Forget what your school says, research at MIT proves that Wikipedia is a source of scientific citation

It turns out Wikipedia is a valuable repository for scientists, even if professors do not accept them on end-of-term studies. Researchers at MIT and the University of Pittsburgh have published research that shows a direct correlation between information on Wikipedia and the extent to which they are referenced in future scientific literature.

The core of the study is to determine whether a large and easily accessible treasure like Wikipedia offers tangible benefits to researchers. And the answer is obviously yes.

Sloan School professor Neil C. Thompson at MIT said: 'Our research shows that scientists use Wikipedia and it affects how they write about science in their research. Wikipedia is not only a place to record what's going on in the scientific world, but also really shape science. '

To determine this, they performed experiments on many academic articles. They split them, part of them posted on Wikipedia and the rest was retained. After a while, they realized that Wikipedia articles not only affected posts created later, but the level of influence also occurred on every 200 words.

Wikipedia is a place to search all kinds of information

Researchers also recognize the challenge involved in research when they cannot use the traditional method of collecting data because most academic sites do not cite Wikipedia.

MIT also warned students that they did not accept Wikipedia as anything more than 'popular knowledge'.

Perhaps the most important conclusion from this study is the proof that access is everything. When information is posted that even underdeveloped countries are accessible - not based on governments or universities - the benefits are measurable.