[WikiEN-l] Hmm, scientists seem to like us as a resource

[Andrew Gray]

On 11/12/2007, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at 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 at dunelm.org.uk