"Nurse" entry on Wikipedia

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Apr 24, 2009

If you look at the history of previous revisions, much of that appears to be vandalism.

sunray12 · Apr 24, 2009

Get an account and edit it the way you see fit.

NeosynephRN · Apr 24, 2009

Take this as a lesson why you need to be careful what you use as a reference for a paper...

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Apr 24, 2009

Take this as a lesson why you need to be careful what you use as a reference for a paper...

I think most people realize that no encyclopedia should be used as a reference on anything above a middle school level paper, and this extends to the printed ones equally.

However, wiki is a great stepping stone to understand basic concepts, and used in that context, is an excellent tool. Often time the references cited in an article can provide a nice jump off point leading to more relevant and scholarly sources on the subject matter.

pagandeva2000, LPN · Apr 24, 2009

I think most people realize that no encyclopedia should be used as a reference on anything above a middle school level paper, and this extends to the printed ones equally.
However, wiki is a great stepping stone to understand basic concepts, and used in that context, is an excellent tool. Often time the references cited in an article can provide a nice jump off point leading to more relevant and scholarly sources on the subject matter.

I agree with the fact that wiki is great for understanding basic concepts. For some reason, I have to have things explained to me simply. I tend to purchase many publications by "The Complete Idiot's Guide to..." and "Such and Such for Dummies", because once I get the main point, I can then go to more credible resources and comprehend them with greater success. I have to laugh at myself because many people say to me that I seem to be well read. If they knew where my starting point was, they may be shocked.

pagandeva2000, LPN · Apr 25, 2009

I can see the issue you have with wikipedia's explanation. I tend to get a bit sensitive when licensed practical nurses are not included within the equation. And, yeah...a farm...well, I would sure like to see who updated that.

tvccrn, ASN, RN · Apr 25, 2009

As Wikipedia is not moderated and just anyone can edit it, I refuse to use it for anything. I don't even look at it when it comes up under a search I have performed. I can usually find a much better source for what I need elsewhere.

GilaRRT · Apr 25, 2009

It's Wikipedia, need we say more?

cjcsoon2bnp, MSN, RN, NP · Apr 25, 2009

I was googling something just a minute ago, I already forget what, and ended up on the "Nurse" entry on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse
As the most popular encyclopedia in the world (and all too often my first line of info for my A&P class) it seems like Wikipedia ought to have a better entry than what I found. I'll paste some snippets...
"The nursing career was not very well thought out. Typically, there are several distinct types of nursing practitioner distinguished by scope of experience down at the farm. The major distinction is between task-based nursing and professional nursing."
Huh? Is there a farm that no one told me about?
It also says the word "nurse" refers to "assistant medical professions", and yet even Websters refers to a nurse as "someone who cares for the sick and infirm", not an assistant...
Oh, and "Medical practitioners rely on nurses' ability to follow orders to ensure a continuity of patient care."
That isn't followed with a line like "they also depend on nurses to monitor patients for a change in status, implement evidence based nursing practices to promote patient recovery and comfort..." or anything to suggest that nurses think much.
Also, all the pictures are of female nurses from 1955 or sooner, because apparently nothing new has happened in nursing for the last half century.
I would go ahead and make changes myself, and I might. But I thought it would be better for someone who actually knows a little more than I do about nursing and sources related to nursing to revise the entry so that internet users of the world could have some more credible info on the nursing profession.
So, does any one want to fix up the entry, or have an idea of what they'd like to see on wikipedia about nurses?

Here are a few things that you need to keep in mind.

A. You should avoid using Wikipedia as a source for any paper. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time, that means your Mr. Joe Blow your friendly Burger King cashier or Dr. Joe Blow, Dean of Nursing at BK University. But either way you don't really know how reliable your information from Wikipedia is any you definitely should not cite it in a paper. However, you can use Wikipedia as a stepping stone for your research and they often have links to some very good websites!

B. Because Wikipedia is a user edited encyclopedia it is constantly subject to vandalism so you need to keep that in mind when your reading any entry. If you really want to help combat vandalism you should register a user name, watch your favorite entries, report vandalism when you see it and correct the entry. That's the best you can do really.

C. When you say "all of the pictures are of female nurses from 1955 or sooner" your actually saying that the pictures are all from 1955 and later but from the rest of your sentence we can tell your implying is that the most recent picture is from 1955. Not to be a stickler but next time I would say something like "My next criticism is that all of the pictures on the "nurse" entry on Wikipedia are from before 1955, which fails to illustrate any advances in nursing since that time."

!Chris :specs:

jaratarRN · Apr 25, 2009

While we all understand that Wikipedia is not a good source for a paper, I think we can agree many people do read what it has to say for general information or as a jumping off point for further research. It is extremely popular with many hits a day. With that being said, I do think it is important to correctly edit the information provided on the site. With so many site visitors reading this skewed information about nurses, our reputation can be tarnished. In an ideal world everyone would know to verify the information they read, but sadly that is not reality.

Not that anyone really dreams of researching and writing up Wikipedia entries, but if someone does have the extra time and does feel so inclined to do so, I do not think the effort will be futile!

Music in My Heart · Apr 25, 2009

it seems like Wikipedia ought to have a better entry than what I found.

Well, anybody - even you - can edit a Wikipedia page. I know I've done it several times myself.

If you think it should be changed then join the Wiki and change it. You may have to negotiate with the other authors and editors in order to get your changes to stick.

That's the beauty of Wikipedia.... anybody can author and edit their entries.

It's also the great danger of relying upon Wikipedia as a sole source of information, particularly at only one given moment since you have no idea (unless you look) how the entry has evolved. You may, in fact, stumble upon an entry at a time when it's been changed by somebody ignorant or biased.

Me, I LOVE Wikipedia... but I recognize its substantial limitations.

To your point: If the entry needs to be improved then go take care of it. By all means, bounce ideas of the folks here and you'll get all the opinions you can use.