Research has shown that Wikipedia is more correct than the renowned encyclopedia Britannica.Nevertheless, it is not recognized as a source in scientific research. This mainly because it testifies to laziness to refer to Wikipedia.
But nothing stops you from getting a first idea of the theme via Wikipedia, and then following the sources list further to deeper sources.
When I read pages that I know a lot about (epidemiology, bridge, my own family) I see few things that are not wrong but sometimes a weird emphasis.For example, if a particular problem can be solved in ten ways, Wikipedia may appoint one to “the” approach and not mention the nine others.
You can view evt’s talk page.If there is hardly any discussion, it may be that the page attracts little attention from editors and is perhaps of moderate quality.
He is reasonably reliable, but like other sources you have to read him critically.
Wikipedia is hardly mentioned as a source in scientific literature.This is not because it is unreliable. He is more reliable than scientific journals. However, you usually don’t quote Wikipedia itself but the sources used by Wikipedia.
No source is 100% reliable.But Wikipedia is seen as one of the most reliable encyclopedias. Years ago, the comparison was made with the renowned Encyclop忙dia Britannica.Showed that there were clearly fewer errors on Wikipedia. There are several reasons for this.
The paper version of an encyclopaedia is released to the X-time with the improvements.Given the price, that could be an expensive joke, so elected owners to use the old encyclopedia further with any mistakes.
Wikipedia is a “living” encyclopedia.Users can apply or suggest improvements themselves. This reduces the likelihood of errors. But it also contains errors.
For real scientific works, you can better rely on the scientific publications that are calibrated.
So: Wikipedia is reasonably reliable but is not enough to do thorough scientific research due to being too concise.
Wikipedia itself is not used as a source, but that is not specific to Wikipedia.You do not normally refer to an encyclopaedia as a reference, but to the primary source on which the encyclopedia is based.
In more specific encyclopedia-like sites, such as in the philosophy for example the SEP, it is more acceptable to refer to this.
Every scientist has to learn to never rely on sources, but by comparing and by self-thinking to form their own judgement.Wikipedia has gradually become one of the best starting points for this. The quality can change but is generally high to very high.
That is not to say that there are no errors in it or that it is always so easy to improve those mistakes.Especially if mistakes are based on nonsense that is in the literature and a widespread bias or misunderstanding, it is often difficult to improve the error. My own discipline-vastestofchemie-suffers regularly. Chemistry students learn in organic chemistry that everything consists of molekulen, meatballs and chopsticks. In inorganic chemistry and especially in solid chemistry you do not go far with these images. You need to think more in grids and outsourced golf features and hybridization theory just doesn’t work.
Yet the English Wikipedia tells that the atoms in diamond areSP3-hybridized.That’s Lulkoek. Those atoms really do not know that the wiki author is able to apply a theory that does not describe what is going on at all. If it were true, all bonding electrons should have the same energy and diamonds are a perfect localized insulator. This is measurably inaccurate. Diamond has wide energy tires and a high mobility of load carriers. It is therefore a very good semiconductor, even more than silicon.
But I’m not going to change that because then I get very big quarrel and that’s just not worth it.Yes it is lanre, but it is lanre that is taught in every general chemistry class.
Read the articles, click through to the references below and make your own opinions.
Of course, Wikipedia is also the subject of scientific research.There are countless scientific articles and books on multiple aspects of Wikipedia, its users and its use.
Or does the question, whether Wikipedia is used by scientists, mean something to look into?That is the case, just as the Van Dale is used for this, also by linguists.
A scientist does not seek knowledge, but produces it.Even a hundred years old book on Alchemy can provide the necessary insights.
No, scientists don’t see Wikipedia as a good source.I think they often use the references in Wikipedia as a first step.
I did find my own words in Wikipedia in later published scientific articles.
Our VU teachers said: You can consult Wikipedia as a starting point, but read its sources.