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 <> wrote:
> The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed this Wednesday, September
> 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC.
> YouTube stream:
> As usual, you can join the conversation on IRC at #wikimedia-research. And,
> you can watch our past research showcases here
> <>.
> 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: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to