What can fact-checkers learn from Wikipedia? We asked the boss of its nonprofit owner – Poynter

“Several studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable if not more reliable than more traditional encyclopedias. A 2012 study commissioned by Oxford University and the Wikimedia Foundation, for example, showed that when compared with other encyclopedic entries, Wikipedia articles scored higher overall with respect to accuracy, references and overall judgment when compared with articles from more traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia articles were also generally seen as being more up-to-date, better-referenced and at least as comprehensive and neutral. This study followed a similar 2005 study from Nature that found Wikipedia articles on science as reliable as their counterparts from Encyclopedia Britannica.”

The International Society for Computational Biology and WikiProject Computational Biology: Celebrating Ten Years of Collaboration Towards Open Access

“Open access to scientific information is a core principle of the International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB). This principle is shared by the the Wikimedia Foundation, with its primary goal to collect, develop and disseminate free and open-access educational content. Consequently, ISCB has and continues to foster strong links with several Wikimedia projects, particularly Wikipedia. To this end, ISCB works closely with WikiProject Computational Biology (WCB), a group of around 130 editors overseeing Wikipedia articles relating to computational biology and bioinformatics. In 2017, WCB celebrates its 10th anniversary, having grown to cover more than 1,300 articles in the English Wikipedia. This article serves to acknowledge past ISCB-WCB collaborations, release the results of the 2016-17 ISCB Wikipedia competition, officially announce the 2017-18 competition, and explore exciting future directions, including the potential role of WCB in classroom education for computational biology…”

Amplifying the impact of open access: Wikipedia and the diffusion of science – Teplitskiy – 2016 – Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  With the rise of Wikipedia as a first-stop source for scientific information, it is important to understand whether Wikipedia draws upon the research that scientists value most. Here we identify the 250 most heavily used journals in each of 26 research fields (4,721 journals, 19.4M articles) indexed by the Scopus database, and test whether topic, academic status, and accessibility make articles from these journals more or less likely to be referenced on Wikipedia. We find that a journal’s academic status (impact factor) and accessibility (open access policy) both strongly increase the probability of it being referenced on Wikipedia. Controlling for field and impact factor, the odds that an open access journal is referenced on the English Wikipedia are 47% higher compared to paywall journals. These findings provide evidence is that a major consequence of open access policies is to significantly amplify the diffusion of science, through an intermediary like Wikipedia, to a broad audience.

What do you call a homepage? Incorporating indigenous knowledge into Wikipedia – Wikimedia Blog

First Nation in Canada may soon have a Wikipedia to call their own.

The Atikamekw Nehirowisiw Nation, located in central Quebec, is one of the few aboriginal peoples in Canada where virtually the entire population still speaks the language, making it among the most vibrant among the First Nations.

An ongoing project, the first of its kind in Canada, is working with the Atikamekw community to develop Wikipedia content in their own language. The initiative’s goal is to one day have the Atikamekw Wikipedia, currently in the Wikimedia incubator join one of the hundreds of extant Wikipedias.

‘It is a way to pass on ancestral knowledge using computers and it allows to preserve traditional practices,” project member Nehirowisiw says. ‘It is an educational tool for all.'”

If Voltaire had used Wikipedia… | Voltaire Foundation

“Sharing open knowledge about Voltaire’s histories

To raise awareness of Voltaire as a historian, we used three tools:

  1. Histropedia: a free tool for creating engaging, interactive visualisations
  2. Wikidata: a free database and sister site of Wikipedia that drives Histropedia and other visualisations
  3. Wikipedia: the free multilingual encyclopedia.

As well as holding data about people, publications, and events, Wikidata acts as a cross-reference between the different language versions of Wikipedia, showing which concepts are represented in which languages. By querying Wikidata, we could count how many language versions of Wikipedia had an article on each work by Voltaire. This showed, as expected, a large imbalance: forty languages for Candide versus three for the Essai sur les mœurs, for example. The current number of articles for each work is shown by the size of the bubbles below.”

How Do You Know Which Medical Information on Wikipedia to Trust? | KQED Future of You | KQED Science

“Reworking Wikipedia health entries is not a trivial task. A 2014 study found about 25,000 pages of English-language health-related articles. That number is now up to 32,000, Heilman says. The health pages worldwide attracted almost 4.9 billion pageviews in 2013. A 2012 survey of several hundred medical students found 94 percent use the site for health information.

But despite its popularity, the reliability of Wikipedia’s medical content has often been questioned.”