I love Wikipedia, so much so that I’m actually thinking of making a donation. Of course, that would likely have to come from my salon and clothing budget, and I’m trying to save up for a nice pair of Birkenstocks. Hopefully I don’t offend with my shoe choice; I just love these guys. But I digress…
It never fails – when I need to learn about something completely novel to me, Wikipedia has the answers. The entry may not tell the whole story, but the articles contain at least enough information and citations to get there on my own. And I just love that the online community works to maintain the accuracy of the articles – what a lovely communal resource.
In spite of my fondness for Wikipedia, I feel a little bit like I’m cheating when using this resource for scientific lit review. Ten years ago, I never thought I’d be using an online encyclopedia to assist with *real* research. With their shallow and obsolete entries, my parents’ weathered set of Encyclopedia Britannicas were barely acceptable as office décor. But Wikipedia always provides at least a decent overview of the topic in question, as well as links to actual research papers. It just works so damn well for exploring new (to me) areas of research.
So here’s the question for all you science-loving, online-savvy bloggers out there: Have you checked out the accuracy of your citations and research on Wikipedia?
Likely your favorite area of research is highlighted, maybe even some of your past publications. Maybe you’ve even contributed to an article. What say you??