Thank you for your reply:
>> This paper suggests that Wikipedia has become more influential
>> than a large proportion of the peer reviewed literature:
> I am not sure that is the correct conclusion from the paper you mention....
I was referring to this passage: "It is apparent that papers, authors,
and keywords that are mentioned on Wikipedia are ranked higher in the
scholarly community than those are not mentioned." My studies of the
time series of rankings of papers cited on popular vital science and
medicine articles early in those articles' development suggests to me
that the causation of that association is heavily bidirectional.
But, if the fact that both doctors and patients are obtaining most of
their medical information from Wikipedia doesn't support the same
conclusion, please let me know why you don't think so.
>> my assertion that systemic bias in the English
>> Wikipedia's economics articles has deleterious real-world implications...
>> Do you think this topic is something that the Foundation should study?
> I wouldn't place it high up the list of things WMF ought to be worried
Can you think of any other subject matter areas where systemic bias
might have more serious real-world implications?
> I remember hearing something vaguely about studies looking at
> "left-right" bias among academic economists and in media coverage
> of economics.
Would you please send citations to those that you know of? I tried to
review them all today, and all that I could find were mostly about
social political issues or geopolitics instead of economics.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org