Is Wikipedia a Credible Source?

Seeker

4 Oct 201303:19

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 It clarifies that Wikipedia is a secondary source, subject to interpretation and bias, and not peer-reviewed like journals.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

00:00

📚 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

Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It serves as a general source of information on a wide range of topics. In the video, it is discussed as not being considered a scholarly source due to its open editing policy and potential for bias, but it is acknowledged for its evolving role in providing a platform for more accurate and expert-driven content.

💡Scholarly sources

Scholarly sources are academic works that are peer-reviewed and considered authoritative in their respective fields. The video mentions that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a scholarly source because it lacks the peer-review process and academic rigor that scholarly sources possess.

💡Primary sources

Primary sources are original materials or evidence from the time period involved, which can include journals, letters, or photographs. The script contrasts primary sources with Wikipedia, which is a secondary source, offering interpretations and descriptions rather than original evidence.

💡Secondary sources

Secondary sources are works that analyze, synthesize, or comment on primary sources. The video script explains that Wikipedia functions as a secondary source, subject to interpretation and bias, which is why it is not considered scholarly.

💡Digital literacy

Digital literacy refers to the ability to access, evaluate, create, and communicate information using digital technologies. The script mentions Cornell's digital literacy resource, which advises against using Wikipedia as a scholarly source due to its general nature and lack of peer-review.

💡Peer-review

Peer-review is a process where scholars in a field evaluate each other's work to maintain standards and ensure accuracy. The video script points out that Wikipedia's content is not peer-reviewed, which is a key factor in its exclusion from scholarly sources.

💡Nature

In the context of the video, 'Nature' refers to a scientific journal that conducted a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. The study found a similar number of errors in their science articles, highlighting the debate over the reliability of Wikipedia.

💡Encyclopedia Britannica

Encyclopedia Britannica is a well-established, scholarly encyclopedia that is often compared to Wikipedia. The script discusses a study that found Britannica and Wikipedia had a similar number of errors in their articles, sparking a debate about the reliability of online versus traditional encyclopedias.

💡University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)

UCSF is a leading university that is mentioned in the script for its initiative to have medical students edit Wikipedia for a grade. This is part of an effort to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's content on medical topics by involving experts in the field.

💡Medical students

The script discusses a program at UCSF where medical students are encouraged to edit Wikipedia to improve its medical content. This initiative aims to utilize the students' expertise to enhance the reliability of information available to the public.

💡Public communication

Public communication refers to the ability to effectively convey information to the general public. The video script suggests that having medical students edit Wikipedia not only improves the platform but also teaches them to communicate complex information to a non-expert audience.

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.