• rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.

    I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.

    I think a medical textbook would be better.

    Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it’s not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.

    • ArtificialHoldings@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Sorry but have to disagree. Look at the talk page on a math or science Wikipedia article, the people who maintain those pages are deadly serious. Medical journals and scientific publications aren’t intended to be accessible to a wider public, they’re intended to be bases for research - primary sources. Wikipedia is a digest source.

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I can agree for you to disagree, It’s different for different situations, everything you’re saying is correct but but doesn’t make me fell better about my situation.

        Was a good conversation, I do feel I can see that there are people doing their best to keep Wikipedia honest. Have a good one.

    • zzx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well then we def agree. I still think Wikipedia > LLMs though. Human supervision and all that