Collaborative Efforts to Enhance Physics Articles on Wikipedia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sojourner01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drive Wikipedia
Click For Summary
Many forum participants express concerns about the quality of physics articles on Wikipedia, describing them as overly technical and confusing. There is a call for volunteers to improve these articles, but skepticism exists regarding the effectiveness of such efforts due to Wikipedia's open-editing model, which allows anyone to alter contributions at any time. Some argue that Wikipedia lacks sufficient expert oversight, leading to inaccuracies and misunderstandings in scientific content. Others believe that while the platform has its flaws, it offers a unique opportunity for collaborative improvement and peer scrutiny. Overall, the discussion highlights the challenges and potential of enhancing Wikipedia's physics articles through community involvement.
  • #61
ZapperZ said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K