Is Wikipedia considered to be an appropriate source for discussion?

[swampwiz]

I was just reading a thread which cited a Wikipedia article; I had thought that Wikipedia is to be considered as unreliable as the Public Broadcasting System (i.e., that has programs like NOVA, etc.), and therefore not appropriate since it is "pop science".

 

[Frabjous]

I was just reading a thread which cited a Wikipedia article; I had thought that Wikipedia is to be considered as unreliable as the Public Broadcasting System (i.e., that has programs like NOVA, etc.), and therefore not appropriate since it is "pop science".

It’s ok if it is used responsibly. If you are unsure, you are not using it responsibly.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Wikipedia should be sourced. You should look at that source in your assessment of responsibility.

Halliday and Resnick? Good.
National Enquirer or Vixra? Not so good.

 

[berkeman]

I was just reading a thread which cited a Wikipedia article; I had thought that Wikipedia is to be considered as unreliable as the Public Broadcasting System (i.e., that has programs like NOVA, etc.), and therefore not appropriate since it is "pop science".

(thread moved from the GD forum to the Feedback forum).

Reference links to Wikipedia articles are generally allowed as long as the technical subject is not controversial and as long as there are good references listed at the end of the Wikipedia article. Certainly controversial subjects can have questionable Wikipedia articles (that are in flux), so it's up to the Mentors to make the call in those cases.

Do you have a specific thread in mind that you'd like reviewed?

 

[swampwiz]

(thread moved from the GD forum to the Feedback forum).

Reference links to Wikipedia articles are generally allowed as long as the technical subject is not controversial and as long as there are good references listed at the end of the Wikipedia article. Certainly controversial subjects can have questionable Wikipedia articles (that are in flux), so it's up to the Mentors to make the call in those cases.

Do you have a specific thread in mind that you'd like reviewed?

No, I was just asking a general question. It seems that I often get demerits for using what I consider a good source (e.g., PBS), and that the criteria for what is considered a good or bad source seems to be very arbitrary.

 

[berkeman]

No, I was just asking a general question. It seems that I often get demerits for using what I consider a good source (e.g., PBS), and that the criteria for what is considered a good or bad source seems to be very arbitrary.

Yikes. I just looked up your deleted posts. The latest one was becuase you posted a video (PBS or whatever) as a reference in a technical forum thread. Please don't do that. When in doubt, find the original peer-reviewed journal article that spawned the pop-sci article or video, and post that link instead.

 

[Nugatory]

I had thought that Wikipedia is to be considered as unreliable as the Public Broadcasting System

It depends. Some Wikipedia articles are excellent, some not so much - the problem is knowing which is which. Generally if one of our badged members (mentor, homework helper, science adviser) points you to a wikipedia article in their area of expertise it will be one of the good ones. If one of them disagrees with a wikipedia article, chances are that they're right and wikipedia is wrong.

It is a good idea to read the "talk" page for any wikipedia article before you trust it.

 

[swampwiz]

Yikes. I just looked up your deleted posts. The latest one was becuase you posted a video (PBS or whatever) as a reference in a technical forum thread. Please don't do that. When in doubt, find the original peer-reviewed journal article that spawned the pop-sci article or video, and post that link instead.

I have always gone on the presumption that PBS, although it shoots for something on a "pop-sci" (a derogatory term in this forum it seems) level, does get the concepts from someone who has written a canonical peer-reviewed paper, so when I introduce something I have heard from a PBS program, my hope is that someone here has heard of this as well, and would be able to give an insight/exposition/tear-down of this concept.

I would think that folks here would be of the mind that of all the media content creators, PBS would be considered the most diligent at getting the facts right, and that anything that is presented there is something that someone important enough in the scientific community thought was a good hypothesis. I certainly trust that PBS is not making anything up - e.g., like the Weekly World News, etc. - and is getting its ideas from some quorum of experts who feed PBS "hey, this is something interesting that a few scientists are theorizing ...", I am quite dismayed that the moderators here consider PBS to be such trash.

 

[DaveE]

I would think that folks here would be of the mind that of all the media content creators, PBS would be considered the most diligent at getting the facts right, and that anything that is presented there is something that someone important enough in the scientific community thought was a good hypothesis. I certainly trust that PBS is not making anything up - e.g., like the Weekly World News, etc. - and is getting its ideas from some quorum of experts who feed PBS "hey, this is something interesting that a few scientists are theorizing ...", I am quite dismayed that the moderators here consider PBS to be such trash.

I think you've missed the point here. PBS is fine. But PBS is popular science, their goal is to entertain their viewers, who have a wide variety of backgrounds, interests and knowledge. Any education that happens along the way is a bonus. They do not have to be thorough, in depth, useful, or prove they are correct. What you are often getting is "science by analogy", which is good for entertainment, but sometimes just wrong.

An example: Kip Thorne. He knows a bit about cosmology, gravity. Nobel prize, famous textbook, prestigious university position, etc. He also was a consultant for the movie Interstellar. Nobody cites his work on Interstellar. It is neither science or education. It is entertainment. Same guy, different intentions and content for different venues.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We seem to have drifted from Wikipedia to PBS. There are three problems I see.

1. People do not accept the argument that popularizations cut some corners. "But it's PBS!"
2. Posting a video here so people can see your source has copyright implications.,
3. "Somewhere in this video is what I am interested in - everybody watch the whole thing" is an inefficient use of people's time. And people's time should be respected,

 

[berkeman]

I am quite dismayed that the moderators here consider PBS to be such trash.

That's not the point. It's not peer-reviewed.

Acceptable Sources:
Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed in the Thomson/Reuters list (now Clarivate):

https://mjl.clarivate.com/home

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles.

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

References that appear only on http://www.arxiv.org/ (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields, we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere. References that appear only on viXra (http://www.vixra.org) are never allowed.

 

[Drakkith]

I am quite dismayed that the moderators here consider PBS to be such trash.

We don't. Or at least I don't.
Per PF rules:

• We wish to discuss mainstream science. That means only topics that can be found in textbooks or that have been published in reputable journals.

and:

• Acceptable Sources:
  Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

I've always taken these to mean:

1. The topic under discussion should be a mainstream science topic. For example, discussion of perpetual motion machines, even for debunking them, is generally not allowed since they aren't part of mainstream science. I believe my very first post on the forum, way back when, was deleted and I was given an infraction because I didn't know this.

2. Asking a question about a mainstream topic doesn't require that you provide an acceptable reference, though if you post a poor one you will likely encounter some difficulty in your discussion with others if you continue to use it after being told it is poor. After all, most people without an in-depth understanding of science simply aren't going to be able to tell the difference between PBS, a mainstream journal, or a random youtube channel that spouts crackpot ideas. PF also has very, very different 'etiquette' than just about any other place online, something which new members aren't going to be accustomed to. It would be silly to require new members to already know what an acceptable reference is and to use one when simply asking a question.

3. Answering questions or taking part in a discussion requires that you be able to cite an acceptable reference if you are asked for one. I often don't post a reference if I can quickly answer someone's question based on my own knowledge or a quick internet search. However, if someone pushes for a reference then I will give them one. This doesn't mean that you MUST have a reference if you answer a question, it means that you don't really have something to fall back on if someone challenges your answer. It is fine to tell someone, "I think X is the answer, but I don't have a refence to back that up at the moment." It's not okay to make a half dozen posts insisting that five other people are wrong and you are right if you don't have a reference to back you up.

4. The 'professionalism' of the reference you should provide scales proportionally with the complexity of the topic under discussion. Wikipedia and a thousand other websites are perfectly acceptable sources if someone is curious about gravitational potential energy or some other basic physics topic. But if you're discussing the time evolution of an electron's wavefunction or the detailed behavior of charge carriers in a solid state device then you're probably going to need to break out a textbook if someone asks for a reference.

PBS itself is not 'bad'. Their science shows gets people interested in science and serves as an enjoyable way to learn facts about science without having to delve into textbooks and papers. I believe that not only are they 'good', they are required if we are to keep people involved in science and engineering. The issue arises when people don't understand that something someone said on a PBS show may not be accurate, even if the person saying it is a famous, reputable scientist. A PBS show, and others like it, are the least desirable of the acceptable references in my opinion. You can use them, and I myself have done so before, but I advise doing so only when you don't have another reference handy.

Also remember that how you say something matters just as much as what you say. An answer of, "No, you're wrong, Cosmos said X" is going to get a very different response vs saying, "I don't know for sure, but Cosmos said X about this topic."

Finally, note that this is my personal take on the rules. Others might have a somewhat different opinion.

 

[Algr]

IMHO, the "solution" to Wikipedia is the same thing that everyone was supposed to be doing anyway. Never trust just once source. Verify that links and references really say what the articles say they do. The answer is a hundred years older than the question.

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems that I often get demerits for using what I consider a good source (e.g., PBS), and that the criteria for what is considered a good or bad source seems to be very arbitrary.

I think it also depends on how hard one leans on the source in one's posts.

If you're just saying Here's some primer info, but feel free to educate me, I find Wiki to be generally accepted in non-tech fora.

If you're saying This is true, and here's the article that makes my case; you're going to get a lot of pushback. And if it happens more than once - yes - it will escalate to infractions.

 

[Eclair_de_XII]

I don't know about unreliable, but some of the articles may sound like self-advertisement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouding_of_consciousness#Psychopathology

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Taking the title of this thread literally, it would be helpful to have a place to discuss Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles do have a "talk" page. However, I've found the Wikipedia keepers of the math articles to be hostile to anyone posting questions on the talk pages. They often move the questions posted to the talk page to some sort of centralized math information pages - where not much happens. Don't know if this happens to articles in the sciences.

 

[pbuk]

I've found the Wikipedia keepers of the math articles to be hostile to anyone posting questions on the talk pages.

Quite rightly - the talk pages are not for asking questions: there is nowhere on Wikipedia for asking questions, that is not what it is for.

 

[swampwiz]

There should be a section for discussion of any "non-expert" source material - a place that the moderators could move discussions to instead of assessing demerit points. There could be a big warning at the top of the page that the material being vetted has not been adjudicated by experts in the field to be valid.

 

[sbrothy]

I'd say no. Virtually anyone can edit a wiki article. I'm pretty sure the moderators here does not see it as anywhere near authorative. No peer-review, no real transparency as to who does the editing and whether they have any education.... I'm sure one could go on....

Even in high-school it's not accepted as a source is it?

[EDIT: Oh thought there were no replies. Never mind.]

 

[Frabjous]

There should be a section for discussion of any "non-expert" source material - a place that the moderators could move discussions to instead of assessing demerit points. There could be a big warning at the top of the page that the material being vetted has not been adjudicated by experts in the field to be valid.

It already exists. {the internet}-{physicsforums}

 

[Vanadium 50]

There should be a section for discussion of any "non-expert" source material - a place that the moderators could move discussions

So, fhe moderators should do more work, and the subject matter experts should do more work, all so you can do less work in finding the primary source? I don't imagine that this will be a universally popular position.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are other fora that are less rigorous if one is of a mind to discuss less ... cited ideas. But YGWYPF.