Wikipedia:Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia

This is a list of academic articles related to the coverage of health and medical topics on Wikipedia. For general academic articles see Academic studies of Wikipedia. For academic studies about the use of Wikipedia in education, see Academic studies of Wikipedia in education. For popular media coverage of Wikipedia's medical content see the popular media list.

2021
;2020

2020
;2020

2019
;2019

2018
;2018

2017
;2017

2016
;2016

2015
;2015
 * &emsp;(conference abstract in journal supplement)
 * &emsp;(conference abstract in journal supplement)
 * &emsp;(conference abstract in journal supplement)
 * &emsp;(conference abstract in journal supplement)
 * &emsp;(conference abstract in journal supplement)

2014

 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * "Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals"
 * Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, Sections on Medicine are pp 7–8, 12–13. The paper only covers research published up to June 2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.
 * Mostafa Mesgari, Chitu Okoli, Mohamad Mehdi, Finn Årup Nielsen, Arto Lanamäki, "The sum of all human knowledge": A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia", Publication date 2014/4/30, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, PDF, This covers research on content quality etc. – medical section at pp. 6–7, readability at 9–11. Also only covers research published up to mid-2011.

2013

 * 90% of Wikipedia articles have "equivalent or better quality than their Britannica counterparts" in blind expert review
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."
 * - includes, per The Signpost: "the results of a small web-based experiment where 163 participants were randomly shown one of three versions of the article de:Furunkel (boil): Either without images, or with a "neutral image", or "with a somewhat disgusting image of an infected boil." The author states that "The most interesting results for the Wikipedia community is that the disgusting image enhances the perceived quality of the article: It is perceived to be more fascinating (p=.023) and more worth reading (p=.032) than an article without any image."

2011

 * - see User:Badgettrg
 * - see User:Badgettrg