Are Traditional Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles Obsolete? I can understand most of you may not agree and I am undecided. Here is a Webcast commentary making a pitch for Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page ]. Webcast Video CommentaryAre Traditional Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles Obsolete?A Pitch for the Wikipedia ConceptPosted 01/06/2006 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/520070[Requires free registration] "We depend on peer-reviewed articles in print and online. But is thismethod obsolete? And is there a better way? Traditional medicalarticles are often outdated before publication. Consider HIV, SARs,avian flu -- even hormone replacement therapy. They're notcomprehensive: For any topic, we have to read dozens of articles to beinformed. And bias is always present, regardless of peer review." "For readers, Wikipedia is a win. In traditional publishing, readersmust wade through many articles on a subject, each written by a fewexperts, published at 1 moment in time. In Wikipedia you read 1 livingarticle written by many, continually updated by many. Who needs 50articles on avian flu when 1 will do? And Wikipedia content is oftenthe best on the Web, which means the best anywhere." --Peter Frishauf, founder of Medscape. -----------------------------Sukhdev Singh, NIC.http://openmed.nic.in