Difference between revisions of "Quality of References Supporting Urologic Articles on Wikipedia"
(New study: Quality of References Supporting Urologic Articles on Wikipedia) |
(Adding wikilinks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Quality of References Supporting Urologic Articles on Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2014, written by Marshall Channing Strother. | + | '''Quality of References Supporting Urologic Articles on Wikipedia''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2014, written by [[Marshall Channing Strother]]. |
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| − | Background: Wikipedia is an easily available and commonly used source of medical information for patients and practitioners. Its editing guidelines state that information added to the site should be accompanied by in-line citations to reliable (preferably secondary) sources to meet the website’s standards for verifiability. Authors hypothesized that a large fraction of these citations would be to popular media and to scientific works of relatively low academic impact. | + | Background: [[Wikipedia]] is an easily available and commonly used source of medical information for patients and practitioners. Its editing guidelines state that information added to the site should be accompanied by in-line citations to reliable (preferably secondary) sources to meet the website’s standards for verifiability. Authors hypothesized that a large fraction of these citations would be to popular media and to scientific works of relatively low academic impact. |
Revision as of 07:23, 15 July 2019
Quality of References Supporting Urologic Articles on Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2014, written by Marshall Channing Strother.
Overview
Background: Wikipedia is an easily available and commonly used source of medical information for patients and practitioners. Its editing guidelines state that information added to the site should be accompanied by in-line citations to reliable (preferably secondary) sources to meet the website’s standards for verifiability. Authors hypothesized that a large fraction of these citations would be to popular media and to scientific works of relatively low academic impact.
