Collaborative Efforts to Enhance Physics Articles on Wikipedia

[Monique]

How many of the research papers that get published are flawed in some way or another, even what is published in books doesn't always stand the test of time. You should always practice critical reading. I think Wikipedia is a nice resource to get familiar with a subject, which you can then research further, it's like a gateway. Many people know more than an individual, that's the power of Wikipedia. The problem is that it's not written by experts, so you should not expect that level of accuracy.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are clearly misinterpreting my posts just as you have many of the others on this thread. You have no desire to listen to what people say and are simply repeating yourself. I understand I won't change your opinion or anyone elses so why bother trying...

But where exactly did I misinterpret your post? I tried to OUTLINE what I understood point by point. As far as I can tell, you acknowledged that it can be faulty, but you're willing to overlook it. How is this misinterpreting what you said?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

How many of the research papers that get published are flawed in some way or another, even what is published in books doesn't always stand the test of time. You should always practice critical reading. I think Wikipedia is a nice resource to get familiar with a subject, which you can then research further, it's like a gateway. Many people know more than an individual, that's the power of Wikipedia. The problem is that it's not written by experts, so you should not expect that level of accuracy.

But Monique, even you would see that there is a significant difference between "flaws" made in research papers and texbooks, and those made in Wikipedia. Many of these so-called errors in research papers often comes as part of the evolution and progress in a research-front activity, and we ALL know that such a thing is part of the process. I do not call these as errors. Furthermore, unlike people who look up Wikipedia, scientists do NOT use research papers as "learning tools". In fact, those who do read research papers are themselves experts in the very same field that those papers are in. So these are not clueless individual who probably won't know if something faulty is being presented to them.

In addition to that, errors and mistakes done in both of these media are permanent and recorded, and often, corrections are made that STAYED made. You don't have such a fluid and changing set of information that anyone can change.

On a separate issue, what I see here seems to be the strange dichotomy from people supporting the use of Wikipedia, and they both seem contradicting each other. On one hand, you have the camp that argues that Wikipedia is for people who do not have access to the source of info that they're looking for. This means that these people will use Wikipedia as their primary source of info, because they simply are not able to either look up other source, or unable to understand them (I'm referring to science and physics info in particular).

But on the other hand, we have people arguing that Wikipedia is a good "gateway" for information, that it is a valid starting point to look up the sources of such info.

These two camps are not complimentary! People who do not have access to the sources, will not be able to get them or understand them. So essentially, people who are in the 2nd camp are also saying that for the general public, the use of Wikipedia as a primary source of info is faulty and suspect as well!

Therefore, what we have here is that Wikipedia and its aim as an open "encylopedia" to be used by the masses, is inherently flawed IF one does not have the ability to check up on the accuracy of the information that one is reading. That means that one must have access to available references (if any), or know where to look for them (especially peer-reviewed papers).

Now, how many people do we all think actually do that? How many of the general public can actually get access to the scientific papers that these information are based on, or more importantly, can actually understand these papers and be able to judge that the info they are getting is valid? In other words, how many people who are clueless in the topic they are looking for actually use Wikipedia as a "gateway"?

Zz.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I've found wikipedia to be quite useful and, despite the occasional inaccuracies, I get the impression that it more often dispels misconceptions than creates them. It's not perfect and I certainly wouldn't use it as a source in a highly technical argument, but I think it can be an excellent resource for the layman. I would applaud anyone willing to take part in what the OP is suggesting, though I don't think I could spare the time myself.

 

[-Job-]

PhysicsForums is a lot like Wikipedia, people come to both sites to learn something though neither site's content is guaranteed to be correct.
I think people coming here expect more of a "best effort" kind of information, not perfect accuracy.
Wikipedia is like a large forum, with information condensed in one page, rather than a thread, per topic.

 

[Moridin]

PhysicsForums is a lot like Wikipedia, people come to both sites to learn something though neither site's content is guaranteed to be correct.
I think people coming here expect more of a "best effort" kind of information, not perfect accuracy.
Wikipedia is like a large forum, with information condensed in one page, rather than a thread, per topic.

There is one rather large difference from what I have seen during my relatively short time here - the academic integrity is a lot higher on PF than Wikipedia. I bet it is easier to counter crackpots on PF than Wikipedia, especially with the large number of people such as mentors, homework helpers and science advisors.

It wouldn't be hard to create a random topic of incorrect information or simply edit some portions of an article on Wikipedia than it is to successfully get away with random speculations and bull on PF.

 

[Evo]

There is one rather large difference from what I have seen during my relatively short time here - the academic integrity is a lot higher on PF than Wikipedia. I bet it is easier to counter crackpots on PF than Wikipedia, especially with the large number of people such as mentors, homework helpers and science advisors.

It wouldn't be hard to create a random topic of incorrect information or simply edit some portions of an article on Wikipedia than it is to successfully get away with random speculations and bull on PF.

We try to have mentors available here 24/7, but at times we cannot read everything.

We rely heavily on our members to report questionable posts. We will ALWAYS read the reported posts and take appropriate action. Our success here at PF rides heavily on the exceptional level of knowledge of our members. Please report any post that seems strange or out of place.

 

[Monique]

ZapperZ, how different is the information on Wikipedia from information on a random website. Should we get rid of the internet for that reason and only allow peer-reviewed websites to be established? At least with Wikipedia there is the ability to correct 'crackpot' content, with random websites this does not happen.

Why are you so concerned of people getting a wrong idea about a subject, this happens all the time when you talk to random people, everyone has their own opinion or views on a subject.

It’s not like someone is going to build a nuclear reaction with the information on how to do it from Wikipedia. If someone is going to build a nuclear reactor they will use all the right sources and people to do so. If someone is not smart enough to find good resources for an essay or homework problems, they should not get a good grade. Simple as that.

 

[J77]

Has anyone mentioned http://www.scholarpedia.org/ as a good example of how online "encyclopedias" can be peer-reviewed?

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, how different is the information on Wikipedia from information on a random website. Should we get rid of the internet for that reason and only allow peer-reviewed websites to be established? At least with Wikipedia there is the ability to correct 'crackpot' content, with random websites this does not happen.

It is different in the sense that people in general are NOT aware that Wikipedia CAN be similar to a "random website". That's the whole problem! I've seen people quoting it like the bible, and if you've looked long enough at the physics forums here on PF, I've even had people arguing with me about some physics issues and using FAULTY info off Wikipedia! I've chatted with several high school kids (I participate in an outreach program here at the lab), and you'd be surprised how many think Wikipedia is as good as a standard school textbook! So yes, there ARE people who are using it as their primary, and often, ONLY source of information.

Why are you so concerned of people getting a wrong idea about a subject, this happens all the time when you talk to random people, everyone has their own opinion or views on a subject.

If someone is reading the National Enquirer or any of those taboloid supermarket rags, one knows that one is getting sensationalistic, and even "fabricated" news. But Wikipedia often passes itself as an "encyclopedia", and that gives the impression to most people that the content is reliable. Why do I care? Because I have to correct such a thing all the time. If I don't give a damn, then I really shouldn't also be on PF and spending hours on here.

One of the things I have tried to do ever since I joined PF is to impress upon people one very important thing: to pay attention to the SOURCE of information that they are getting. This means (i) making a proper citation of where they "heard" or "read" about something and (ii) to pay attention to the QUALITY of that source of information. Just because other forums and other websites do not care where their information comes from doesn't mean that we have to dumb down the quality of our discussion on here - just because it happens everyone, doesn't mean we should settle for that same level here. My objection to the usage of Wikipedia has nothing to do with professionals who are looking for a quick reference that they can verify themselves. My objection has always been to people who use it as a primary source of info, and these ARE the very same people who can't tell if what they read is valid or accurate. The illusion that Wikipedia is as good as any source is what bothers me the most, so much so that people online CITE them, as if the info the cited last week is going to be the same one this week! This reflects that those people simply do not care about the nature of the source of their information! So my objection against Wikipedia is highly consistent with what I've wanted to do on here.

Zz.

 

[Monique]

One of the things I have tried to do ever since I joined PF is to impress upon people one very important thing: to pay attention to the SOURCE of information that they are getting. This means (i) making a proper citation of where they "heard" or "read" about something and (ii) to pay attention to the QUALITY of that source of information.

I fully agree: cite your source and know its value. Wikipedia uses a lot of citations, so they do make an effort. As said, people who think that information is true just because it is printed are not very smart. It's the same with what you read in newspapers or hear on the news. I as a biologist am often amazed how facts can be twisted or misinterpreted by the journalists.

 

[ZapperZ]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/index.html

If anyone is willing to pay me, I'll edit stuff on it to suit your needs.

Zz.