Difference between revisions of "Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia"
(infobox) |
(Embed for English Wikipedia, HTML) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
If you enter almost any name or topic into your search engine, the first item listed will probably be from [[Wikipedia]]. It has become, by default, the world's chief source of information. The quality of information you find there will of course be highly variable. As critics point out, anyone with access to a computer can edit a Wikipedia page. You can insert incorrect information, or add falsehoods out of malice, or as a prank.1 You can promote your own agenda, and repeatedly edit articles in the hope that your opponents will give up. You can do all of this anonymously. Schools and universities warn students to be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia,2 while journals discourage contributors from citing it.3 In spite of this, enthusiasts for Wikipedia point out that its accuracy has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including comparisons with Encyclopedia Britannica and the database of the US National Cancer Institute.4 ,5 They argue that it allows continuous updating and improvement, in a way that conventional academic sources like journals cannot. Anyone who objects to its content, they suggest, can amend this instead of complaining, and test out whether the experience of doing so is really as negative as the critics suggest. | If you enter almost any name or topic into your search engine, the first item listed will probably be from [[Wikipedia]]. It has become, by default, the world's chief source of information. The quality of information you find there will of course be highly variable. As critics point out, anyone with access to a computer can edit a Wikipedia page. You can insert incorrect information, or add falsehoods out of malice, or as a prank.1 You can promote your own agenda, and repeatedly edit articles in the hope that your opponents will give up. You can do all of this anonymously. Schools and universities warn students to be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia,2 while journals discourage contributors from citing it.3 In spite of this, enthusiasts for Wikipedia point out that its accuracy has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including comparisons with Encyclopedia Britannica and the database of the US National Cancer Institute.4 ,5 They argue that it allows continuous updating and improvement, in a way that conventional academic sources like journals cannot. Anyone who objects to its content, they suggest, can amend this instead of complaining, and test out whether the experience of doing so is really as negative as the critics suggest. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Embed == | ||
| + | === Wikipedia Quality === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | Launer, John. (2015). "[[Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia]]". The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574. | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === English Wikipedia === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | {{cite journal |last1=Launer |first1=John |title=Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia |date=2015 |doi=10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Setting_the_Facts_Straight_on_Wikipedia |journal=The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine}} | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | === HTML === | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | <nowiki> | ||
| + | Launer, John. (2015). &quot;<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Setting_the_Facts_Straight_on_Wikipedia">Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia</a>&quot;. The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574. | ||
| + | </nowiki> | ||
| + | </code> | ||
Revision as of 06:54, 25 February 2021
Authors | John Launer |
|---|---|
Publication date | 2015 |
DOI | 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574 |
Links | Original |
Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2015, written by John Launer.
Overview
If you enter almost any name or topic into your search engine, the first item listed will probably be from Wikipedia. It has become, by default, the world's chief source of information. The quality of information you find there will of course be highly variable. As critics point out, anyone with access to a computer can edit a Wikipedia page. You can insert incorrect information, or add falsehoods out of malice, or as a prank.1 You can promote your own agenda, and repeatedly edit articles in the hope that your opponents will give up. You can do all of this anonymously. Schools and universities warn students to be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia,2 while journals discourage contributors from citing it.3 In spite of this, enthusiasts for Wikipedia point out that its accuracy has been demonstrated in a number of studies, including comparisons with Encyclopedia Britannica and the database of the US National Cancer Institute.4 ,5 They argue that it allows continuous updating and improvement, in a way that conventional academic sources like journals cannot. Anyone who objects to its content, they suggest, can amend this instead of complaining, and test out whether the experience of doing so is really as negative as the critics suggest.
Embed
Wikipedia Quality
Launer, John. (2015). "[[Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia]]". The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574.
English Wikipedia
{{cite journal |last1=Launer |first1=John |title=Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia |date=2015 |doi=10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574 |url=https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Setting_the_Facts_Straight_on_Wikipedia |journal=The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine}}
HTML
Launer, John. (2015). "<a href="https://wikipediaquality.com/wiki/Setting_the_Facts_Straight_on_Wikipedia">Setting the Facts Straight on Wikipedia</a>". The Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133574.
