Wikipedia: accuracy and potential

[Mr Skeptic]

What do people think of the accuracy of Wikipedia in science related articles? I read a study that said that Wikipedia's accuracy in science was comparable to that of Britannica. Others say that Wikipedia is inaccurate and unreliable. A few professors have allowed references to Wikipedia (but only if the reference is static).

 

What do people think of the accuracy of Wikipedia in science?

 

On a related note, what do people think the potential of Wikipedia is? Will its accuracy continuously increase, or will vandals and incompetents keep it low? Will Wikipedia become the ultimate dictionary of the future/repository of knowledge, or is it the predecessor of the Hichhicker's Guide to the Galaxy version 0.001 (the guide, not the book)?

 

Will wikibooks replace textbooks?

 

What do people think?

 

My native language is not English, so I may make English grammar mistakes, but I don't really care about grammar mistakes.

 

My apologies. I usually don't care much about grammar either (until it starts interfering with communication, which is not the case here). But I thought it ironic how many mistakes you made, while claiming wikipedia is full of mistakes.

 

If you can show me my error in physics it would be more appropriate in this topic. You know there people who start discussing personal features if they cannot tell anything on the subject. I hope you are not one of them.

 

No, according to wikipedia your physics is just fine

 

Because I am professor of Physics I tried to help you better understand Physics. I like the idea that students discuss Physics out of classroom and I will try to do a lot to help them.

 

You could help an awful lot of people by correcting wikipedia instead of telling people to stay away from it. Wiki is very popular, for good or ill. Even if you just point out the errors you saw, I am certain someone else will fix them for us.

 

However, it seems a little bit strange that you are so negative about such participation.

 

How so? I am only concerned about how negative you are about what I see as a very useful resource, and one that is growing rapidly.

 

If you don't like my advise you are free not to follow it (as I mentioned above). However, that was advise from best intentions as you will never understand Physics if you accept everything you read in wikipedia without THINKING.

 

I don't believe in accepting anything, from anywhere or anyone, without thinking. Why the focus on Wikipedia? Don't other encyclopedias, professors, and research papers make their fair share of mistakes too?

 

I hope couple of people will accept my advise and will not educate themselves using that unreliable source of information.

 

And I hope that people help make Wikipedia reliable.

 

I promised I will not discuss wikipedia in that topic. Start another one. Send me an e-mail.

 

I did.

[foodchain]

What do people think of the accuracy of Wikipedia in science related articles?

 

I like it for an overview purpose. Such as if I am introduced to a new topic that I don’t hold any real previous understanding of. I think wiki helps me really find out more on the topic for the purpose of being a starting place. I don’t think really its something you should take for granted as in the truth on a subject, but a good general overview and place to start on a subject again.

 

IN time I could see wiki getting more refined with honest interpretations and factual representations, but for the longest time the opening paragraph on wiki for instance when you typed in physics stated physics had nothing to do basically with the life sciences. So it has its ills but it also has its own immune system which is feedback with its users and appointed guardians/admins.

[DrDNA]

Wikipedia is like a book where the readers can write, add to, and rewrite the story. Its information is as reliable as you might expect given those circumstances. That said, I believe it to be entertaining and a good source for casual information. I would never try to use it academically, professionally or for anything very serious.

[iNow]

It's helped me a number of times to get the basics of a subject with which I'm unfamiliar, an overview and a sense of the terminology. It is a greater resource to steer people toward a greater awareness of a subject area. I also know that I need to seek other sources when I'm supporting a point with detail and fact, but overall, it's a wonderful quick reference to help get some momentum when I'm approaching a new topic of learning or just need a refresher on something I haven't thought about in a while.

[Mr Skeptic]

Here is a link to the study on Wikipedia being as accurate as Britannica (on science topics). The study is from 2005, so the numbers may be different by now. The original study was done by Nature, and disputed by Britannica.

 

I was too lazy to look it up yesterday night.

[Captain]

I'm not so convinced of its accuracy. Here's an article I recently read on this very subject. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not so convinced of its accuracy. Here's an article I recently read on this very subject. http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html

 

Yes, that shows that Wikipedia has quite a few errors with regards to people and politically charged topics. I am interested in that too, but what I had asked was about its accuracy on science related topics (since it is in the science thread)

---

Newscientist just had an article claiming that anonymous contributors tend to be about as high quality as regular editors. The original study was done by Dartmouth folks, and they also have a 34 page pdf of the original study.

[alan2here]

Wiki is really useful, there are lots of conspiracies about how it could in theory be inaccurate, Ive never had any experience of that myself. It will by it's very nature occasionally be inaccurate for a very short length of time, just after a stupid edit or during an edit war where nobody can agree before a decision is reached. However the chance of you hitting one of those times when going on an article IMO is very low.

[tvp45]

My question would be why use it when good primary sources are available? It's like looking at a picture of vanilla ice cream when a cone of real Cherry Garcia is in your hand.

[DrDNA]

My question would be why use it when good primary sources are available? It's like looking at a picture of vanilla ice cream when a cone of real Cherry Garcia is in your hand.

 

I don't get your point. I prefer Vanilla.

[Reaper]

I think the reason that there are some people who dislike wikipedia is because its, well, how do I put it, one of those "new trendy things" or something like that. The idea and the concept of wikis have only been around for less than 10 years, and so I would imagine that some in the academic field will need some time to either accept it, or get used to it at the very least. After all, something like this has never been possible and they may not like the idea of "regular" people contributing information. It's actually quite similar to the backlash against "counter-culture" or video games or anything that is considered new. Certainly, the other encyclopedia companies have a lot to worry about, given that it is free...

 

But, I always tell the critics, it is a FREE encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, which also means them. So, why don't you take advantage of that instead of sitting up in your ivory tower and complaining about it? Also, they have a very good system set up to prevent vandals or other idiots from coming in and spouting libel and all other sorts of gross inaccuracies.

 

Besides, I don't use any encyclopedias as a primary source, whether they are Britannica or Wikipedia. But wikipedia is a reliable place to get an overview or basic info on a topic I happen to be interested in. Plus, they have links and a bunch of sources that I can look into if I want to look greater in depth, so I go there for that too.

[tvp45]

I don't get your point. I prefer Vanilla.

 

Well...

 

My point is that primary sources are always so much better than tertiary ones. If I wanted to know something about Newton's Laws, for example, I could read Wiki, Hugh Young, Goldstein, Maxwell, or the Principia or perhaps several. If I were in an ordinary high school, perhaps Wiki does the trick; if I were in a senior level course at CalTech, I think I better not drop below Goldstein.

 

I should point out that Wiki has some excellent articles. I checked a couple before I posted. For example, the one on inductance is first rate. The one on postural control is accurate but not balanced (that's not a bad pun). The one on iron furnaces is OK but not comprehensive. So, I think it requires judgement to use these articles.

 

I'll continue to use it, but not as a citation.

[Mr Skeptic]

My point is that primary sources are always so much better than tertiary ones. If I wanted to know something about Newton's Laws, for example, I could read Wiki, Hugh Young, Goldstein, Maxwell, or the Principia or perhaps several. If I were in an ordinary high school, perhaps Wiki does the trick; if I were in a senior level course at CalTech, I think I better not drop below Goldstein.

 

The trouble being that if you don't know the subject, how will you know which are the best sources to study that subject? Also, you might want an online source, rather than a textbook.

[tvp45]

Good point. IMO, if you don't know anything about the subject, start with an expert. For example, I know nothing at all about how to determine whether goats see colors. I would start with a periodical review, looking initially at known sources like Nature or American Scientist, but also checking to see if there is a peer-reviewed journal named something likeAmerican Journal of Mammal Opthalogy. Once I found a couple of sources, I'd start checking to see who cited whom. Then, I'd try to follow the research grants to see who got them and from where. Then, once I had a couple of names that everybody seemed to like, I'd see if they had any books.

 

If I wanted to work online, I'd Google (which I just now did) and come up with something like this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9685209&dopt=AbstractPlus

Since I have some knowledge of NIH, that's a good starting point. Then I'd try to do the same type of process. Kind of a lot of work, but when I got done I'd be reasonably sure I knew what I was talking about.

 

And, by the way, I would likely have looked at Wiki to see if they had any good sources.

[iNow]

Everyone seems in agreement. Wiki as ONE source is fine, but as your ONLY source is not.

[CharonY]

I actively discourage my students to use wikipedia as a source, at least for citations. In my opinion correct citations requires the use of the primary sources.

The basic principles that are well covered by wikipedia articles either do not need specific citations (one does not really need a citation if one refers to the dogma of molecular biology, for example), or require the identification of the underlying paper(s), anyway.

 

Of course one can use the articles as an introduction to a topic, though I found the article especially in the areas that I work(ed) in woefully lacking. Of course I could go ahead and correct them (and in some instances I did correct gross errors), but then it simply takes too much time and effort.

[Mr Skeptic]

Once again, Wikipedia compares favorably to another encyclopedia. This time, the German version of Wikipedia was compared to the online version of a traditional encyclopedia.

[timo]

Huh? Having written an article or two for the german WP and just this morning having deleted some (and not even all) very stupid statements in the article "photon" (i.e. not some super-exotic topic but a relatively basic one) that comes as a big surprise. Would be interesting to find out which 50 articles were chosen - seems unlikely that there were physics articles in it .

 

EDIT: Found it, so in case someone bothers: Six of the articles were from the resort science:

* Gravitation

* Stem cells

* ISS

* Polar Bear

* Wind Power Plants

* MP3

Further six were from medical sciences (so should probably also count as science by sfn definitions).

[Mr Skeptic]

It was just in time for Wikipedia's fund drive, too

[Fred56]

What you need to be able to measure is the entropy of any wiki, or node in the heirarchy, or whatever. It's a library where the books aren't static copies, but there's a record, or audit, of changes. Entropy = change, so higher entropy I guess is a measure of how contentious any article is. Expectation comes into it too, or uncertainty.

[Riogho]

It's the Wikipedia Uncertainty Principle. You can't expect it to be accurate all the time because there ARE idiots out there editing it at all time. But you can however take that into account and get your area of probability

[iNow]

Entropy = change

Sorry, Fred. Try again. The above is another misrepresentation/misunderstanding/misuse of terms on your part.

 

 

Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity used to measure the disorder of a system.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+entropy

 

 

Saying that entropy = change betrays your own ignorance on the subject and your inability to accurately describe it to others.

 

 

 

Wiki does change, but equivocating this change to entropy is nonsense.

[Fred56]

Saying that entropy = change betrays your own ignorance on the subject and your inability to accurately describe it to others.

I see, I think you perhaps mean making change equivalent to entropy, but I might leave it there.

Are you seriously saying entropy is not change (twice now)??

[Mr Skeptic]

I see, I think you perhaps mean making change equivalent to entropy, but I might leave it there.

Are you seriously saying entropy is not change (twice now)??

 

I'd seriously suggest that you read the link he gave, which gives the accepted definition(s) of entropy. You could insist on using your own definition, but then you would have to explain your own definition every time you use it and put up with people who get annoyed at you for not using the correct definition.

[Fred56]

Ah, yes. The 'good one', like that one for a certain method that 'scientists' use. The one that some think they know all about? It's a tool, right? It's a static thing. Something that doesn't, by itself, do anything?

 

a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

 

It's a set of rules - a "body of techniques". No more, no less. And it works.

Who wants to have a go at sorting out the problem with none of the words I bolded being any sort of static thing, but a process. A method is a process, like using a tool. Like I've been saying.... A tool isn't anything until it gets used.

 

Entropy: is change. Thermodynamic entropy is a change in heat in some system, or part of a (closed) system.

Entropy change is certainly enabled in chemistry by the motional energy of molecules (that can be can be increased by bond energy change in chemical reactions) but thermodynamic entropy is only actualized if the process itself (expansion, heating, mixing) makes accessible a larger number of microstates, a maximal Boltzmann probability at the specific temperature. Information ‘entropy' only has the latter factor of probability

-entropysite.com

 

Those links you think I should read: can you paste anything from that refutes the statement: Entropy = change ?

 

P.S. I would say being correct would also imply not accusing others of being incorrect if they aren't.