{"id":14985,"date":"2013-07-13T09:00:30","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T13:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pmedicine.org\/epatients\/?p=14985"},"modified":"2013-07-13T09:21:48","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T13:21:48","slug":"crowd-trumps-credentials-medpedias-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/participatorymedicine.org\/epatients\/2013\/07\/crowd-trumps-credentials-medpedias-dead.html","title":{"rendered":"Crowd trumps credentials: Medpedia’s dead."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Medpedia<\/a>In medicine, to achieve the best you need the best information. So an essential question is, who gets to say<\/em> what’s best?<\/p>\n

That question took a sharp turn this week with the news that Medpedia is dead.<\/p>\n

Medical librarian Laika Spoetnik has a strong post on the demise, including an interview with its founder, James Currier:\u00a0Medpedia, the Medical Wikipedia, is Dead. And we Missed its\u00a0Funeral<\/a>.\u00a0 The bottom line is:<\/p>\n

The crowd trumps credentials.<\/h2>\n

It’s another nail in the coffin of the outdated idea that authority with massive credentials – and investor money – will give you better information than a mob with no investors, governed only by community rules.\u00a0Read Laika’s post for several analyses back then; here’s the short version of the concept as I saw it:
\n<\/p>\n