Thousands of medical papers cite Wikipedia, study says;
Some of the “high-impact,” or most influential, journals found to have had Wikipedia references could not be reached for reaction this week, or declined to comment on the findings.
Thousands of medical papers cite Wikipedia, study says;
Some of the “high-impact,” or most influential, journals found to have had Wikipedia references could not be reached for reaction this week, or declined to comment on the findings.
That must be embarrassing for somebody.
You have got to be kidding me!!!!
“Welllll, if it’s on Wikipedia it must be true…use it as a reference….”are people REALLY this stupid?
Sorry, rhetorical question…
The content of a Wiki article can always be suspect. However, intelligent people realize there are references at the bottom of most Wiki articles that can be followed up to assess validity. Such intelligence is often lacking in the general population, as we’ve seen so often.
Those who read the article will note:
the accuracy of the information – … has actually been rated surprisingly high —
…Though each article can be edited by users, mistakes tend to be corrected by others relatively quickly, with one 2005 study rating a sample of Wikipedia entries similar in accuracy to Encyclopedia Britannica. What is more, health-related articles are overseen by an expert group, WikiProject Medicine.
… The problem, though, is that there is no guarantee the information at any given time is, in fact, wholly accurate, and a Wikipedia entry cited by a journal paper one day may be quite different soon after, unlike a conventional article or book, he said.
That’s the problem with citing a Wiki reference it’s dynamic, not that the information might be in error.
Intelligent people understand this; “Knee jerk reactors” not so much.
Try correcting the nonsense on the Wikipedia page for PET. The psychophant fans of our worst PM ever will swoop in and change it back to the utter crap propaganda that it was before. Wikipedia is my last resort for looking up info on anything.
It should be obvious that controversial subjects and especially those about people will be the least accurate and subject to personal opinion at any point. That’s just exercising good common sense.
Articles about things tend to be more accurate. I know for a fact that articles in my areas of expertise are quite accurate. Of course those are not controversial subjects and they’re about things not people.
north of 90
“” I know for a fact that articles in my areas of expertise are quite accurate””
SUBJECTIVE!!!
“I know for a fact that articles in my areas of expertise are quite accurate.”
No, you saw they were accurate the last time you read them. They may have changed out of all recognition since then.
That’s the problem.
No, not at all. I’m not the only person contributing to the Wiki and we all concur on the accuracy of the data. We’re objective researchers not amateurs.
Not likely at all. Those of us who contribute keep close watch. There has never been any problems and if someone were to add erroneous info it would be dealt with quickly. We’re dealing with objective research not subjective opinion. There’s a world of difference which any intelligent person would understand.
Articles in certain subject areas, such as astrophysics and mathematics, are useful
enough, but are often written by graduate students who don’t understand the material
quite as well as they think they do. For undergraduates in undergraduate courses in
astrophysics they are useful. Also they are kept well up to date. And usually are
provided with references – anyway, the ADS will have references.
Even in fields where Wikipedia approaches reliability it is not suitable for
quotation in a research article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But honestly, I don’t
have a good opinion of most younger researchers.
In Egyptology the Wikipedia articles may be helpful to alert one to new developments –
but any article about Tutankhamen or the latter part of the 18th Dynasty more
generally must always be taken with a grain of salt, even if in a professional
journal.
For art, Wikipedia isn’t bad.
As for political figures and recent political events, it is good for a laugh!
I especially liked it when the religious affiliations of Canadian politicians were
edited out!!
“Knee jerk reactors”
I’ve heard of nuclear reactors but that’s a type I’m not familiar with.
I’m sure there must be an explanation of it on Wikipedia.
Be interesting to hear Loki’s comments on this.
north
let me see now, unimpeachable heh, well let me straighten you out a little. Back in about 2000 I questioned S Hawkings 70T’s postulate, I was pillared for my effort. About 2 years later Hawking questioned the same postulate. You see nothing is sacred in the intellectual world, nothing, so please try again:-))))wiki is filled with ignorance and errors, even unintentional ones. So it is not a good reference, only a good prompt.
go stand in front of a mirror and straighten yourself out; don’t lecture someone else who doesn’t care what you choose to believe
you have a nice day now
I will concede that in most cases involving objective science,
that Wikipedia is about as good as it gets. But when it comes
to junk science like global warming and “Renewable energy,” the
Internet trolls have polluted the debate with copious amounts
of Bovine Excrement!
If your government has to bribe companies to produce electric
cars, solar panels and windmills, these companies will fail.
If your government has to bribe the people to buy these failures,
they will never be more than a small percentage of the total
amount of power generation or motor vehicles produced.
If you buy into the concept of “Renewable energy,” you are a
brain-dead moron who makes Forest Gump look like Albert Einstein.
There is no such thing as renewable energy. It violates the
laws of physics!
Anyone who thinks that Unicorn farts can power an industrial
economy is delusional. All of the tree-hugging morons out there need to embrace truly clean concepts like nuclear energy.
Or, we can simply take the handcuffs off the oil companies
and let them drill for oil! It might make the average temp.
rise by .1 degree by the next century, but that would be
too simple.
I find yet another example of a global warming dork insulting
contributors to this site. I cannot log into Small Dead Animals
without seeing this scientifically illiterate dilettante issuing
insults to people who disagree with him.
The definition of a racist is someone winning an argument with
a liberal! Why is it that this one lone user always attacks any
individual who challenges his “Superior intellect?”
He is a poser, without a shred of scientific knowledge. He makes
Occam look like a genius!