Hmm, scientists seem to like us as a resource - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

Hmm, scientists seem to like us as a resource

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Mediawiki-l]...

The living embodiment of Wikipedia

David Gerard

11 Dec 2007 11 Dec '07

8:20 a.m.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place. - d.

Reply

Show replies by date

geni

11 Dec 11 Dec

6:19 p.m.

On 11/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place.

When citeing journals wikipedia seems to favor high impact journals to a slightly higher degree than the general scientific community. -- geni

Reply

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

12 Dec 12 Dec

4:02 p.m.

Quoting geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>:

On 11/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place.

When citeing journals wikipedia seems to favor high impact journals to a slightly higher degree than the general scientific community.

There are a variety of reasons for that. First, lay people are more likely to be aware of high impact journals. We've all heard of Nature for example. Second, high impact journals are more likely to be easily accessible. Many Wikipedians edit from libraries or universities and those institutions will be more likely to subscribe to high impact journals. Third, high impact journals have higher search engine rankings so if one is looking for a source for something and does a google search it will more likely turn up a high impact journal.

Reply

Andrew Gray

4:19 p.m.

On 11/12/2007, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place.

When citeing journals wikipedia seems to favor high impact journals to a slightly higher degree than the general scientific community.

I'm not sure how this is directly relevant, or indeed how it's measure at all, but it's entirely unsurprising - we're writing for a more general, more popular audience, and thus are less likely to delve into the more obscure works. The nature of the high-impact journals is that the work published in them is usually among the most prominent in its field... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

Reply

geni

5:46 p.m.

On 12/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I sure how this is directly relevant, or indeed how it's measure at all,

Like this: http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/nielsen/index.html

but it's entirely unsurprising - we're writing for a more general, more popular audience, and thus are less likely to delve into the more obscure works. The nature of the high-impact journals is that the work published in them is usually among the most prominent in its field...

I would tend to credit it to different use patterns. When an article appears in a high impact journal people may read the journal then go and add the info to wikipedia. For lower level journals they are going to picked up more randomly as people go looking for a cite of a given bit of information. -- geni

Reply

joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu

11 Dec 11 Dec

6:54 p.m.

Yes, [[Intelligent design]] was a featured article fairly recently and related articles are in very good shape. There have been a lot of editors who worked very hard to make these articles well-sourced and NPOV. A number of editors have been very helpful in this regard including FeloniousMonk, Kenosis and Dave Souza. Quoting David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html The scientists recommends Wikipedia to the journalist for backup of what he's saying - because we have the references listed and in place. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

6016

days inactive

6017

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

5 comments

4 participants

tags (0)

participants (4)

Andrew Gray
David Gerard
geni
joshua.zelinsky＠yale.edu