3 ms·
According to the paper we're discussing, Wikipedia clearly has a measurable effect on science, so either these researchers did their statistics wrong, or you kn
by Kim_Bruning 5y ago
According to the paper we're discussing, Wikipedia clearly has a measurable effect on science, so either these researchers did their statistics wrong, or you know something they don't. ;-)
I had really hoped that wikis would have been used more often for science. The wiki process seems to align pretty well with the process of scientific publication and peer review.
Wikipedia didn't go this road, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities#Ability_to_establish_priority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lost_functionalities...
But it seems others apparently did! https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_User_Group
- dragonwriter 5y ago> According to the paper we're discussing, Wikipedia clearly has a measurable effect on science, so either these researchers did their statistics wrong, or you know something they don't. ;-) “Has a measurable impact on science” and “is part of a category of things to which academia aa a whole has a negative response” are not, even approximately, mutually exclusive so, no, the dichotomy you try to draw is quite false.
- Kim_Bruning 5y agoI do agree that tertiary sources are what they are (upsides and downsides) I was mostly responding to "but that still far from having any use of Wikipedia as a product" ; which I think might be overstating your case just a little.