What’s your experience with science on Wikipedia?

Wiki is the best global public human resource – and it’s inspiring, it must stay!

I have been conducting deep and extensive independent research in the last 12 months, bridging a fairly wide array of disciplines across Science, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, and the Liberal Arts. I have hardly used AI for the research & analysis I’ve performed, AI is very good, it can very helpful – it’s not quite reliable yet, but will be as good as pronto.

Wikipedia, (and Sci Am) – have been a wealth of information, to keep abreast of what one wills to know.

Wiki is a great starting place – for any enquiry, I’m not sure what the wiki limits are… they’re on it. “Let the sky be Wiki’s limit, if there really must be one… in that air is the information, I always found ‘ten dozen leads on there’.”

Wikipedia is more than a work of art, and must be kept alive,

Flourishing and growing, the public kept in the knowing, we still have a will to think.

HG Wells used to ask good questions, nourishing food to keep the mind alive.

To think independently with an open mind – but remember, we are - just - like a camera, all - of the time.

Knowledge management is one thing, but it really depends on the prose.

At age 95 good old henry – was very much still on his toes.

You must know it is coming, as Kissinger pointed out, “AI will pose challenges on a scale and of an intensity that we have never seen – usurping our power of independent judgment and action”…

or ….. “might well solve some of the greatest mysteries of our universe and elevate the human spirit to unimaginable heights, testing our relationship with the divine, and perhaps even spurring a new phase in human evolution.”

But, what happens to the human mind, when the AI answers become like Penumbra’s?

For those slivery Penumbra’s - where does the curious human go then ?

What about our future generations – what - is our legacy to them…??

Pythagoras, Aristotle – they had a good grasp, as did all the polymaths – pushing beyond known limits.

This is the point – Wiki must stay! It’s worth it’s weight in gold.

As science and the soul – like digging in an alpine tunnel – from opposite directions, here comes…

One about to meet one another – surely, we have already seen enough abuse of power.

To keep things open, in the spirit of the race – we need an independent go to, Wiki is leading the race.

I wonder, I wonder, Da Vinci used to say…. clearly, a free independent thinker of his day,

An idealist of sorts, pushing beyond, where no had gone.

Do you - have an ideal, for these coming days….?

Are you getting excited ? or getting ready to hide away ?

Once, the soporific green fog lifts away, we might see the world in a far more generous way.

It’s so close, you can feel, if you can think for your self, it keeps life real.

Wiki – you are the James Clerk Maxwell of our current days – just like Einstein, Feinstein, and Plank all did say; “JCM was the giants’ shoulders - they all stood on – to give us the technology of today”.

So, surely – “WIKI IS THE GIANTS’ SHOULDERS – AND IS NEEDED FOR TODAY!”

I CAN’T THANK YOU ENOUGH WIKIPEDIA – PLEASE: “FLY THE FLAG FOR THE RACE”.

ps. feel free to use that in your next campaign… 😉 TY most grateful.

pps. just like the word "enquiry" getting flagged up just now! - spell check giving me two options, neither will do.

Words matter. Information matters. Future generations matter, and Wiki matters too.

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.