Assessing the Reliability of Scientific Information on Wikipedia

[Mattara]

I am aware that there are some errors in Wikipedia on the science side.

My question is how much and how large of errors?

Do you, the users of PF "trust" the information found at wikipedia?

 

[Astronuc]

I believe this question came up in GD sometime during the past year.

Wikipedia is not a 'controlled' reference, i.e. any member may contribute. Apparently the Wikipedia staff do try to monitor the quality. I have seen several articles that were flagged because the quality of the content or information was not up to Wikipedia's standards, and I have seen several articles where the concern was the 'bias'.

Yes, I have seen several errors in scientific matters.

However, Wikipedia is generally a good starting place, but I prefer to verify and cross-reference.

Other sites include Hyperphysics, in which the content is controlled or access is restricted to a few, and

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/

as well as other tutorials - see PF Math & Science Tutorials

I would have liked a third option in the poll - Somewhat.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have never used Wikipedia as a reliable source, and would never use Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Zz.

 

[scorpa]

My english professor told us not to use it for doing research of course, but she also mentioned that a study had been done and a major encylopedia (can't remember which one) was found to have about 4 errors / however many pages while wikipedia had about 6. So I guess you can take that two different ways, either wiki had more errors, or that an encylocepdia isn't much more accurate than wiki is.

 

[ZapperZ]

My english professor told us not to use it for doing research of course, but she also mentioned that a study had been done and a major encylopedia (can't remember which one) was found to have about 4 errors / however many pages while wikipedia had about 6. So I guess you can take that two different ways, either wiki had more errors, or that an encylocepdia isn't much more accurate than wiki is.

You should read these threads:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104313
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103804

Zz.

 

[scott1]

I think Wikipedia is relible.Usaually if there is anything that mods(I'am not sure what call them Wikipeda) aren't sure about being accuarte they put a notice for someone that is expert about the subject like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_radiation

 

[JamesU]

I have to do a repoton the '50's in class. :groan: and my teacher wouldn't let me use Wikipedia

 

[Mk]

Hellz, yeah. Wikipedia is reliable. I'm an addicted Wikipedian, and spend several hours per day writing, editing, and reading articles. If you find an error tell me, I'll fix it if you don't want to. :D

 

[Pengwuino]

I think an easy answer to it is that it is reliable for general education college level education and below. Upper division and graduate level and real world requirements are a no-go.

I say that basically because anything outside of upper div, grad, and the real world is worthless and no one's reputation is at stake

 

[franznietzsche]

I have never used Wikipedia as a reliable source, and would never use Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Zz.

But would you any regular encyclopedia as one? Such a statement is meaningless without context.

The only problem I have with Wikipedia (and this is not Wikipedia's fault per se) is that many people think that citation is a form of proof and will cite an erroneous statement from Wikipedia as proof that they are right.

 

[Mk]

The only problem I have with Wikipedia (and this is not Wikipedia's fault per se) is that many people think that citation is a form of proof and will cite an erroneous statement from Wikipedia as proof that they are right.

Yeah, Wikipedia cant' be taken as always right, or fact, but it is great for quick easy reference, and a good hobby.

 

[AngelShare]

I've used it before but I always check the information elsewhere to make sure it's correct so I put no because I don't think I'd ever feel comfortable, A) using Wikipedia without checking and, B) using Wikipedia and admitting to it in the bibliography.

 

[ZapperZ]

But would you any regular encyclopedia as one? Such a statement is meaningless without context.

The only problem I have with Wikipedia (and this is not Wikipedia's fault per se) is that many people think that citation is a form of proof and will cite an erroneous statement from Wikipedia as proof that they are right.

No. As I've stated in one of the threads I mentioned, I don't use any of the "regular" encyclopedia either.

But it depends on what is meant as an "encyclopedia". I some time view the CRC Handbook as an encyclopedia. If so, then I do use it often. There is also an encylopedia of superconducting materials. I used to look at that often.

But here's a problem that Wikipedia has that other encyclopedia doesn't. The information printed in other encyclopedia stays PUT and doesn't change with the printed edition. If there is any update or changes, it will come with newer editions. What this means is that if someone wants to cite that particular information, one includes the edition number and the information will still be there. You can't do that with Wikipedia. You do not know if what you cite will still be there, or in the relevant form, next week, regardless whether the info is accurate or not.

So if you're writing a school term paper, good luck in citing it. Considering that from the Nature survey, only barely 10% of scientists and researcher surveyed actually looked at Wikipedia (not to be confused with citing it, since this isn't usually done) should tell people something.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful knowledge source for interested laymen in diverse fields (not just for science).

However, the requirements of quality and reliability of source material that professionals need is not met by Wikipedia, and I don't see why Wikipedia should aim at this type of specialized use.

 

[Mk]

B) using Wikipedia and admitting to it in the bibliography.

I never use wikipedia as a reference.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think Wikipedia is a wonderful knowledge source for interested laymen in diverse fields (not just for science).

However, the requirements of quality and reliability of source material that professionals need is not met by Wikipedia, and I don't see why Wikipedia should aim at this type of specialized use.

And that is where we differ.

If I am Joe Public, and I want to learn about something, while I do not have the ability to comprehend the intimate and intricate detail of that thing, I DO want my source of info to be reliable and accurate. Having it explained in understandable form need not automatically equate to loss of accuracy and reliability. This is a falacy that should not be tolerated.

If one is happy to accept mediocre information, then one should at least be AWARE of it. Use it at one's risk. But don't expect to be taken seriously when ALL one can do is cite something out of Wikipedia as source to support's one's point or ideas.

Zz.

 

[vanesch]

In general, Wikipedia is quite a good information source. There have been some errors in the past, but _most_ topics I consulted were of rather high quality. I think one has to be careful about controversial topics. Because of the way Wiki is organized, sometimes, entries are "hijacked". Nevertheless, in most of these cases, a warning label is put up.
I know that there have been some "spectacular" errors or manipulations of Wiki. However, there have been objective tests where scientific entries of Wiki and of the Encyclopedia Brittanica have been anonymously given to experts, and Wiki, and they are of comparable level of quality:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Now, of course, for highly specialised material, it is probably better to consult a professional source. But for general information, wiki is probably one of the better information sources available freely on the net.

 

[Astronuc]

In terms of reliablity, the fact that Wikipedia is not "controlled" means its reliability is questionable or at least suspect.

After I made my first post, I used Wikipedia for something and realized -

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Therein lies the problem with respect to 'reliability'.

I am not as skeptical as Zz, but I keep in mind that I cannot put 'full faith' in Wikipedia. In fact, I don't put 'full faith' in anything - I always question everything.

 

[arildno]

And that is where we differ.

If I am Joe Public, and I want to learn about something, while I do not have the ability to comprehend the intimate and intricate detail of that thing, I DO want my source of info to be reliable and accurate. Having it explained in understandable form need not automatically equate to loss of accuracy and reliability. This is a falacy that should not be tolerated.

If one is happy to accept mediocre information, then one should at least be AWARE of it. Use it at one's risk. But don't expect to be taken seriously when ALL one can do is cite something out of Wikipedia as source to support's one's point or ideas.

Zz.

If, say, you're interested in getting the general idea of the political situation in China 4 centuries B.C, sure, if you want to invest time&money to find a book by a professional historian that deals with this accurately, then that's what you should do.
If, however, you want a relatively quick overview without costing you any dollars, then you should use Wikipedia.
(As a note, I tend to buy works by professional historians, but that's me..)

 

[Astronuc]

As a note, I tend to buy works by professional historians, but that's me..

Me too!

Same with my technical books!

 

[ZapperZ]

If, say, you're interested in getting the general idea of the political situation in China 4 centuries B.C, sure, if you want to invest time&money to find a book by a professional historian that deals with this accurately, then that's what you should do.
If, however, you want a relatively quick overview without costing you any dollars, then you should use Wikipedia.

And it doesn't bother you that you could get the wrong overview? I do. And when I distrust the source, it doesn't matter if it's free or not. You get garbage either way.

Zz.

 

[Mk]

But for history and science articles the vandalism index is very low. For George Bush or Jesus, the vandalism index is quite high.

 

[arildno]

And it doesn't bother you that you could get the wrong overview? I do. And when I distrust the source, it doesn't matter if it's free or not. You get garbage either way.

Zz.

On "neutral" issues, you won't get a too wrong overview.

 

[Evo]

One of the most frequently vandalized pages on wikipedia is the cattle discussion. And no, I'm not going to explain why I was reading the "talk cattle" page.

"frequent vandalism
Does anybody have any idea why this article is a favorite vandal target? Is there anything we can do to discourage this? A comparison of the last edit and the one 50 edits ago reveal few changes to the article, just a bunch of vandalism and reverting. Grrr. Liblamb 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

'Cause cows are funny, as far as I can tell. Between "cattle" and "poop", the junior high kids have a field day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added the "frequent vandalism" notice to the top of this article, although I thought I'd leave NOEDITSECTION out until it is discussed here. The frequent vandalism notice appears on top of other such oft-vandalized articles as Hurricane Katrina, United States of America and Adolf Hitler, and I think it is warranted here. The full text (as would be seen when editing the page) is:
ATTENTION! PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please understand that this article is one of our most vandalized, and vandalisms are reverted immediately. Vandals of this page will most likely be banned immediately, no questions asked. You will not accomplish anything by vandalizing Wikipedia. If you wish to try test editing, you may do so in our sandbox located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox . Thanks!
IN SHORT: DO NOT ABUSE YOUR PRIVILEGE TO EDIT THIS PAGE, OR YOU WILL BE REVERTED AND BANNED.
- Cuivienen 00:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cattle

 

[kant]

I am aware that there are some errors in Wikipedia on the science side.

My question is how much and how large of errors?

Do you, the users of PF "trust" the information found at wikipedia?

A third option is:

nice to get a general overview, and a starting point on the matter.

 

[AngelShare]

I never use wikipedia as a reference.

Technically, neither do I. I go to Wikipedia to get an idea of what I need to know, then I look up what I found. That method usually takes me to a site more in line with what I'm looking for.

 

[AngelShare]

A third option is:

nice to get a general overview, and a starting point on the matter.

Exactly. If you go to Wikipedia for information, you can get an idea of what you should be looking up. That usually leads you to a site you can use and trust.

 

[franznietzsche]

No. As I've stated in one of the threads I mentioned, I don't use any of the "regular" encyclopedia either.

But it depends on what is meant as an "encyclopedia". I some time view the CRC Handbook as an encyclopedia. If so, then I do use it often. There is also an encylopedia of superconducting materials. I used to look at that often.

But here's a problem that Wikipedia has that other encyclopedia doesn't. The information printed in other encyclopedia stays PUT and doesn't change with the printed edition. If there is any update or changes, it will come with newer editions. What this means is that if someone wants to cite that particular information, one includes the edition number and the information will still be there. You can't do that with Wikipedia. You do not know if what you cite will still be there, or in the relevant form, next week, regardless whether the info is accurate or not.

So if you're writing a school term paper, good luck in citing it. Considering that from the Nature survey, only barely 10% of scientists and researcher surveyed actually looked at Wikipedia (not to be confused with citing it, since this isn't usually done) should tell people something.

Zz.

I think you're vastly shortchanging the usefulness of Wikipedia. It is not useful as a citable source. It is useful as a starting point when looking into more information. Example: I needed to make an XNOR gate from NAND gates. After 3 hours of not being able to figure it out with two or three NAND gates I went to google, and searched. The first hit was a wikipedia entry on XNOR gates, that had a diagram showing how to construct one from five NAND gates. Would I cite it in a report on the workings of an XNOR gate? no. But it was helpful nonetheless, because it pointed me in the right direction.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think you're vastly shortchanging the usefulness of Wikipedia. It is not useful as a citable source. It is useful as a starting point when looking into more information. Example: I needed to make an XNOR gate from NAND gates. After 3 hours of not being able to figure it out with two or three NAND gates I went to google, and searched. The first hit was a wikipedia entry on XNOR gates, that had a diagram showing how to construct one from five NAND gates. Would I cite it in a report on the workings of an XNOR gate? no. But it was helpful nonetheless, because it pointed me in the right direction.

Ah, but look at how many people here actually USE Wikipedia the way you described. I know vanesch, Astronuc, etc. do that, but look around PF and many other open forum. How many people actually use Wikipedia as their sole and main source? These are the same people who do not have access to a proper, accurate source, and so that makes it even worse, because chances are, these are the same people who do not have a clear knowledge of the subject matter they're looking up. So how is that person to know if the info they're reading is accurate?

If people ONLY use it as a starting point of information and then use the references to go look at it deeper, this issue would be moot. But how many people who voted that Wikipedia is reliable actually used it as that? If you looked up stuff from Wkipedia, there's a good chance you don't quite know the info you're looking for. How did one judge that info was accurate and correct? How many here would like to tell me that the info about Superconductivity on Wikipedia, for example, is coherent and accurate?

Zz.

 

[AngelShare]

ZapperZ has a point...the way I and others here use it is okay but I have seen people using it as their sole source. I post on the [adult swim] forums a lot and I've seen numerous people use it...I've also seen numerous people rant about the use of it so...

 

[SpaceTiger]

I use Wikipedia as a means of entertainment more than anything else. If I want to read up on a musician, popular reference, or something for which 100% accuracy isn't so important, then Wikipedia is extremely convenient. I don't like to use it for posts on PF and I would certainly never use it as the sole resource for anything research-related.

 

[ZapperZ]

Britannica fires back at the Nature study that claims that it is no better than Wikipedia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_sc/britannica_nature

Zz.

 

[kmarinas86]

WYPIWYG
What you pay is what you get.

 

[Curious3141]

There are errors in Wiki. Of this there is no doubt. I have personally had to make corrections to articles on the classical Doppler effect (wrong sign convention), intercoolers for turbochargers (incomplete and wrong info) and Singapore (some wrong statements about specific cultural aspects). All my corrections were done sincerely, and to the best of my ability. To the very best of my knowledge they are accurate corrections.

As long as every other person (lay or otherwise) has the same sincerity when editing a page, Wiki would be a wonderful resource. Unfortunately, there are scum out there who get a kick out of vandalising this reference, though for the life of me, I can't see the thrill of it.

 

[Astronuc]

More on Brittanica's complaint against Nature over comparison of Brittanica to Wikipedia.

The original study was conducted by the Nature news team. They asked a number of scientists to assess 50 pairs of articles from relative newcomer Wikipedia and from the well established encyclopaedia.

. . . .

Topics in the Nature study were as diverse as the Archimedes Principle and Dolly the sheep. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.

The study found only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, four from each encyclopaedia.

However, Nature also claimed to have found other factual errors: 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica.

Wikipedia criticisms

Although the longer established encyclopaedia does not claim to be error free, it said that the research "grossly exaggerated Britannica's inaccuracies" and that according to the figures "Britannica was far more accurate than Wikipedia".

In a lengthy document, it went on to rebut more than 50 specific points raised in the study.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm