollop of delicacy. We don’t want to throw cold water on our patients’ desires to become better informed about their health. In fact, self-empowerment and activation are concepts we all strive to promote. If patients are interested in learning more about their health and taking responsibility for doing what they can to improve it, huzzah.

So where am I going with this train of thought? To the largest, most-used source of health information on the internet. This would be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the open-source site to learn about everything, from carbon nanotubes to why the Vikings invaded England in the Tenth Century. Wikipedia is looked to by patients everywhere for answers to their health questions. The problem is that much of the information contained in Wikipedia is wrong, in part or in whole. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association published a study in 2012 which reviewed articles on ten common medical conditions. Ninety percent of the entries contained information which was contradicted by scientific studies and established medical literature.

The internet is rife with shady sites, populated by ne’er-do-wells with obscure and bizarre notions about health and disease. Steering our patients away from these sites can be challenging enough. But to caution them about Wikipedia, which would appear to have credibility and legitimacy, can be a harder sell.

The bottom line – when patients bring in their internet printouts, let them know how inaccurate many internet sites are, including Wikipedia. There are certainly reputable internet sites where information is legitimate. But using even those sites to figure out one’s own diagnosis and treatment is like relying on a book to learn how to build a house. The reality is far more complicated than reading words and looking at pictures.

In closing this small tirade, I will now let the other shoe drop. The Institute for Healthcare Informatics says Wikipedia is the leading source of online medical information used by physicians. Excuse me? Come on, people. It’s not like there is a dearth of places to search on the internet. There are any number of easy-to-use sites with reputable and reliable medical information. I won’t mention specific names here to avoid appearing biased towards one or another site. But folks, please, let’s get our act together. Wikipedia is not a good colleague.

Richard Fleming, MD