ArticleGigaScience2019
Wikipedia: Why is the common knowledge resource still neglected by academics?
Article in GigaScience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective divergence between Grokipedia and Wikipedia articles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Scientific autonomy in the structural bubble: from institutional bias to AI-mediated consensus.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Cosmos 1.0: a multidimensional map of the emerging technology frontier.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A research agenda for encouraging prosocial behaviour on social media.Nature human behaviour · 2025Review
- Wikipedia as an academic service-learning tool in science and technology: higher education case from Siberia.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Ten quick tips for editing Wikidata.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Wikipedia page views for health research: a review.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective.Cureus · 2022Review
- What's hot and what's not in lay psychology: Wikipedia's most-viewed articles.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Student usage of open educational resources and social media at a Sri Lanka Medical School.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Assessing Public Interest Based on Wikipedia's Most Visited Medical Articles During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: Search Trends Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Wikipedia: A Medical Student Educational Project to Edit Wikipedia in Preparation for Practicing Evidence-Based Pain Medicine.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wikipedia is by far the largest online encyclopedia, and the number of errors it contains is on par with the professional sources even in specialized topics such as biology or medicine. Yet, the academic world is still treating it with great skepticism because of the types of inaccuracies present there, the widespread plagiarism from Wikipedia, and historic biases, as well as jealousy regarding the loss of the knowledge dissemination monopoly. This article argues that it is high time not only to acknowledge Wikipedia's quality but also to start actively promoting its use and development in academia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.