more on Wikipedia

Yesterday, I mentioned an article by Stefanie Hilles on Wikipedia and mentioned also that I had thought that Wikipedia was a great tool for getting some basic background on a topic, but then you need to move on to more traditional research sources. Here is some interesting research on that issue that Hilles mentioned.

On p. 247 of her article, she wrote: “Shaw (2008) notes that while the mainstream media generally do not cite Wikipedia, its use is becoming more common as a tool for gathering background information within the field. Head and Eisenberg’s (2010) study also found that students use Wikipedia for basic facts and background information, but recognize its limitations as a source. Seventy percent of students used Wikipedia at the beginning of the research process, and only 2% used it toward the end. Biddix, Chung, and Park’s (2011) study substantiated these findings when they discovered college students use Wikipedia to be a preresearch tool.”

She also cited an article by Miller & Murray about, among other things, using Wikipedia to research biographies. They wrote (p. 645 of their article), “Biographical articles present multiple problems. In addition to a potentially more limited pool of knowledgeable reader editors, biographical articles may also be subject to a greater risk of bias. Editors may have a personal interest in making themselves—or someone else—sound better—or worse—on Wikipedia.”

The articles that she cited were:

Biddix, J. P., Chung, C. J., & Park, H. W. (2011). Convenience or credibility? A study

of college student online research behaviors. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 175–182.

Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today’s college students use Wikipedia

for course-related research. First Monday, 15(3).

Miller, J. C., & Murray, H. B. (2010). Wikipedia in court: When and how citing Wikipedia and other consensus websites is appropriate. St. John’s Law Review, 84(2), 633–656.

Shaw, D. (2008). Wikipedia in the newsroom. American Journalism Review, 30(1), 40–45.

Her article and the articles that she cited are well worth reading.

Also, you remember that Nature article from 2005 concluding that Wikipedia was as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. A more recent study looked at Wikipedia’s reliability with respect to medical subjects. In “Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics,” Advances in Physiology Education, Mar 2015, 39 (1) 5-14, Samy A. Azer concluded that, “despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not  accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.”

Another article worth reading.