I couldn’t see a link in that article to the study. I would be interested to know if they graded how wrong Wikipedia was. The criteria for wrongness is described as “contained information that contradicted the latest medical research on the condition.”.

But Wikipedia articles are huge, containing many pieces of information. What if an article contains just one outdated piece of information amongst hundreds of others, and the material points are substantially correct?

It's difficult, they removed James Heilman from medical articles because he was adding verified prices to medicines. And he's a ER doc.

Edit: note a followup article to the one you posted is here:

https://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/was-study-of-wikipedia-...

Thanks for pointing that out; seems legit.

Apparently, a more reasonable 'accuracy rating' of factual medical statements on Wikipedia is about 55-100% - https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/01/is-wiki...

Last I checked Doc James remains very active on WP. There was some flap in the Board of Trustees around 2015, but he was reelected there as well in 2017.

This may interest you:

http://intactwiki.org/wiki/Jake_H._Waskett

Searching his name on Google Scholar retrieves references to the published articles of Dr. Brian Morris, with Waskett listed as a co-author many times. Yet Waskett is said to have no particular training, experience or credentials as an academic or medical researcher.

One is left wondering what scholarly contributions Waskett made to that research.

That article shows no proof and links to a site that no longer exists.

[Ding] https://web.archive.org/web/20140531074444/http://www.ihealt...

[Dong] https://web.archive.org/web/20140521005122/http://www.jaoa.o...