How to fix CKM biggest issue

Gustavo Bacelar gbacelar at gmail.com
Thu Mar 12 12:50:53 EDT 2015


Hi Ian, Sebastian and everyone,
on early 2009 Microsoft discontinued its encyclopedia, Encarta. MS Encarta
had a limited selection of *professionally edited content*, but it was
defeated by an initiative of *non-professional edited content*: Wikipedia.
By that time, Wikipedia offered *2.7 million articles* in English, Encarta
had *42,000 entries*.

Encarta did try to adapt, inviting users to submit suggestions for changes
to articles, but those suggestions *first had to be checked by a member of
the Encarta staff*. And Encarta *did not allow users to submit new entries*.

My point is: openEHR has a *huge potential*, but it is still
too bureaucratic. It must be free to follow its path.

Someone can say: "but the quality of wikipedia is questionable, the Editors
are not professionals!". In 2005, Nature famously reported
<http://www.jimgiles.net/pdfs/InternetEncyclopaedias.pdf> that Wikipedia
articles on scientific topics contained just four errors per article on
average, compared to three errors per article in the online edition of
Encyclopaedia Britannica.

​I've been spreading the word about openEHR through courses (
http://goo.gl/KvNCvb) and consulting and I can see more and more people
aware of it, but the barriers are not moving. I've tested the beta version
of CKM, thanks Sebastian! It seems to be a very important upgrade,
including the CKA role.

I understand that the focus of the Editorial group is to get green ticks,
but if there were more Editors would be more green ticks as well. By
mid-2012 there was a Call for CKM Editors. There were at least three people
interested: Domingo Liotta, ​Pablo Corradini and I. Nothing happened since
then.

When it comes to using CKM to local projects, I really think it would be
much better for the community. It a local project would like to develop new
archetypes, it would be better to do it within an international context
instead of developing them locally.

It is important to separate the interests of openEHR Foundation from
Ocean's, at his time there in conflict. Ocean wants to sell their products,
I don't blame it, but the international CKM needs to be a central hub for
archetype development. It doesn't matter if its for commercial projects or
not as long as the content:

   - Is of interest and not repeated (e.g. a local version of an existing
   archetype)
   - Is not a specific admin data for particular use
   - Is available in CKM for community.

Many of the existing archetypes in CKM were created to fulfill commercial
use, so it should be used as a source of resources. I will use the words
on openEHR website and openEHR Wiki:

"The openEHR CKM has gathered an active Web 2.0 community (...) for
> *sharing* health information between individuals, clinicians and
> *organisations*; between applications, and across *regional* and
> *national* *borders*."


​A moral liberal approach would put more load on the Editors, but only if
we don't increase the Editorial team. It is better to have many useful
incubated archetypes ​than not having then in CKM. If these archetypes are
so important, we will be able to see and improve them as soon as possible.
Let's think about Encarta.

Best regards!
-- 
Gustavo Bacelar
MD + MBA + MSc Med Informatics
Skype: gustavobacela
​r
LinkedIn: pt.linkedin.com/in/gbacelar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20150312/07b49e06/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list