Collaborative Efforts to Enhance Physics Articles on Wikipedia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sojourner01
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drive Wikipedia
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the collaborative effort to enhance the quality of physics articles on Wikipedia, initiated by user Sojourner001. Participants express concerns about the reliability and clarity of existing articles, noting that while Wikipedia allows for open editing, this can lead to confusion and misinformation. The conversation highlights the need for knowledgeable contributors to improve the accessibility of complex scientific topics, emphasizing that many articles are technically accurate but poorly communicated. The discussion concludes with a call for volunteers to actively participate in this initiative.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Wikipedia's editing and peer-review processes
  • Familiarity with physics concepts, particularly in areas like Special and General Relativity
  • Knowledge of effective communication strategies for scientific writing
  • Experience with collaborative online platforms and community engagement
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Wikipedia's guidelines for editing and contributing to articles
  • Study effective science communication techniques to enhance article clarity
  • Explore the concept of "angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy" for potential contributions
  • Investigate alternative online encyclopedias that require expert oversight
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, educators, science communicators, and anyone interested in improving the quality and accessibility of scientific information on Wikipedia.

  • #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

Graduate Every Wikipedia physics article In need of Attention From Expert ?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Help Improve Newton's Laws of Motion on Wikipedia
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Mayor improvement in wikipedia's thermal/statistical physics articles
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate An illustration of a limitation of Wikipedia's utility
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
High School What are some free and legal video lectures for first year physics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
25K
Is Alan Turing given too much credit when it comes to computers?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
Undergrad Muon g-2 as a constraint on new physics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Graduate Is Koide's Formula Linked to Quark Mass Ratios?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
12K
Programs Math minor, double major, and elective classes advice
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K