Collaborative Efforts to Enhance Physics Articles on Wikipedia

[ZapperZ]

Ive been reading for a long time about how wikipedia is the devil and frankly its become annoying. Wikipedia is the easiest way the general public has to get information regarding most subjects. Last time I checked most people don't look up uvphoto emmisions and other very detailed aspects of physics. Generally people are looking for general information on a subject and for that I think wikipedia is a great thing. As far as detailed information goes, wikipedia isn't the greatest but its the best we got for now.

But listen to yourself here. You're saying "Oh yeah, on some topic, it is OK for it to go off kilter, as long as in other "general information", they are fine".

I am glad that you are able to draw such a distinct line between what should be accurate, and what is acceptable for it to go wrong. I can't. And the fact that it can happen draws into question the INTEGRITY of the whole thing. I cannot fathom how you can accept a source that is THAT flaky! Have we lowered our standards THAT low?

Zz.

 

[Crosson]

No one has pointed out that these "experts" that write encyclopedias always keep distant from the readers, they are careful not to sound too human.

What I like most about wikipedia is the way that it avoids pompous "expert" styles of writing, and I feel similarly about many open-source projects.

The math/phys articles are really just a convenient way to be exposed to new topics, the way that each paragraph is full of live links. And every science page has links to source materials on the bottom, many of which are print titles.

Why would it matter so much if someone got the wrong idea from wikipedia?

 

[ZapperZ]

Why would it matter so much if someone got the wrong idea from wikipedia?

I think that phrase should be Wikipedia's logo.

Zz.

 

[Sojourner01]

Wikipedia is most useful as a gateway - get the general rundown and use it as a point of contact for other materials. This is why editors harp on about references so much - because for anything important, it needs to be backed up by good books and journals.

I don't know how many different ways I can express my opinion. The idea behind the system is that the community plugs away at a system that is in a state of flux. The net effect is that articles tend to improve. Where this system fails is that there is insufficient contribution by people in the know and thus things slip through. As they do with most things, academics have gotten on their high horse instead of getting stuck in and doing something about it.

Nobody denies that wikipedia is weak as a research source - very weak indeed. For casual information and as a gateway, however, it has eminent potential to be very good indeed within its bounds. It will only get that way if people whose knowledge is worth a damn contribute.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wikipedia is most useful as a gateway - get the general rundown and use it as a point of contact for other materials. This is why editors harp on about references so much - because for anything important, it needs to be backed up by good books and journals.

I don't know how many different ways I can express my opinion. The idea behind the system is that the community plugs away at a system that is in a state of flux. The net effect is that articles tend to improve. Where this system fails is that there is insufficient contribution by people in the know and thus things slip through. As they do with most things, academics have gotten on their high horse instead of getting stuck in and doing something about it.

Nobody denies that wikipedia is weak as a research source - very weak indeed. For casual information and as a gateway, however, it has eminent potential to be very good indeed within its bounds. It will only get that way if people whose knowledge is worth a damn contribute.

And why would they want to do that?!

I know of a couple of people at work who use Wikipedia as a quick "gateway". When I asked one of them if he would consider contributing to it, his reply was "why would I want to do that?!" And this comes from someone who uses it!

You also ignore the fact that the "community" does NOT use Wikipedia, and so, has almost no vested interest in it. The Nature survey reveals that barely 10% of scientists use it extensively. So there is no "high horse" to get off, because most do not even care or know it exist. So essentially, you're asking people to put effort into something that is worth nothing to them. Hello? What am I missing here?

Community service? I've done plenty and not only are they more effective, I also get credit (or blame) for it AND, no one can come in and spoil things later. You referee for a journal, and you can use that as one of your professional accomplishments. Write an entry for Wikipedia? Not only does it not count, I'd be too embarrass to even include that!

Edit: P.S. In case people want to know, I have ZERO problem with whoever wants to "improve" the science entries in Wikipedia. If you think it will work, more power to you. I do, however, have a problem with people thinking that the process is similar, or heaven forbid, "tends" to be like "peer-review". It is NOTHING like that, and that was my main objection.

Zz.

 

[Astronuc]

The principal problem with Wikipedia is lack of 'quality control', hence less than complete reliability or credibility. I have much the thoughts as those expressed by Zz, Evo and Moonbear.

On Wikipedias MainPage - "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That does not instill confidence. One does not know who writes a specific article.

And then on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction it states "Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold!" I'd rather Wikipedia encourage people to be 'correct'.

In a true peer reviewed journal or encyclopedia, the people (peers) doing the review are 'experts' who have done similar work or have similar experience to those writing articles/papers which are being reviewed. Pick any journal and look at the editorial board and list of reviewers. Most have decades of experience and are themselves published (and those articles have been peer-reviewed by more senior experts). This simply is not necessarily the case at Wikipedia. Although the situation may be improving, it still has a long way to go.

I use Wikipedia as a start, and it helps if a particular article references other non-Wiki sources. But, I still see a number of articles without proper reference, and I still see occassional articles locked because of vandalism (particularly those of sensitive political or historical nature).

As ZapperZ has experienced, I have found occassional technical articles that contain wrong information.

Why would it matter so much if someone got the wrong idea from wikipedia?

Because the point of sharing information is that the information is 'correct'.

While making Wikipedia a more realiable source is a laudable goal, the only way to change that is for Wikipedia to make a structural change that restricts or controls the contribution of articles. And then all articles have to be subjected to rigorous review.

 

[Moonbear]

Yes, they try to police it, but it's an impossible task. There are just too many crackpots out there.

And, there are just too many pages to police. They can't go out daily and read every page thoroughly to make sure nobody has changed something important.

some things will never change so why not treat it like a real encyclopedia, lock agreed upon wikis and review them every ten years or so. i understand that no one wants everything in one place and you'd want to flag hits to
"forbidden" infomation but that's how you play go fish now.

If someone did that, it would be an encyclopedia, not a wiki. That's the entire flaw, that they won't lock it after the experts agree upon an entry.

besides the real danger is already at the university. save a tree, except for schools, book stores and old editions it's going to be print on demand anyway.

Huh? Do you know what people do with electronic textbooks to make them readable? They print them. So, have the publisher print them or the user print them, what's the difference? I have no problem with writing textbooks in an electronic format, though, if it saves some people from using paper, and they can read and study from it (I can't, I need it in print). That's not the complaint here. The complaint is that if you put effort into getting correct information on a page, any idiot can come in at any time and "be bold" and change it, and not just "vandalism" but subtle changes that they think make it sound better but are not technically correct. You can't cite it as a source, the way you can an encyclopedia, because tomorrow it might be entirely different. Most people have better things to do with their time than do something as futile as editing a source that anyone else can come in and write over again without any credentials.

 

[MeJennifer]

Well, truth is not determined by democracy, with that in mind, I see a real problem with the way Wikipedia works.

But on the other hand, I think that the idea to provide non-commerial information available to everyone, for free, should not in the least be followed by those who "copyright" the results of sub-atomic and cosmological experiments. Ironically HTTP and the WWW originated from the need to share sub-atomic experiments and research.

For instance a search on www.cern.ch (including CERN's intranet) to a simple term like "fermion" gives zero results.

 

[physics girl phd]

What wikipedia tends to amount to... is peer-review.

This was an excellent way of stating it... therefore I think the original post request was a call for us to all get out and start "reviewing" to make topics more accessible/reliable. However, the peers on Wiki are the general community (not necessarily the scientific one) so this is therefore "iffy"... as people state, and do we want to hire a huge team of professional science educators to fill the role? Really, I think not... professional educators know that there are lots better resources out there for learning and developing, and take wiki as it is... a quick reference that should ALWAYS be verified by something ACTUALLY published... like a textbook... since wikis on science topics seem generally textbooky in nature and therefore should be able to be verified by the user.

This said... I've generally found that the few wiki articles I was involved with on (with my husband, a sociologist) took things that were EXTREMELY bad ("stubs")... and made them much better by an almost complete replacement (a virtually complete redo and expansion, but not "blanking"). They have therefore remained intact and virtually unchanged (I checked recently in the history files). HOWEVER... These were biographical sketches that the individuals being described (some famous sociologists he knew) WANTED a new and improved wiki. Vandalism has occurred on the sites, but it was quickly caught by bots or by the fact that these individuals occassionally police the articles themselves (or have a grad student do this ).

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Actually, it's a fight between the original developers. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=132272

This Citizendium thing looks like a really good idea. Hopefully it catches on and is successful.

 

[trajan22]

"But listen to yourself here. You're saying "Oh yeah, on some topic, it is OK for it to go off kilter, as long as in other "general information", they are fine".

I am glad that you are able to draw such a distinct line between what should be accurate, and what is acceptable for it to go wrong. I can't. And the fact that it can happen draws into question the INTEGRITY of the whole thing. I cannot fathom how you can accept a source that is THAT flaky! Have we lowered our standards THAT low?

Zz."
I was not trying to imply that it is ok that these articles are flawed, I agree entirely that these "crackpot articles" should be removed or edited and that it is unacceptable. However, I am trying to say that because most people do not access these advanced articles they only have a minimal negative impact. No, wikipedia is not perfect by any means but thus far most all the articles that I have used on it have been reliable. I know this because it agrees with my textbooks. I have not run across articles written by "crackpots" (at least that I know of) but I generally only use wikipedia as either a jump point to further research or as a quick reference point.

(a quick question but how do you get the quotes to come up in a separate box)

 

[Moonbear]

(a quick question but how do you get the quotes to come up in a separate box)

Click the button that says "quote."

 

[ZapperZ]

I was not trying to imply that it is ok that these articles are flawed, I agree entirely that these "crackpot articles" should be removed or edited and that it is unacceptable. However, I am trying to say that because most people do not access these advanced articles they only have a minimal negative impact. No, wikipedia is not perfect by any means but thus far most all the articles that I have used on it have been reliable. I know this because it agrees with my textbooks. I have not run across articles written by "crackpots" (at least that I know of) but I generally only use wikipedia as either a jump point to further research or as a quick reference point.

Here's the conclusion I get from your post:

1. Wikipedia content can be flawed.

2. Getting flawed information is better than getting no information. (!)

3. Even when I know that the information can be flawed, and changed at any time, I still trust the content.

When you put it THAT way, the only thing that I can do is throw my hands up in the air and walk away. If you don't care about the integrity of your source of information, why should I?

Zz.

 

[slugcountry]

well the day wikipedia results in anything less than an A paper because of my sources i'll agree that it is flawed ... honestly have you guys actually tried to use it as a serious research tool?

Someone really hit the nail on the head when they said it was a gateway... to good sources.

Here is a good example I just found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubler-Ross_model

notice the brief overview followed by links to her essays as well as external more in-depth analysis.

what more could you ask for?

edit: I WILL say that it is probably a bad place to research fringe topics - er by fringe I mean cutting edge new information since it is evolving and changing at a tremendous rate (the new information that is).

 

[trajan22]

You are clearly misinterpreting my posts just as you have many of the others on this thread. You have no desire to listen to what people say and are simply repeating yourself. I understand I won't change your opinion or anyone elses so why bother trying...

 

[Monique]

How many of the research papers that get published are flawed in some way or another, even what is published in books doesn't always stand the test of time. You should always practice critical reading. I think Wikipedia is a nice resource to get familiar with a subject, which you can then research further, it's like a gateway. Many people know more than an individual, that's the power of Wikipedia. The problem is that it's not written by experts, so you should not expect that level of accuracy.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are clearly misinterpreting my posts just as you have many of the others on this thread. You have no desire to listen to what people say and are simply repeating yourself. I understand I won't change your opinion or anyone elses so why bother trying...

But where exactly did I misinterpret your post? I tried to OUTLINE what I understood point by point. As far as I can tell, you acknowledged that it can be faulty, but you're willing to overlook it. How is this misinterpreting what you said?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

How many of the research papers that get published are flawed in some way or another, even what is published in books doesn't always stand the test of time. You should always practice critical reading. I think Wikipedia is a nice resource to get familiar with a subject, which you can then research further, it's like a gateway. Many people know more than an individual, that's the power of Wikipedia. The problem is that it's not written by experts, so you should not expect that level of accuracy.

But Monique, even you would see that there is a significant difference between "flaws" made in research papers and texbooks, and those made in Wikipedia. Many of these so-called errors in research papers often comes as part of the evolution and progress in a research-front activity, and we ALL know that such a thing is part of the process. I do not call these as errors. Furthermore, unlike people who look up Wikipedia, scientists do NOT use research papers as "learning tools". In fact, those who do read research papers are themselves experts in the very same field that those papers are in. So these are not clueless individual who probably won't know if something faulty is being presented to them.

In addition to that, errors and mistakes done in both of these media are permanent and recorded, and often, corrections are made that STAYED made. You don't have such a fluid and changing set of information that anyone can change.

On a separate issue, what I see here seems to be the strange dichotomy from people supporting the use of Wikipedia, and they both seem contradicting each other. On one hand, you have the camp that argues that Wikipedia is for people who do not have access to the source of info that they're looking for. This means that these people will use Wikipedia as their primary source of info, because they simply are not able to either look up other source, or unable to understand them (I'm referring to science and physics info in particular).

But on the other hand, we have people arguing that Wikipedia is a good "gateway" for information, that it is a valid starting point to look up the sources of such info.

These two camps are not complimentary! People who do not have access to the sources, will not be able to get them or understand them. So essentially, people who are in the 2nd camp are also saying that for the general public, the use of Wikipedia as a primary source of info is faulty and suspect as well!

Therefore, what we have here is that Wikipedia and its aim as an open "encylopedia" to be used by the masses, is inherently flawed IF one does not have the ability to check up on the accuracy of the information that one is reading. That means that one must have access to available references (if any), or know where to look for them (especially peer-reviewed papers).

Now, how many people do we all think actually do that? How many of the general public can actually get access to the scientific papers that these information are based on, or more importantly, can actually understand these papers and be able to judge that the info they are getting is valid? In other words, how many people who are clueless in the topic they are looking for actually use Wikipedia as a "gateway"?

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I've found wikipedia to be quite useful and, despite the occasional inaccuracies, I get the impression that it more often dispels misconceptions than creates them. It's not perfect and I certainly wouldn't use it as a source in a highly technical argument, but I think it can be an excellent resource for the layman. I would applaud anyone willing to take part in what the OP is suggesting, though I don't think I could spare the time myself.

 

[-Job-]

PhysicsForums is a lot like Wikipedia, people come to both sites to learn something though neither site's content is guaranteed to be correct.
I think people coming here expect more of a "best effort" kind of information, not perfect accuracy.
Wikipedia is like a large forum, with information condensed in one page, rather than a thread, per topic.

 

[Moridin]

PhysicsForums is a lot like Wikipedia, people come to both sites to learn something though neither site's content is guaranteed to be correct.
I think people coming here expect more of a "best effort" kind of information, not perfect accuracy.
Wikipedia is like a large forum, with information condensed in one page, rather than a thread, per topic.

There is one rather large difference from what I have seen during my relatively short time here - the academic integrity is a lot higher on PF than Wikipedia. I bet it is easier to counter crackpots on PF than Wikipedia, especially with the large number of people such as mentors, homework helpers and science advisors.

It wouldn't be hard to create a random topic of incorrect information or simply edit some portions of an article on Wikipedia than it is to successfully get away with random speculations and bull on PF.

 

[Evo]

There is one rather large difference from what I have seen during my relatively short time here - the academic integrity is a lot higher on PF than Wikipedia. I bet it is easier to counter crackpots on PF than Wikipedia, especially with the large number of people such as mentors, homework helpers and science advisors.

It wouldn't be hard to create a random topic of incorrect information or simply edit some portions of an article on Wikipedia than it is to successfully get away with random speculations and bull on PF.

We try to have mentors available here 24/7, but at times we cannot read everything.

We rely heavily on our members to report questionable posts. We will ALWAYS read the reported posts and take appropriate action. Our success here at PF rides heavily on the exceptional level of knowledge of our members. Please report any post that seems strange or out of place.

 

[Monique]

ZapperZ, how different is the information on Wikipedia from information on a random website. Should we get rid of the internet for that reason and only allow peer-reviewed websites to be established? At least with Wikipedia there is the ability to correct 'crackpot' content, with random websites this does not happen.

Why are you so concerned of people getting a wrong idea about a subject, this happens all the time when you talk to random people, everyone has their own opinion or views on a subject.

It’s not like someone is going to build a nuclear reaction with the information on how to do it from Wikipedia. If someone is going to build a nuclear reactor they will use all the right sources and people to do so. If someone is not smart enough to find good resources for an essay or homework problems, they should not get a good grade. Simple as that.

 

[J77]

Has anyone mentioned http://www.scholarpedia.org/ as a good example of how online "encyclopedias" can be peer-reviewed?

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, how different is the information on Wikipedia from information on a random website. Should we get rid of the internet for that reason and only allow peer-reviewed websites to be established? At least with Wikipedia there is the ability to correct 'crackpot' content, with random websites this does not happen.

It is different in the sense that people in general are NOT aware that Wikipedia CAN be similar to a "random website". That's the whole problem! I've seen people quoting it like the bible, and if you've looked long enough at the physics forums here on PF, I've even had people arguing with me about some physics issues and using FAULTY info off Wikipedia! I've chatted with several high school kids (I participate in an outreach program here at the lab), and you'd be surprised how many think Wikipedia is as good as a standard school textbook! So yes, there ARE people who are using it as their primary, and often, ONLY source of information.

Why are you so concerned of people getting a wrong idea about a subject, this happens all the time when you talk to random people, everyone has their own opinion or views on a subject.

If someone is reading the National Enquirer or any of those taboloid supermarket rags, one knows that one is getting sensationalistic, and even "fabricated" news. But Wikipedia often passes itself as an "encyclopedia", and that gives the impression to most people that the content is reliable. Why do I care? Because I have to correct such a thing all the time. If I don't give a damn, then I really shouldn't also be on PF and spending hours on here.

One of the things I have tried to do ever since I joined PF is to impress upon people one very important thing: to pay attention to the SOURCE of information that they are getting. This means (i) making a proper citation of where they "heard" or "read" about something and (ii) to pay attention to the QUALITY of that source of information. Just because other forums and other websites do not care where their information comes from doesn't mean that we have to dumb down the quality of our discussion on here - just because it happens everyone, doesn't mean we should settle for that same level here. My objection to the usage of Wikipedia has nothing to do with professionals who are looking for a quick reference that they can verify themselves. My objection has always been to people who use it as a primary source of info, and these ARE the very same people who can't tell if what they read is valid or accurate. The illusion that Wikipedia is as good as any source is what bothers me the most, so much so that people online CITE them, as if the info the cited last week is going to be the same one this week! This reflects that those people simply do not care about the nature of the source of their information! So my objection against Wikipedia is highly consistent with what I've wanted to do on here.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

One of the things I have tried to do ever since I joined PF is to impress upon people one very important thing: to pay attention to the SOURCE of information that they are getting. This means (i) making a proper citation of where they "heard" or "read" about something and (ii) to pay attention to the QUALITY of that source of information.

I fully agree: cite your source and know its value. Wikipedia uses a lot of citations, so they do make an effort. As said, people who think that information is true just because it is printed are not very smart. It's the same with what you read in newspapers or hear on the news. I as a biologist am often amazed how facts can be twisted or misinterpreted by the journalists.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/index.html

If anyone is willing to pay me, I'll edit stuff on it to suit your needs.

Zz.