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.

2 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. only place I donate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I give them money every time they ask. And I'm not at all bothered if there's some skim going on at the foundation. They destroyed a friends' 20th century business model, being a recognized expert on a few historical niches, but c'est la vie.

  2. Re:Because Wikipedia is not reliable as a source by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > 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.

    This is true. In addition, most of the people who complain about wikipedia don't even know of the existence of the history and talk pages. They don't even understand the very thing they are complaining about. They also probably don't know that you can cite a specific page version so it never changes over time.