Is Wikipedia a Credible Source?
Summary
TLDRThe video script discusses the debate over Wikipedia's credibility as a scholarly source. It clarifies that Wikipedia is a secondary source, subject to interpretation and bias, and not peer-reviewed like journals. Despite this, it suggests that Wikipedia has entered a 'golden age' with improved sourcing. A 2005 study found Wikipedia and Britannica had a similar number of errors in science articles. The University of California, San Francisco, is encouraging medical students to edit Wikipedia for academic credit, which could enhance its accuracy and educate students on public communication. The script concludes by advocating for Wikipedia as a starting point for research, before moving on to more scholarly sources.
Takeaways
- 📚 Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source due to its nature as a general encyclopedia, subject to interpretation and bias.
- 🔍 The script mentions a historical perspective on Wikipedia, noting its evolution from an unsourced to a more reliable source.
- 🎓 Primary sources like journals and letters are distinct from secondary sources like Wikipedia, which provides commentary and descriptions.
- 🏫 Academic institutions, such as Cornell, advise against using Wikipedia as a scholarly source due to its lack of peer-review and static reference.
- 📘 Despite its generality, a 2005 study in 'Nature' found Wikipedia's science articles had a similar error rate to the Encyclopedia Britannica.
- ✍️ The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, encourages experts to contribute to improve the site's accuracy and reliability.
- 🏥 The University of California, San Francisco, is engaging medical students to edit Wikipedia for academic credit, aiming to enhance its medical content.
- 💊 Wikipedia's medication section receives significant traffic, making the involvement of medical experts particularly valuable.
- 🗣️ The initiative at UCSF also aims to teach medical students to communicate effectively with the public, a skill identified as lacking among doctors.
- 🔑 The script suggests using Wikipedia as a starting point for research, followed by consulting more scholarly and specific primary sources.
- 💭 The video ends with a call for viewer engagement, inviting opinions on academic credit for Wikipedia editing and the practice of citing Wikipedia.
Q & A
Why is Wikipedia not considered a scholarly source?
-Wikipedia is not considered scholarly because it is a secondary source, subject to interpretation and bias, and it is not peer-reviewed by other experts as scholarly sources should be.
What is the difference between primary and secondary sources?
-Primary sources are original materials such as journals, letters, or photos, while secondary sources provide commentary or descriptions of primary sources, such as Wikipedia.
What does the script suggest about the reliability of Wikipedia compared to other encyclopedias?
-The script mentions a study that found Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had a similar number of errors in their science articles, suggesting that Wikipedia's reliability is comparable to traditional encyclopedias.
What was the outcome of the dispute between Nature and Encyclopedia Britannica regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia?
-The dispute resulted in a rebuttal by Nature, highlighting that although both had a similar number of serious errors, Wikipedia had more minor errors like spelling and factual mistakes compared to Britannica.
What does Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, believe is the best way to improve the website?
-Jimbo Wales believes that getting experts to contribute to Wikipedia will help improve its accuracy and reliability.
How is the University of California, San Francisco, planning to engage with Wikipedia?
-The University of California, San Francisco, is allowing medical students to edit Wikipedia for a grade, with the aim of improving the website's medical content and teaching students to communicate with the public.
What is the significance of medical students editing Wikipedia for a grade?
-This initiative aims to improve the accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia and to teach future doctors how to effectively communicate complex information to the public.
How does the script suggest using Wikipedia for research?
-The script suggests using Wikipedia as a starting point to get a good foundation of information before moving on to more scholarly and specific primary sources.
What is the role of primary sources in enhancing the understanding of a topic?
-Primary sources provide original, firsthand information that can offer deeper insights and a more accurate understanding of a topic compared to secondary sources like Wikipedia.
What is the script's stance on citing Wikipedia in academic work?
-The script does not explicitly state a stance but implies that while Wikipedia can be a starting point for research, it should not be the sole source of information in academic work.
What does the script suggest about the future of Wikipedia in academia?
-The script suggests that with the involvement of experts and academic institutions, Wikipedia could become a more reliable and valuable resource in academia.
Outlines
📚 Wikipedia's Role in Scholarly Research
The paragraph discusses the perception of Wikipedia in academia as a source for scholarly research. It clarifies that while Wikipedia is not a scholarly source itself, it can be a starting point for general information. The paragraph emphasizes the difference between primary and secondary sources, with Wikipedia being the latter and thus subject to interpretation and bias. It also mentions the criticism that Wikipedia's content is too general and not peer-reviewed, contrasting it with other encyclopedias like Britannica. A study comparing Wikipedia and Britannica's science articles is cited, showing a similar number of errors, and the paragraph concludes with the suggestion that involving experts could improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Wikipedia
💡Scholarly sources
💡Primary sources
💡Secondary sources
💡Digital literacy
💡Peer-review
💡Nature
💡Encyclopedia Britannica
💡University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
💡Medical students
💡Public communication
Highlights
Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source due to its potential for interpretation and bias.
Primary sources like journals and letters are distinct from secondary sources like Wikipedia, which is subject to interpretation.
Cornell's digital literacy resource states Wikipedia is too general and not peer-reviewed, making it unsuitable as a scholarly source.
A 2005 study in Nature compared Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, finding similar numbers of errors in their science articles.
The study sparked a dispute between Britannica and Nature, highlighting the debate over the reliability of online encyclopedias.
Wikipedia's errors were more numerous in terms of spelling and factual inaccuracies compared to Britannica.
Jim Wales, Wikipedia's founder, suggests involving experts to improve the website's content.
The University of California, San Francisco, is encouraging medical students to edit Wikipedia for academic credit.
Wikipedia's medication section receives 53 million page views monthly, indicating the need for accurate medical information.
Dr. Amin aam believes involving medical students in editing Wikipedia will improve its content and teach students to communicate with the public.
Wikipedia is recommended as a starting point for research, with further exploration into more scholarly sources.
The transcript suggests using primary sources for deeper research, such as press releases or direct sources.
The speaker emphasizes the importance of moving beyond Wikipedia for more specific and scholarly research.
The transcript raises the question of whether academic credit should be given for editing Wikipedia.
It also questions whether people should stop citing Wikipedia and find primary sources instead.
The speaker invites viewers to share their thoughts on the use of Wikipedia in academia and research.
Transcripts
Wikipedia is not acceptable for
scholarly sources seriously no but the
sources on Wikipedia sometimes they
[Music]
are hey researchers Trace here looking
into the deep annals of the web for DS
to dissect Wikipedia back when I was in
college Wikipedia was in its infancy it
didn't necessarily site sources but now
it's heading into as I see it a golden
age firstly why isn't Wikipedia
scholarly if you Wikipedia Wikipedia and
you get over the weird droy effect it
says there's a split perception in
Academia about using this online General
encyclopedia as a scholarly Source
Wikipedia certainly doesn't and
shouldn't claim to be one of those but
it's a great collection of general
information primary sources are like
journals or letters or a photo while
secondary sources would be a commentary
or a description of that journal or
photo Wikipedia is definitely the latter
and thus subject to interpretation and
bias far more than that primary source
would be according to Cornell's digital
literacy resource Wikipedia isn't
scholarly but the sources its sighting
might be Unfortunately they say it's far
too General in encyclopedia for good
information it's not peer-reviewed by
other experts and there's not a static
ability to come back easily to find that
information months days or years later
in general encyclopedias like Britannica
or the world book aren't citable
themselves once you get to a
professional level in your degree
program they're just too basic but to
say that they're better than Wikipedia
isn't exactly correct either a study in
nature in 2005 indicated that when
directly compared to the encyclopedia
britanica Wikipedia had a similar number
of errors in their science articles
Britannica disputed their claim and
nature rebutted it it was an Internet
Encyclopedia Battle Royale in the 42
articles they looked at there were eight
serious errors overall four from each
encyclopedia but when it came to
spelling mistakes factual errors and the
like Wikipedia had 162 to britannica's
123 Jim jmy Wales founder of the website
believes the best way to improve it is
to get experts to start giving it some
love and the University of California
here in San Francisco is ready to do
just that medical students are pretty
scholarly right well starting this year
those medical students will be able to
edit Wikipedia for a grade according to
the release from UCSF Wikipedia gets 53
million page views a month just for
their section on medications an area
where I think you would agree medical
students and their professors would have
a little bit of expertise rather than
leaving it to the Mass the professor Dr
Amin aam believes that it would be
beneficials for these Rising experts to
set some of their records straight on
the record not only is this going to
improve Wikipedia it will teach these
Med students how to talk to the public
something doctors ain't so great at in
my opinion Wikipedia is a great place to
start your research I do it most every
day I get a good foundation then you go
on to more scholarly specific primary
sources for example I found the link to
this on vice's motherboard blog but I
went to UCSF for the actual press
release primary source what up if I were
to want to dig even deeper and get more
information I'd go to Dr aam himself but
we're sticking pretty General with this
one so how do you feel about this should
we be giving academic credit for editing
Wikipedia are you going to stop citing
Wikipedia and find primary sources tell
us your thoughts in the comments below
and subscribe for more D news
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)