Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment | Ars Technica

abernard102@gmail.com 2015-12-30

Summary:

"For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics. I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the basics—who, what, when, where, and why—and a long list of references if going beyond the basics is required. Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them effectively incomprehensible. This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant problem for science. The problematic entries reinforce the popular impression that science is impossible to understand and isn't for most people—they make science seem elitist. And that's an impression that we as a society really can't afford ..."

Link:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.comment oa.wikipedia oa.open_science oa.encyclopedias

Date tagged:

12/30/2015, 09:18

Date published:

12/30/2015, 04:18