評論
打印
Feeling a bit sick?
身體感覺有點不適？
Maybe you checked your symptoms on Wikipedia before seeing a doctor.
也許看醫(yī)生之前你曾在Wiki百科網(wǎng)站上搜索過相關(guān)癥狀。
And maybe your doctor checked Wikipedia before seeing you.
或許醫(yī)生在見你之前也登陸Wiki百科查詢過。
Up to 70 percent of physicians and medical students admit to using Wikipedia as a reference, too.
多達70%的醫(yī)生和醫(yī)學院的學生們承認他們常用Wiki百科作為參考。
But Wikipedia can be shockingly wrong.
但這家知名網(wǎng)站可能存在嚴重錯誤。
Researchers who compared peer-reviewed articles to the Wikipedia pages for the 10 most costly medical conditions in the U.S.—including heart disease, back pain and osteoarthritis—discovered incorrect information on nine out of 10 pages.
研究人員們與同類審閱過后信息比較過后，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)對包括心臟病，背痛以及骨關(guān)節(jié)炎在內(nèi)的美國10種高發(fā)疾病中Wiki網(wǎng)頁上的搜索結(jié)果10篇文章中有9篇中的信息是錯誤的。
Only information on concussions appeared to be accurate.
只有對腦震蕩的信息檢索所顯示的內(nèi)容還算靠譜。
The study is in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.
該研究已在《美國骨科醫(yī)學協(xié)會》雜志上發(fā)表。
Earlier research suggested that Wikipedia is roughly comparable to peer-reviewed sources.
早期研究顯示相對于同類審閱過的文獻來源Wiki百科的是比較粗糙。
A study in the journal Nature in 2005 found Wikipedia was about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, even about science topics.
一篇于2005年在自然雜志上發(fā)表的研究曾發(fā)現(xiàn)Wiki百科和大不列顛大百科全書一樣精準，甚至有關(guān)科學方面也是如此。
But that analysis looked only at 42 entries among the millions on Wikipedia.
但該研究只是對Wiki百科中幾百萬條內(nèi)容中的42條進行了調(diào)查分析。
Since then the site has exploded, now including tens of millions of entries.
而且自從那時起這家網(wǎng)站迅速擴張，現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)涵蓋成百上千萬條記錄內(nèi)容。
The new results suggest we should all take online info with a grain of salt.
這些最新的研究結(jié)果提示我們不要盲目輕信此類信息的真實性。
