Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

Does ACC consider Wikipedia to be a valid reference for Treatment Injury Reports and Treatment Injury Advice (ACC2187)? Please explain your answer.

Is ACC aware of Wikipedia’s general disclaimer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:...

"Not professional advice

If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management),
please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."

This extract was taken from the current version of the page as of the 3rd November 2017, with the page last having been edited at 12:48 on the 17th December 2015‎.

Can ACC confirm that Treatment Injury Reports and Treatment Injury Advice (ACC2187) are written by people with university degrees plus additional training and that they are expected to produce work that is at a level that reflects their education and training?

Is ACC aware of Wikipedia not being considered a good reference for university level work in New Zealand? Examples of this include:

Victoria University Wellington Te Kawa a Maui Academic Writing Guide -
https://www.victoria.ac.nz/maori/study/p...
“… many academic institutions, including TKAM, do not allow students to cite Wikipedia
as an academic reference: it is not guaranteed to be authoritative, and so it cannot
provide support that is appropriate in an academic context.”

AUT Library Guide - http://aut.ac.nz.libguides.com/APA6th/we...
“AUT Library recommends that students use a wide range of academic sources and not
rely upon Wikipedia for their research”

Is ACC aware of research that shows that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource for medical information?

“Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics”, Samy A. Azer, Advances in Physiology Education Mar 2015, 39 (1) 5-14; DOI: 10.1152/advan.00110.2014

“In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by
anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were
not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.”

The level of trust that should be assigned to Wikipedia in general is described in a New York Post article – “Don’t trust anything on Wikipedia”, Steve Cuozzo November 16, 2013 | 8:30pm - http://nypost.com/2013/11/16/dont-trust-...

“But millions take Wikipedia as gospel on more challenging subjects, from Kenya’s Mau
Mau war to nuclear fission, which can’t be checked with a stroll around the block. What
a travesty for journalism, for education and for what we once called “knowledge.””

This is no surprise since Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:... current version as of the 3rd November 2017, with the page last having been edited at 01:32 on the 16th October 2017‎) itself says:

“Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.”

Are Treatment Injury Reports and Treatment Injury Advice (ACC2187) subject to a review process once they have been created?

Does the review process include quality and accuracy checks? If not, why not?

If the review process identifies issues, including the use of non-credible sources, will the Treatment Injury Reports or Treatment Injury Advice (ACC2187) be corrected?

If there are any Treatment Injury Reports or Treatment Injury Advice (ACC2187) which rely on Wikipedia as a source, does ACC consider the content to be accurate and reliable?

I can confirm that I am a New Zealand citizen, resident in New Zealand and as such I am eligible to make Official Information Act requests.

Yours faithfully,

Ms Ashworth