Comments on: Eye On DNA But Not On Wikipedia

By: Hsien

Hsien — Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:51 +0000

Thanks for the invite, John. I’ll pop over for a look as soon as I can. I might not be the best resource for Chinese culture, though. My area of expertise there would probably be the food!

By: John Stephenson

John Stephenson — Fri, 18 May 2007 08:41:58 +0000

You’d be very welcome on the expert-friendly Citizendium wiki; the ‘biology workgroup‘ is particularly well-developed for a site that’s only been launched for a few months. Oh, and we could do with people who know something about Chinese culture.

By: alicia

alicia — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:31:29 +0000

Ha, thanks.

Your mention of wondering if students use “Wikipedia in the same way just as I used to with the encyclopedia. Rewording ad infinitum,” is something I’ve often wondered, too. We could obviously rely on encyclopedias more than today’s students can rely on Wikipedia, and it’s depressing to think so much incorrect information is circulating (that is, the information that is actually incorrect - I don’t mean all of the Wikipedia info, of course). Today’s students use the Internet because it’s quick and easily accessible, and many of them are probably too boy/girl crazy (or something of the sort, haha) to really do the research to find out if the info is accurate or not. Many of them take it and run with it because it’s there.

By: Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:24:12 +0000

Paul, Nice to see you here! People who contribute to wikis amaze me. I would find it hard not to let my ego get in the way when someone comes along and edits my work. Bad enough that editors do it, but total strangers? No thanks….

By: Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:21:20 +0000

“Wikipedia tends to be written in a very technical way that is more conducive to writing reports for school….”

That’s funny because I am 99% certain that students are copying some of my entries for their homework. Wonder how many use Wikipedia in the same way just as I used to with the encyclopedia. Rewording ad infinitum.

By: Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:18:39 +0000

“At Wikipedia there is a â€œreligiousâ€ like experience by participating for some.”

Now you’re really freaking me out, Steve!

By: Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD

Hsien-Hsien Lei, PhD — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:17:44 +0000

Alicia, Good for you! That’s exactly what we all should be doing no matter which site/resource we use first. Explains why you’re a successful writer.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 14 May 2007 18:13:06 +0000

I find that some things in Wikipedia can be useful, such as place histories, general information. I have written a few articles myself, which have more or less stayed intact. I have also had some of my work get undone. Like many others, I don’t have enough time to defend against somebody who may or may not know what they are talking about. It is hard enough to find time to do all the other things in my life.

I agree with the statements about math and science. I often find those articles befuddling and short on explanations, and I am an engineer!

By: Barry Starr

Barry Starr — Mon, 14 May 2007 15:25:01 +0000

I tend to use Wikipedia as a starting point as well. In my work answering people’s genetics questions at our Understanding Genetics website, I find the entries useful in finding technical terms that can help me do the next google search for subjects I am not that familiar with. Because of how Wikipedia is built, I tend to look for corroborating data on what is written there anyway.

Wikipedia tends to be written in a very technical way that is more conducive to writing reports for school as opposed to learning about a topic on your own. Of course, there is a place for that as well! But find sites like the DNA Learning center, our site or GSLC to learn more about genetics in a non-technical way.

By: Steven Murphy MD

Steven Murphy MD — Mon, 14 May 2007 13:20:23 +0000

Wow! What alot of content. Personally I have edited and written content. I found the edits from others were constructive. Perhaps that’s because I helped write the personalized medicine entry and this happens to be my niche. Clearly a lot of people have had some issues with this “biting”. I think to truly understand someone you need to step into their shoes. At Wikipedia there is a “religious” like experience by participating for some. Clearly these people operate under different norms and mores… Maybe we all need to grab a drink and talk it over?
-Steve
http://www.thegenesherpa.blogspot.com