Blog

MedPedia vs Google Knol: The Medical Knowledge Share Wave Gains Momentum

Announced only last week, Google Knol and MedPedia are already drawing more attention to online collaboration in medicine.

The "Wave" is definitely approaching (see my first Blog post), and whether we are ready or not, the world of medicine is changing. Google Knol and MedPedia represent two of the latest trends, and the question is, which one is worth the ride?

Google Knol (Knol stands for a 'unit of knowledge') is described by Wired as a "Wikipedia-like online encyclopedia penned by authoritative sources", and according to TechCrunch, Medpedia offers an "online collaborative medical encyclopedia". Both build upon earlier wiki based medical resources such as AskDrWiki from the Cleveland Clinic and WikiDoc which is maintained by Harvard. So how are they different?

Google Knol

1. Anyone can register and post a Knol - Google only verifies your identity, not your expertise.
2. Readers can comment on a Knol but cannot directly edit the posting - Knol authors do not appear to be required to maintain or update their Knols.
3. Multiple posts can exist on any topic - Traditional Google search ranks by popularity, not accuracy. Will Google modify their rankings to promote Knols?

MedPedia

1. Experts (MDs, PHDs, etc) will post and review content - This appears to be an exclusive club (I requested an account but have not yet heard back)
2. MedPedia will select their experts - Some have already raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency to the process - Is this just another way for top institutions to market their services?
3. Committees and Boards of experts will oversee the content generated and edited in their fields of expertise. - Is this really any different from todays 'Top Down' approach? How will MedPedia capture and share the collective knowledge of the medical community, i.e. is this scalable?

So what's the real potential of both sites? Bob Wachter, a health adviser to Google and Google Knol, says that "Google Knol and other forms of electronic self-publishing – may signal the end of medical publishing as we have known it."

If I were a publisher today, I would watch Google very, very carefully. If Knol is successful, it may shake the foundations of the already weakening traditional medical publishing industry. As Jason Calacanis, CEO of Mahalo, points out, "if you pay writers, distribute their work, and create a library of their work you are--in no uncertain terms--a publisher." So one has to ask, is Google's mission simply to organize the worlds health information or to replace the peer review editorial process that currently drives it?

MedPedia has lined up support from Harvard Medical School, Stanford School of Medicine, NIH, CDC and the FDA among others, and is entering a crowded medical wiki space and seeding months of lead time to Google (MedPedia won't launch until later this year). Despite this, the question over scalability remains, will MedPedia's editorial driven process be able to keep up with the constantly evolving and ever rapidly changing world of medicine?

As Wikipedia has shown, a wiki can be a powerful tool. However, a medical wiki needs to be very carefully thought through and managed. While it can be effective in many circumstances if deployed properly, the process of harnessing and sharing medical expertise is not one to take lightly.

Jason Bhan, MD Co-Founder, Ozmosis