Presumably if registered and regulated health professionals added information to a wikipedia article, which is not evidence based and accurate, they would be liable under their regulatory body for any harm caused. Is there any precedent for this?
Is it also the case that if a registered health professional read information on a wikipedia article which is inaccurate/out of date and didn't change it would they also be liable?
I guess fidelity to science requires that you correct any information that is misleading and not factual. Ethically, its wrong to mislead or not to stop any misleading information from spreading.
To my knowledge there is no precedent otherwise everyone that wrote an article that becomes dated would be at risk. Articles are not medical advice, but rather meant to serve as sharing of knowledge generally among professionals. Most websites even state that it is not meant to be medical advice and to consult a provider.
I would also reinforce the suggestion that a professional should make every effort to evidence-base their published work whatever the mediums of communication. For interest, I draw your attention to a very old published paper I was involved in that highlighted 'Clinical Websites are currently dangerous to health Roberts JM, Copeland, KL Int. Jnl. Medical Informatics 62 (2001) 181-187' that raised some of the issues that continue to be raised today !! As the use of digitally-enabled information pervades all aspects of clinical and health practice nowadays, I continue to reinforce my view that ALL professionals should have the competences to evaluate the implications of what they read/utilise and what they say/publish.