Hi Helen, this is a great site!
I haven’t used wikipedia much, but I have found it less than intuitive and hard to use.

Happy writing!

I use Wikipedia, like how I used to use the World Book Encyclopedia, when I was in elementary school (you know, before they allowed computers in schools)- OK before the 6th grade… Just for the very basics of information.

Most of the time, it isn’t terribly helpful to me, but occasionally I pick up on a keyword, or phrase that I didn’t actually think about. And so for that, it can be a little bit helpful (at least to me)…but I am not so scientific.

Wow! Did not know about that other link at Cold Spring. I am guilty of the ‘ol wikipedia link. I always had found it useful. but I guess it’s just because I speak the language of genetics and medicine. Next time I will think twice….
-Steve
http://www.thegenesherpa.blogspot.com

i dont think wikipedia’s strength is as a teaching tool per se, unlike the websites you reference above. Where it becomes useful in science is as a reference tool for keywords and jargon, and a means of identifying disagreement within the scientific body. I find looking through the version history very revealing when determining whether a topic has reached a settled definition, or is still hotly debated. And it should certainly never be used as a final citation, but as an intermediary step in the search chain.

[...] answer for Eye on DNA May 13, 2007 Posted by ncurse in Wikipedia, Wiki, Web 2.0. trackback Hsien-Hsien Lei knows perfectly how much I admire and respect her work (first at Genetics and Health, now at Eye on DNA), but this [...]

[...] a post by Thomas Goetz, a fellow DNA Network member, and author of Epidemix.org has got a lot of people writing about why, or why not Wikipedia sucks on [...]

On the culture of Wikipedia:
You claim people give you crap and undo edits…
That is called “biting” people. They shouldn’t do it. It’s not policy, but it is a guideline, I think. It also doesn’t serve to help the community.

I may bite others sometimes too, but I really try not to, and feel bad when I think I might have.

I’m rather active on Wikipedia. I mostly cruise the afd (articles for deletion) pages and save articles that I think are of value. I am much more active on Wikiversity.

If people give you crap on there, you need to bite them back. But you need to be civil and polite about it. Some people seem to enjoy giving others crap. They get a power trip out of it. They create sections like “Wikiversity police” …

One wikipedian I know had bragged that ” about 25 percent of all Wikipedians seem to instantly hate me”… as if it is unintentional and as if it was not something to do with the way that person was acting, but that something was wrong with those 25 percent of Wikipedians. The secret is not to react to the biters or get your feelings hurt. There are many more quality people than jerks though, who really want to set information free.

Don’t let others give you crap on Wikipedia.

And if you really believe in an edit, and you really feel you are right, defend it whilst being civil.

I do not like Wikipedia and steer my students away from it (somewhat in vein, as the alternate sources they find are even worse sometimes). I have a very hard time convincing students about why Wikipedia is not a valid source—and to get them walking into the library.

I tend to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point only. If I find something interesting and potentially useful, I’ll research it further on another site as well as check out the links the Wikipedia article offers.

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

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.

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!

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.