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
<> wrote:
> So fix it,
> Cheers,
> Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [] 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 <> 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:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to