Orthopaedic Academic Departments

Orthopaedic Super Site

by Myles Clough, OWL Managing Editor

The Orthopaedic Internet, or at least that part of it which belongs to OML (the Orthopaedic Mailing List), has been in ferment recently about the concept of a super site for orthopaedics. The concept introduced to the list by Randale Sechrest is that the sites which offer major contributions to orthopaedic surgeons should combine to create a "one stop shop". The idea has been taken up with enthusiasm by some of the major site owners and has become associated with the idea that they can get some return for all the effort they have put into their sites. Indeed Randale's original proposal was an echo of my own comment that some of the best orthopaedic sites will wither unless they run on something more tangible than enthusiasm.

In short order the "Orthogate" proposal has arisen in which orthopaedic surgeons would subscribe to a password protected site which would post a dazzling array of goodies, the Wheeless Textbook of Orthopaedics, the Bone Home collections of cases, illustrations, protocols and the OML archive, the World Ortho assets including the wealth of educational material, the equally varied assets of BelgianOrthoweb and (of course) OWL. Included in the proposal are ambitious ideas about luring full text orthopaedic journal articles onto the site. The overall concept is that Orthogate would be a "gateway" into the Orthopaedic Internet and that orthopaedic surgeons would subscribe in thousands, thereby enriching the people like me who have been labouring to provide a service. It should be said at once that none of the key suppliers of this material have done more than express interest. Jan Van Der Bauwhede from Belgian Orthoweb has indeed pledged suppport and offered to share his sponsorship as well as his material, but not in the context of user-pay.

It is indeed time for a reality check. The OWL editors believe that a co-ordinating site for orthopaedics on the Internet is a great (and inevitable) idea but we don't believe in exclusivity. The Internet is such an uncontrollable institution with nothing to stop people from putting forward their contribution. A "gateway" to the Orthopaedic Internet will only work if the orthopaedic surgeons on the internet want it to work and that will only happen if it is compellingly useful. If the utility of the site is reduced by making access difficult or expensive the readership will stay away. Then other authors with other methods of support will fill the gap. It doesn't take much imagination to see major orthopaedic supply companies jumping into the opportunity to supply a "free" guide to the orthopaedic internet. Indeed, Slack Inc. (a medical publishing concern) has been doing just that for orthopaedics and the rest of medicine for some time. Not far down that road lies total fragmentation. As much as we would like to gain some return for our efforts, user-pay will defeat the object - creating and maintaining a site of such outstanding utility that readers will naturally use it as their entry to the Orthopaedic Internet. More critically orthopaedic authorship needs to see the "gateway" as the natural place to notify about their efforts. That won't happen if it is competing for readers' dollars or attention! You may believe me when I assure you that without notification from authors the job of keeping up with what is available on the Orthopaedic Internet is becoming impossible.

From its inception OWL has had the ambition to be the gateway to the Orthopaedic Internet. Because the Internet is inherently uncontrollable the only way to nudge it in the direction of high quality orthopaedic information is to gain the respect of the community, orthopaedic surgeons, readers, patients and authors. Once respect has been earned and gained we plan to institute some form of review or rating system so that the readership can get some idea of how valuable the content is. This in turn would lead to feedback between OWL and the authors to improve the various sites. If this sounds ambitious or even megalomaniac I suggest you consider the motivations of highly respected people like journal editors and the executives of national and international orthopaedic organizations. They also want to improve orthopaedics by influencing it; so do we, in the context of the Internet.

To achieve this we need, first and formost, to provide a service; but we also need to reduce competition and confusion. For this reason we are eager to combine with any authors posting similar information. If anyone wants to go into the business of collecting orthopaedic links the message is - join and share; don't try to collect your own comprehensive collection when you can post the OWL collection free for the asking. All we need in return is that you contribute to the work of maintaining the collection. OWL is mirrored in seven sites from Scotland to Australia and we are actively recruiting new members. So far we have avoided commercial sites and the big library sites have not returned our interest. So our focus has remained academic, voluntary and owned by orthopaedists. How to reward what we do is still an unanswered question.

What has this to do with Orthogate? OWL members are committed to free access to their collection of links. If Orthogate is to be the gateway to the Orthopaedic Internet it must come to some accomodation with that. And without OWL it won't fly!

Please send comments on this editorial to Myles Clough email cloughs@mail.netshop.net

Other sites are grouped under the following headings:

Editorial

- CONTENTS -