Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Has Become a Science Reference Source Even Though Scientists Don't Cite it (sciencenews.org)
Bethany Brookshire, writing for Science News: Wikipedia is a gold mine for science fans, science bloggers and scientists alike. But even though scientists use Wikipedia, they don't tend to admit it. The site rarely ends up in a paper's citations as the source of, say, the history of the gut-brain axis or the chemical formula for polyvinyl chloride. But scientists are browsing Wikipedia just like everyone else. A recent analysis found that Wikipedia stays up-to-date on the latest research -- and vocabulary from those Wikipedia articles finds its way into scientific papers. The results don't just reveal the Wiki-habits of the ivory tower. They also show that the free, widely available information source is playing a role in research progress, especially in poorer countries.
Wikipedia is also more accurate than many people give it credit. I know there was a study done several years ago comparing Wikipedia's articles against Encyclopedia Britannica. They had experts in certain fields look at articles picked at random. There were fewer errors per page (and more overall information) in Wikipedia than there was in EB.
Sure, people deface pages all the time; but overall, despite getting a bad reputation as being inaccurate, it's more accurate than traditional encyclopedias.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
When I was in high school, wikipedia was just starting to take prominence and kids were starting to use it for research. This caused a bit of grift because it was much easier to look things up in wikipedia at home than it was to go to libraries and such. So some teachers banned the use of it. But I had a smart teacher that said "wikipedia is a great starting point for research but it is not reference material. Find the actual source of the information you use". Sounds like the actual scientific community is using it in exactly the same way!
What I've seen quite often is that people use Wikipedia twice: first to get a cursory overview about the topic, and then to browse the reference list for further reading. So yes, they often don't cite Wikipedia itself, but they make heavily use of the references.
While it is true that Wikipedia isn't reliable as a source the main problem is that a lot of sources that are considered reliable aren't.
Wikipedia is constantly updated. The error in the book you have in your library isn't.
It is not like Wikipedia strives for inaccuracy.
But even though scientists use Wikipedia, they don't tend to admit it.
Oh they'll admit it. They just don't cite it. There is nothing wrong with that. My wife could fairly be described as a scientist and she has several peer reviewed scientific papers and book chapters to her name. She uses Wikipedia (and will freely admit as much) as a way to get her bearings on a topic she isn't deeply familiar with. Then if needed she jumps off to primary data or more authoritative sources when she needs to go deeper. She's under no illusion about the fact that Wikipedia isn't always reliable but it's certainly useful in many circumstances.
Encyclopedias have value even to subject matter experts because nobody is an expert in everything. If you need a quick primer on a topic Wikipedia can be a great place to start. No it won't and shouldn't be cited as a reference but it's a useful tool to avoid repeating the task of getting an overview on a topic.
Wikipedia (just like Encyclopedia Britannica back in the dead tree days) is a secondary source (i.e. it contains no original research and every fact in it should come from some other, cited, primary source). Secondary sources are not typically cited in a research paper, not because of concerns about accuracy, but because primary sources are always preferred.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
When I was in college doing my M.Sc we were told that Wikipedia was not to be referenced, and we could be marked down or failed for referencing it. The issue there is that anyone can change Wikipedia, so there's no guarantee that the information there is correct. (WolframAlpha, incidentally, can be referenced).
I did find myself using Wikipedia for the references, though. There are a lot of citations on every page, so if I wanted to look up something for a paper, I'd look up the citation on the wikipedia page and use it.
As a research scientist, there's a tremendous wealth of information on Wikipedia, especially when breaking into a new field/area, much time can be saved when looking for an overview to figure out where the current state of affairs is on a subject from Wikipedia. You of course then need to investigate and verify the information presented but I've yet to come across examples where what I've read was amiss. Note that many in-depth science articles are written by other scientists and often edited by other scientists (a form of peer review, with less liability). Math articles are also extremely well written and both subjects tend to be fairly immune to political or social vandalism.
Wikipedia gets shamed in the academic community but I certainly use it frequently.
> People, generally, are idiots and wikipedia is a reflection of that
Sure, but lots of people aren't idiots and they're the ones writing the wiki.
The idiots are too busy complaining about the wiki on other sites.
Way back in 7th grade when we started to learn how to do research papers. The early lesson is this.
Use Encyclopedias as a way to give yourself a starter in researching a topic that you know little about. But after you get the Gist of what the topic is about, you can follow its sources, or know enough about the topic to intelligently look for more official sources. After reading the official sources to gain the knowledge you are looking for you would cite them.
Wikipedia had a lot of good info, and for the most part it is truthful and accurate information... But it is still an encyclopedia, where topics in areas are summarized. This is good for the general knowledge questions. For the most part this is good, for general knowledge, arguing on a message board, or even while you are working on something just for a fast reference refresher. But if you are going to be doing an official research on a topic. Wikipedia may be a starting point, but not a good place to cite learned information.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you're quoting Wikipedia directly, you're doing it wrong.
Every non-obvious sentence on Wikipedia requires a reliable source that supports the facts. It's OK to learn about a topic at Wikipedia, but if you're going to spread that knowledge, you must a) read the original reference supporting the facts, and b) credit the reference directly, skipping Wikipedia in the chain of attributions. Reading the original source, you can detect when one of the facts stated in the article is not really supported by the reference.
This is the proper way to disseminate knowledge stored in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", just in case someone edited the facts in the few seconds before you loaded the article.
Besides, if you find a discrepancy between the source and the article, you *should* correct it at the article. Everybody can edit Wikipedia, after all.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I would like to further this line of thought and support.
I'm a scientist and I use Wikipedia regularly to refresh myself on topics I've forgotten, or introduce myself to new topics. If I'm looking at a refresh - I'll likely notice if something is incorrect. I'm using the Wiki to trigger the memories of me sitting in class, listening to the lecture. I sometimes need a prompt to access the graphs and equations already stored in my head.
And if introducing myself to a new topic, Wikipedia serves well as a broad review and the citations allow for ease of depth.
They are not hesitant to say that other teachers have told them not to use Wikipedia, "because anyone can change it."
Any good Wikipedia article has references. Those are what you use, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is writing by third parties about things, not the direct information. "Anyone can change it" is two-sided. That means it can change after you cite it, but it also means that ANYONE could be the person who wrote the material, and they might not a clue.
I talk to them about the accuracy and that errors are rapidly corrected;
You know when an error is corrected after you cite the wrong information ... how? You look at it today and you know the information is right because ... it can be rapidly corrected tomorrow?
I then talk to them about suing Wikipedia
Freudian slip?
as a really good table of contents that will summarize, and take them to, the sources.
That is the true, scholarly use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for general learning about stuff; it is NOT the right source when trying to do something in depth. I.e., you look up things you see on /. on Wikipedia. You write your chemistry paper using sources referenced by authors in Wikipedia.