What’s your experience with science on Wikipedia?

I would say that I always take everything in Wikipedia with a grain of salt, and only use it for fact checking or answering a quick question at the dinner table. For scientific research, Wikipedia does give good insights into the general fields or knowledge I am trying to look at, but I always like to use other sources to confirm the information. With the whole rise of AI models that can synthesize information really fast, Wikipedia will still remain due to the large errors and problems with AI. Often times when I ask ChatGPT, it hallucinates data or information that doesn't actually exist.

In my forty years work as a Dutch proof reader I often used Wikipedia to control facts and names in books before they were printed. A relief to know that different people with the right skills voluntary had worked on all those topics and worked together to get the topic on the best standard of science. Thank you for your work in so many years!! Now that AI companies are entering the stage, with brutal force and a big sac of money, I am worried that information can be bought for their own purpose. It is my hope for Wiki that people from all around the world join together and donate money so Wikipedia can say NO to these companies and remain independent.

I've never edited anything in Wikipedia but contribute yearly because I despise commercial adverts and related distractions on most .com websites. Just give me the info I want. I am confident in what I found on Wikipedia and generative AI can indeed deceive. My wife, son and I celebrated his 18th birthday in NYC on Dec.30th. He wanted waffles and Google's AI mentioned that Sarabeth's Restaurant on Central Park South sold pumpkin waffles ... That's special so we booked and went, but the waiter explained, "Oh we don't make waffles, except maybe once in the fall when we do a special day or two of pumpkin waffles." Thanks to AI we got no waffles till two days later at Waffles and Dinges which we stumbled onto coming out the back side of the American Museum of Natural History. Their Dubai waffles are literally "to kill for!" NYC visitor serendipity won, AI misled us and lost! Onward Wikepedia!

I have used Wikipedia for decades, mostly for scientific queries. (Also history, but then only for recreational reading because I have no ambition to be a historian or a columnist.) The information in their entries is very accurate, and it is presented in very accessible ways. Without compromising accuracy, the articles are so well written that not only do they provide new information clearly, they also clarify matters and help remove my misunderstandings.

For these reasons, I send an annual donation to support them, and I urge everyone with similar feelings to do the same.

While aware of a degree of "political" editing and the perpetual need to evaluate entries, Wikipedia entries appear to provide reasonable integrity across a broad spectrum of disciplines. Keeping in mind that these articles are not cited references, they often include links to further interrogate a subject. Further, any scholar would know that Google Scholar, Elsevier, and university links can be used for further information.

As for the drop off of usage, younger generations (Z...) tend to text for information forgoing the detailed introductions that Wikipedia offers. In other words, greater emphasis on socially popular information might be playing into the diminution.

Further, it would not be a surprise if young educators, entry level professors/teachers, pass on inherent wariness they misunderstood during their education. In particular, I find that younger professors tend to seek supportive information as they disregard contrary ideas. Covid might provide a clue for those analysts exploring this decline in use.

Thus, I would seek further information, such as age..., to correlate with the decline.

Good luck, and keep Wikipedia strong, albeit it provides entry information, it is a valuable tool for seeking a broad background before researching further. Sadly, I fear that AI will present an entirely different set of problems.

I’m a retired Landscape Architect with a background in environmental biology and environmental planning. I refer quite frequently to Wikipedia for all kinds of information, including botany, soil science, history, geography, etc. I also support it with donations because I do find it a valuable resource and trust it as such.

As an intelligence analyst for 23 years I taught to use Wikipedia like Cliff Notes and to use references as a good start for source material. I think that applies to science research.

I’m a retired avionics systems/software engineer with an M.S. degree in physics. In my retirement I’ve taken up a theoretical physics hobby. I’m amazed by the breadth and accuracy of physics information on Wikipedia. I’ve learned a lot from it and found it clear and always correct in that field and so very much more. I have confidence in it and I contribute financially.