Talk:Wikisick

I've now proposed the project on Proposals for new projects. Mikael Häggström 10:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat similar to the 'Clinical cases' topic on Wikiversity: see v:Topic:Clinical cases. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, they are somewhat similar. The main difference is that the articles are initiated by real people having the conditions. I think that personal demand of having the condition explained will stimulate the creation of the wiki, probably creating a vast repository of disease cases. Mikael Häggström 14:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome

Awesome idea!

But, be sure to put down that Wikisick is not a substitute for a doctor.--Princess Janay 22:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have that written at the top of every page because or near the edit box like the copyright warnings because it could be dangerous if people start giving medical advice. Somebody could convince another to take a poisonous combination of drugs or something. It sounds interesting though. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a very clear disclaimer is needed. Furthermore, it should be the rule to advice seeking a professional even if there is just a minimal risk of that the condition may be serious. Mikael Häggström 06:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suitability

Interesting idea, but it seems to me that it could better be handled by a forum software than a Wiki system. Categorising and naming the cases would be extremely difficult and subjective on top of that (at least until the disease is identified for each case), as there are great many possible simptoms, any combination of which can be overlooked by a layperson. I think a Wiki with all known medical conditions, with a good system for searching by symptoms would be better. Perhaps even subpages for individual cases later on, but I feel that it should be an extension rather than the basis.

Please feel free to disregard me, though... --Yerpo 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that's a valid idea. I think similar projects already exist on the internet. 81.172.7.7 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it a great idea to have both a traditional wiki for medical conditions, fused with one with individual cases, since most cases may be linked with several conditions and vice versa. One idea is to start them both at the same time and see which part grows faster. Mikael Häggström 06:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

dangerous

 Oppose I think that Wikiversity is much better for discussions of clinical cases. Moreover Wikisick seems dangerous for all the people, who tell us their symptoms and let us look at the pictures of their diseases. It is necessary for a proper diagnosis that the doctor hears someones heart and lung or touch the skin. For example lymphadenopathy cannot be interpretated with the help of a picture and some feeling of the patient. A student might think of a HIV-infection, Morbus Hodgkin, another Lymphoma, but he can forget, that sometimes lymphnodes swell because of something not as tragic as the other causes.

Another point is this: I know many people who think of the worst ending, when they are ill. Such people would be worrying about having a lethal infection, if some student says so. It is hard to convince such people that they only have symptoms of a cold or something else.

• I also strongly oppose. While i totally respect the idea behind this project you have to look at abuse of it. If someone reads something wrong in wikipedia the worst that can happen is they've got a wrong idea. If a particularly malicious person gave someone a mis-diagnosis who's to say the patient won't follow the advice? Even if you have a disclaimer it takes just one person taking badly intended advice to cause disaster. I don't want to read "Wikimedia killed my husband" in the paper. Nice idea but sorry. 81.172.7.7 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I know the information may be misinterpreted and abused, but I still think it would do more good than harm. After all, the people who would go to this place for advice already go to more or less reliable internet sources today, including Wikipedia. That "Wikimedia killed my husband" may already show up in the newspapers. The aim of this project is rather to make it easier to find the relevant information, since every case is slightly different. Probably it will even be more reliable than the sources that are out there now, by the same mechanisms that has improved the w:Reliability of Wikipedia to be almost equal to any encyclopaedia. Even if it's not perfect it will at least be better than the existing internet sources for worrying people, and as such it will probably also save many lives. Furthermore, it will most likely not make the patient worrying about lethal conditions to the same degree, since it starts with what symptoms the patient has. In contrast, current cyberchondria starts with the most serious (and therefore also best known to the layman) condition, seeking for any symptom of it that may be perceived, and then going to the second most serious condition. And, again, it should be the rule to advice seeking a professional even if there is just a minimal risk that the condition may be serious. However, if more appropriate, it may be placed in Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström 06:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why and how?

There are other similar projects like MDPIXX.com or [casesblog.blogspot.com Clinical Cases and Images] so I don't see why and how we could create something different. And how could we make sure only physicians upload content? Or would we allow patients to do so? I beleive basically it's a good idea but not in an open community where anyone can edit. NCurse 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)