Talk:List of medical wikis

Merged
Have merged all the medical online encyclopedias here so that they can be discussed in proper context. I propose that we delete all the individual pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A better idea well-done Dr. James! Burhan Ahmed  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like the deletion of Ganfyd has failed. I think this should be okay, as many of the existing articles contain too much material to fit nicely on one page. If we just summarise the essential information here it will hopefully be easier for people to compare the various wikis. eug (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Move
What about move it to Medical wiki? I dont think all that medical wikis are encyclopedias exactly... Sturm br (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

List?
The current form of the page is: lead, sections about examples, see also, and references. It seems like it should probably be renamed as a nicely informative list of medical wikis since it doesn't actually look to address the subject "medical wiki" in a general sense except in the lead. Thoughts? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha. I see there was a move from Online medical wiki encyclopedias to the present article. If the issue was the "encyclopedia" part of it, why not list of medical wikis? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

HemOnc
I don't know what the inclusion criteria should be here, but it looks like it boils down to support by reliable sources (as opposed to having its own article). That's fine with me, but it looks like at least most of the sources added to support HemOnc are primary according to the site's credits. Thoughts? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I could be misunderstanding what you mean in terms of "support by reliable sources," but if you are asking about the credibility of the site, I'd argue that it has among the best third-party acceptance/data for any of wikis on this page based on the references/publications cited, most of which were peer-reviewed by respected organizations. If you are asking about the quality of content on the site, the primary references are directly linked for basically all of the content such as chemotherapy regimens.  If you are asking about the contributors to the site, they are all licensed oncology professionals.  Linking to the contributor list for the main page isn't really the best way to get an idea of the contributors since no every contributor has edited the main page.  Disclosure: I'm a contributor to the site. OncMD (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What we are asking for is third party sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So do you consider the four third-party references from the 2013 ASCO Quality Care Symposium, Journal of Oncology Practice, Oncology Times, and Studies in Health Technology and Informatics to be sufficient or insufficient? OncMD (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The authors of three of the four refs include the website founder. That raises concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * These were peer-reviewed meetings/journals, not self-published on some blog. Would something like this entry about the site on Medicalopedia really be better just because it was written by someone else even though he's not an oncology professional?  You do what you have to do as part of this review process, but I'm dumbfounded that it sounds like it would have been better to just list nothing or one non-peer reviewed citation like most of the other sites on this page.  Nevertheless, the Oncology Times article and the Medicalopedia posts were written by third parties, and that's as good as what the other sites have.  In academia, reviewers for journals don't say that it "raises concerns" when someone cites one of their old peer-reviewed papers when it is relevant to the manuscript. You cite something if it is an appropriate reference for the statement. Wow. OncMD (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically you as one of the founders of HemOnc.org should not be writing about the site on Wikipedia either. There have been a recent reviews of medical wikis which would be a better source Your site appears not to be listed.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Doc James, the "recent" article that you cite may have been published in 2015 but uses this search strategy: "In October 2011, we performed Google queries searching for the phrase “list of medical wikis” translated in the 10 most spoken languages on the Internet (English, Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, French, Portuguese, German, Arabic, Russian, and Korean), using the Google translation tool when necessary." They then did a few additional searches on PubMed, Web of Science and a vaguely described "Web extra-browsing or expert advice" in September 2012. It is thus not exactly surprising that they wouldn't have captured a site founded in November 2011. Whereas, I recommend that you search for "hematology wiki" (HemOnc.org: Google = 7th result; Bing = 3rd result) or "oncology wiki" (HemOnc.org: Google = 2nd result; Bing = 2nd result). Please read the Journal of Oncology Practice article, which you will see is in part a synthesis of the original material of HemOnc.org. As Wikipedia's policies point out, "secondary" does not mean "independent" or "uninvolved" and it is not clear to me why Dr. Yang should not be technically contributing to the Wikipedia article. Thank you. Jeremy Warner (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the content in question. I am just point out best practice. Feel free to read WP:COI.
 * As an example if I was to write an article about a project I work on, publish that article, and than use that article I had written as a ref myself it is not an ideal situation. I for example have not and would never edit the Wikipedia article about me. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of category
Category:Medical wikis was just deleted per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_6. The items in that category were linked here. It was a small category but I think it was useful to be able to quickly see what medical wikis existed.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes should restore. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of non-notable medical wikis

 * http://www.healthplusplus.com/wiki/List_of_medical_wikis

If that website is down then try a saved version at the Internet Archive.
 * March 3 2016

There are 51 wikis here. Every one of them was imagined as a Wikipedia killer, and each was the culmination of lots of ambition and work from their own respective talented and institution-backed team. So far as I can tell, none of these ever achieved viability and all seem defunct now.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  16:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As a medical doctor and a fan of Wikipedia and of all open-source collaborative writing tools I tried to revive the list of medical wikis. I was curious how the situation looks like now. And some of the medical wikis are alive and active! Here is my site with up-to-date API-driven list with wikis which do not throw PHP exceptions or HTTP 404. Wikis marked as "active" have at least 100 edits (really only edits, not deletions, patrols, uploads, etc.) in the last month. --Slepi (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have linked it on the article page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)