Is Wikipedia a Credible Source?

Summary

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 It clarifies that Wikipedia is a secondary source, subject to interpretation and bias, and not peer-reviewed like journals.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