On 2/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
I often drift in and out of attention when the radio
is playing in the
background. Mention of Wikipedia grabs my attention. It was
interesting to hear a commentater remark that in the light of some
recent scandals over science that had been published in peer reviewed
journals something like Wikipedia might be a better avenue for peer
review than the existing system. Many of these journals operate on a
tight budget. They may require their authors to maintain raw
experimental data for authentication, but in reality most of these
journals do not have the resources needed to properly audit submissions.
Repeating experiments may be costly, and if the author and his
institution have the research tied up in patents repeating them would
not be cost effective either when the auditor can have no return on his
investment.
Meanwhile, my girlfriend was recently told by the third different
lecturer at university "please do not use Wikipedia as a source" :)
Apparently these days a large number of students are citing Wikipedia,
because it's there, and it's so easy.
Steve