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.