Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-27 Thread Peter Southwood
As far as I can make out, James was referring to English Wikipedia articles on 
economics, not Wikidata. One of us is confused.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:30 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Hoi,
The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that 
mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been 
invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like Cochrane 
indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially cements these 
sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to do with data 
uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have proper means to 
invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole set of substances used 
in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA and elsewhere these same 
substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that they are no better than a 
placebo.

Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just saying 
that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote:

> Gerard,
> If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can 
> go ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment.
> If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics 
> articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do 
> with data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 
> 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Hoi,
> There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data 
> that is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these 
> imports "so fix it" is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood < 
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote:
>
> > So fix it,
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 
> > On Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 
> > 20,
> > 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
> >
> > Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally 
> > influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's 
> > Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> > Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles 
> > are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, 
> > > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> > >
> > > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> > >
> > > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > > And, you can watch our past research showcases here 
> > > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> > Showcase#September_2017>.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control 
> > > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> > >
> > > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising 
> > > that Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. 
> > > However, Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in 
> > > the world, including by scientists, which suggests that it also 
> > > has the potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.
> > > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas 
> > > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
> this in two ways:
> > > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and 
> > > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new 
> > > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-27 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
The problem is that sources become controversial when there is nothing that
mitigates their validity when other sources indicate that they have been
invalidated. This is of particular relevance when organisations like
Cochrane indicate this. The wholesale import into Wikidata essentially
cements these sources as being valid. As a consequence it has everything to
do with data uploads. Wikidata is not a stamp collection and we do not have
proper means to invalidate. Consider for instance that in Norway a whole
set of substances used in mental health are no longer provided. In the USA
and elsewhere these same substances are subscribed while it is KNOWN that
they are no better than a placebo.

Just copying controversial data into Wikidata is problematic and just
saying that somebody else has to fix it is dodging responsibility.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 27 September 2017 at 08:42, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote:

> Gerard,
> If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go
> ahead and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment.
> If James wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics
> articles, he is free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with
> data uploads. If it does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017
> at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Hoi,
> There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that
> is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so
> fix it" is not appropriate.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > wrote:
>
> > So fix it,
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Salsman
> > Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20,
> > 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
> >
> > Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally
> > influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's
> > Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> > Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles
> > are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
> > > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> > >
> > > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> > >
> > > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > > And, you can watch our past research showcases here
> > > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> > Showcase#September_2017>.
> > >
> > >...
> > >
> > > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
> > > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> > >
> > > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
> > > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
> > > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
> > > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the
> > > potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does.
> > > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas
> > > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents
> this in two ways:
> > > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and
> > > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new
> > > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the
> > > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a
> > > strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the
> > > influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of
> > > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that
> > > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a
> > > very cost-effective way to advanc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-27 Thread Peter Southwood
Gerard, 
If someone sees a thing on Wikipedia that needs to be fixed, they can go ahead 
and do something about it. Please refer to the context of my comment. If James 
wants to start a project or task force to clean up economics articles, he is 
free to do so. I don’t think this has anything to do with data uploads. If it 
does, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 12:17 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Hoi,
There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that is 
full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so fix it" 
is not appropriate.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote:

> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 
> 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally 
> influenced by Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's 
> Economics article still says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles 
> are tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, 
> > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> >
> > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> >
> > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > And, you can watch our past research showcases here 
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> Showcase#September_2017>.
> >
> >...
> >
> > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control 
> > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> >
> > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that 
> > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, 
> > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, 
> > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the 
> > potential to shape science. This paper shows that it does. 
> > Incorporating ideas into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas 
> > being used more in the scientific literature. This paper documents this in 
> > two ways:
> > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and 
> > causally through a randomized experiment where we added new 
> > scientific content to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the 
> > correlational relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a 
> > strong shaping effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the 
> > influence of Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of 
> > repositories of scientific knowledge. The results suggest that 
> > increased provision of information in accessible repositories is a 
> > very cost-effective way to advance science. We also find that such 
> > gains are equity-improving, disproportionately benefitting those 
> > without
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ 
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-26 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
There is a responsibility by the people doing massive uploads of data that
is full of everything under the sun. Given the scale of these imports "so
fix it" is not appropriate.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 19 September 2017 at 07:14, Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> wrote:

> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of James Salsman
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017
> at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by
> Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still
> says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are
> tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
> > September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> >
> > YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
> >
> > As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
> > And, you can watch our past research showcases here
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/
> Showcase#September_2017>.
> >
> >...
> >
> > Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
> > Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
> >
> > As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
> > Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
> > Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
> > including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential
> > to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas
> > into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the
> > scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways:
> > correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally
> > through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content
> > to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational
> > relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping
> > effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of
> > Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of
> > scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of
> > information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to
> > advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving,
> > disproportionately benefitting those without
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-19 Thread James Salsman
That example is only the most visible tip of the iceberg. Now that
there is evidence of multiple causal influences from Wikipedia's text
to real life consequences, I repeat my suggestion that the Foundation
should help editors organize a more careful and concerted effort
towards authentic neutrality in economics and political economics
articles which are likely to influence fiscal policies, just like it
helps support the Medical and Women's user group affiliates today. I
have no illusions that if I were part of such a formal effort it would
be less successful than if it were composed entirely of Enwiki editors
in good standing, and I will not be correcting the specific mistake in
the Economics because I want to know how long it will stand,
especially now that good alternatives have been proposed on its talk
page (for several months!) There are plenty of others very much like
it in other articles.


On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Peter Southwood
<peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of James Salsman
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
> 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC
>
> Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by 
> Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still 
> says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
> Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are 
> tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday,
>> September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
>>
>> YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
>>
>> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research.
>> And, you can watch our past research showcases here
>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017>.
>>
>>...
>>
>> Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control
>> Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
>>
>> As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that
>> Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However,
>> Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world,
>> including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential
>> to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas
>> into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the
>> scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways:
>> correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally
>> through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content
>> to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational
>> relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping
>> effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of
>> Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of
>> scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of
>> information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to
>> advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving,
>> disproportionately benefitting those without
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

2017-09-18 Thread Peter Southwood
So fix it,
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
James Salsman
Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:53 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 
11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

Wow, first there was solid evidence that tourism is causally influenced by 
Wikipedia, and now science. The English Wikipedia's Economics article still 
says "Tax cuts [boost] aggregate demand."
Isn't it time that potentially harmful biases in economics articles are 
tempered as carefully as those in medical articles?

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Sarah R <srodl...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, 
> September 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
>
> YouTube stream:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5JwqyVGSk
>
> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. 
> And, you can watch our past research showcases here 
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#September_2017>.
>
>...
>
> Science is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomized Control 
> Trial By Neil C. Thompson and Douglas Hanley
>
> As the largest encyclopedia in the world, it is not surprising that 
> Wikipedia reflects the state of scientific knowledge. However, 
> Wikipedia is also one of the most accessed websites in the world, 
> including by scientists, which suggests that it also has the potential 
> to shape science. This paper shows that it does. Incorporating ideas 
> into a Wikipedia article leads to those ideas being used more in the 
> scientific literature. This paper documents this in two ways:
> correlationally across thousands of articles in Wikipedia and causally 
> through a randomized experiment where we added new scientific content 
> to Wikipedia. We find that fully a third of the correlational 
> relationship is causal, implying that Wikipedia has a strong shaping 
> effect on science. Our findings speak not only to the influence of 
> Wikipedia, but more broadly to the influence of repositories of 
> scientific knowledge. The results suggest that increased provision of 
> information in accessible repositories is a very cost-effective way to 
> advance science. We also find that such gains are equity-improving, 
> disproportionately benefitting those without

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>