Science information on Wikipedia
{{Short description|Information about science presented on Wikipedia}}
Science information on Wikipedia includes the information that Wikipedia presents about science. There have been critiques of and discussions about the impact and quality of that information, and of the interactions of Wikipedia editors, scientists, and public engagement with the information.
Impact
A 2016 study found evidence that Wikipedia increases the distribution and impact of open access science publications.{{cite journal|last1=Teplitskiy|first1=Misha|last2=Lu|first2=Grace|last3=Duede|first3=Eamon|date=September 2017|title=Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science|journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology|volume=68|issue=9|pages=2116–2127|arxiv=1506.07608|doi=10.1002/asi.23687|s2cid=10220883}} A 2017 study found evidence that Wikipedia's popularity as the most popular general information source has influenced how everyone talks and writes about science.{{Cite journal|last1=Thompson|first1=Neil|last2=Hanley|first2=Douglas|date=2017|title=Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial|url=https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3039505|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|language=en|doi=10.2139/ssrn.3039505|s2cid=30918097|issn=1556-5068|url-access=subscription}}{{cite journal|last1=Zastrow|first1=Mark|title=Wikipedia shapes language in science papers|url=https://www.nature.com/news/wikipedia-shapes-language-in-science-papers-1.22656|journal=Nature|publisher=Nature Publishing Group|language=en|doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22656|date=26 September 2017|url-access=subscription}} UNESCO reported in 2017 that Wikipedia is a popular source of science information because of its high ranking in search engines.{{cite web|author1=Natural Sciences Sector|title=The UNESCO Science Report finds a new public on Wikipedia|url=http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/single-view-sc-policy/news/the_unesco_science_report_finds_a_new_public_on_wikipedia/|website=UNESCO|publisher=United Nations|language=en|date=9 May 2017}} A 2018 study examined the way that Wikipedia integrates new scientific information.{{cite journal |last1=Benjakob |first1=Omer |last2=Aviram |first2=Rona |title=A Clockwork Wikipedia: From a Broad Perspective to a Case Study |journal=Journal of Biological Rhythms |date=17 April 2018 |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=233–244 |doi=10.1177/0748730418768120|pmid=29665713 |s2cid=4933390 |doi-access=free }}
Editors
File:AAAS annual meeting 2016 34.jpg]]
In 2016 the Wiki Education Foundation and the Simons Foundation presented an outreach program called the "Year of Science". In this program, Wikipedia educators visited academic conferences and invited scientists to contribute information from their field of expertise to Wikipedia.{{cite web|author1=Simons Foundation|title=Mind the Gaps: Improving the Science on Wikipedia|url=https://www.simonsfoundation.org/2017/03/01/mind-the-gaps-improving-the-science-on-wikipedia/|website=Simons Foundation|date=1 March 2017|author1-link=Simons Foundation}} Some universities have programs to encourage students to edit Wikipedia's science articles as part of the learning experience.{{cite web|last1=Neal|first1=Meghan|title=Science Students Are Writing Wikipedia Articles Instead of Term Papers|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/science-students-are-writing-wikipedia-articles-instead-of-term-papers/|website=Motherboard|language=en-us|date=11 February 2016}} The Wikipedia community invites academics to edit Wikipedia articles.{{cite journal|last1=Shafee|first1=Thomas|last2=Mietchen|first2=Daniel|last3=Su|first3=Andrew I.|title=Academics can help shape Wikipedia|journal=Science|date=11 August 2017|volume=357|issue=6351|pages=557.2–558|doi=10.1126/science.aao0462|pmid=28798122|bibcode=2017Sci...357..557S|s2cid=19075849|url=https://zenodo.org/record/841430}} Various academic societies have encouraged their membership to edit Wikipedia.{{cite web|last1=Goldstein|first1=Evan B.|title=Three Reasons Why Earth Scientists Should Edit Wikipedia|url=https://eos.org/opinions/three-reasons-why-earth-scientists-should-edit-wikipedia|website=Eos|publisher=American Geophysical Union|date=27 January 2017}}
Quantity and quality
A study in 2017 determined that: "Depending on the definition and methods used, roughly 10–20% of Wikipedia articles are on scientific topics (0.5–1.0 million out of about 5 million)."
Wikipedia has a broad and diverse practice of citing scientific publications of all fields.{{cite journal |last1=Arroyo-Machado |first1=Wenceslao |last2=Torres-Salinas |first2=Daniel |last3=Herrera-Viedma |first3=Enrique |last4=Romero-Frías |first4=Esteban |last5=Lozano |first5=Sergi |title=Science through Wikipedia: A novel representation of open knowledge through co-citation networks |journal=PLOS ONE |date=10 February 2020 |volume=15 |issue=2 |pages=e0228713 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0228713|pmid=32040488 |pmc=7010282 |arxiv=2002.04347 |bibcode=2020PLoSO..1528713A |doi-access=free }} A 2005 study published in the journal Nature compared 40 Wikipedia articles on science topics to their Encyclopædia Britannica counterpart. Subject experts found four "serious errors" in each encyclopedia. They also found 162 less serious problems in Wikipedia, and 123 in Britannica.{{Cite news |last=Terdiman |first=Daniel |date=16 December 2005 |title=Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica |language=en |work=CNET |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/ |access-date=4 January 2018}} A popular science writer for Vice complained in 2017 that Wikipedia's science articles were too technical.{{cite web|last1=Byrne|first1=Michael|title=Wikipedia's Science Articles Are Elitist|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/wikipedias-science-articles-are-elitist/|website=Motherboard|language=en-us|date=12 October 2017}} Various scientists and media organizations have questioned and critiqued the extent to which Wikipedia articles on science influence political decisions relating to science.{{Cite journal|last1=Lucassen|first1=Teun|last2=Dijkstra|first2=Roald|last3=Schraagen|first3=Jan Maarten|date=2012-08-20|title=Readability of Wikipedia|journal=First Monday|volume=17|language=en|issue=9|doi=10.5210/fm.v0i0.3916|url=https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/readability-of-wikipedia(1234552f-7a38-4303-8e5f-933b61092e48).html |doi-access=free }}{{cite magazine|last1=Clark|first1=Liat|title=Wikipedia wars are harming politically charged science|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-wars-are-killing-politically-charged-science|magazine=Wired|date=17 August 2015}}{{cite news|last1=Collins|first1=Nathan|title=The Political Controversy of Wikipedia Science Articles|url=https://psmag.com/environment/according-to-wikipedia-acid-rain-is-a-load-of-bullshit|website=Pacific Standard|language=en|date=18 August 2015}}
See also
References
{{reflist}}
External links
- [http://simonsfoundation.s3.amazonaws.com/share/sciencesandbox/CrowdsourcingExpertise_2.17.17.pdf Crowdsourcing Expertise: A Working Guide for Organizing a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at a Science Conference]
{{Wikipedia}}