Interesting post by Thomas Goetz, who asks the question: “Why does Wikipedia suck on science?“. My first reaction to the post was something along the lines of “What is he talking about?”. But upon reading the article, the opinion has changed. Thomas makes some interesting points, and in the end it boils down to the following questions. What should the readability of Wikipedia be? Can it be a general resource, and a resource for experts?
Wikipedia is at it’s best when it is functions as a general resource, which can/should link out to more specific resources, perhaps sister projects in verticals where one could go into greater depth on various subjects. Something, perhaps, along the lines of Wikia, or in certain special cases the model that is being approached by the Encyclopedia of Life. That said, there is some level of information content that should be present in the main Wikipedia page. The kind that can help a student or someone wanting to find out more get a good start and then move on to more descriptive resources. If one always tried to satisfy the lowest common denominator, then Wikipedia runs the risk of becoming non-essential. Comments anyone?
Further Reading:
TechCrunch
4 Comments
For my teaching of organic chemistry I would say that Wikipedia definitely has a useful role to play as one information source among many others. It comes in handy for basic properties of common chemicals and solvents and for definition type of questions that are not always found (quickly) in other sources like textbooks. For example, the best simple of explanation of the SNi mechanism (like SOCl2 with alcohols) I have found is in Wikipidia and I include it as a link in my class content page.
Also, in doing extra credit work with my students we have also had the opportunity to update missing information in Wikipedia – like the chirality of natural adrenaline.
Like any tool, a teacher has to instruct proper use. But I guess many teachers just find it more expedient to ban.
For my teaching of organic chemistry I would say that Wikipedia definitely has a useful role to play as one information source among many others. It comes in handy for basic properties of common chemicals and solvents and for definition type of questions that are not always found (quickly) in other sources like textbooks. For example, the best simple of explanation of the SNi mechanism (like SOCl2 with alcohols) I have found is in Wikipidia and I include it as a link in my class content page.
Also, in doing extra credit work with my students we have also had the opportunity to update missing information in Wikipedia – like the chirality of natural adrenaline.
Like any tool, a teacher has to instruct proper use. But I guess many teachers just find it more expedient to ban.
Overall I like the way Wikipedia is now. Occasionally when I’m trying to look up some probability related term, or something else very specialized but out of my field of knowledge, I run into articles that are completely unaccessible to non-experts (myself included). As an educational tool, I also think Wikipedia has a huge potential. It has become one of my primary sources to learn about something the last couple semesters. I still maintain a degree of skepticism, and occasionally will tag areas that are lacking references, or compare against other primary sources if i’m uncertain, but so far the science articles I have read have been very accurate.
One unlikely solution perhaps would be to allow more than one version of an article to be written? One geared towards experts, and another towards the other guy who just stumbled onto the article by accident and decided to have a glance.
Overall I like the way Wikipedia is now. Occasionally when I'm trying to look up some probability related term, or something else very specialized but out of my field of knowledge, I run into articles that are completely unaccessible to non-experts (myself included). As an educational tool, I also think Wikipedia has a huge potential. It has become one of my primary sources to learn about something the last couple semesters. I still maintain a degree of skepticism, and occasionally will tag areas that are lacking references, or compare against other primary sources if i'm uncertain, but so far the science articles I have read have been very accurate.
One unlikely solution perhaps would be to allow more than one version of an article to be written? One geared towards experts, and another towards the other guy who just stumbled onto the article by accident and decided to have a glance.
3 Trackbacks
[...] Further reading: Wikipedia and science Technorati Tags: Wikia, Proteins Sphere: Related Content [...]
[...] Obviously Wikipedia does put some holes in my theory, but even Wikipedia becomes relevant only when people link to it. So Google’s new move is interesting. IMO, it’s value comes into play in scenarios similar to the one on Wikipedia and Science. In other words, algorithms find information while the human filter provides expertise. Google plans to share revenue with authors as well, which I find interesting. [...]
[...] months ago, I had written about Wikipedia and science. In that post, one of the questions was whether Wikipedia was the appropriate resource for [...]