While not having a high scientific impact, Wikipedia’s articles have a high social impact due to its broad readership. In the experience of the authors, a newly created article can often be found among the top Google results within a day, often outperforming review articles in highly regarded medical journals.
Related to this is the fact that wikipedia articles are generally more readable for the average person than articles in medical journals.
On the other hand, being a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia has the advantage that topics indirectly related to medicine (eg, concepts of physics or chemistry underlying medicine) are presented in detail in the same encyclopedia.
I don't see this as an advantage. If I'm looking specifically for medical information, I'll just visit only those Wikipedia pages that are relevant.
Wikipedia’s reliability has been tested in a number of studies, notably in a favorable comparison with Britannica
A demonstration of the potential of so many people working openly on the same goal.
Some people use Wikipedia’s articles to advance their personal beliefs, and so the encyclopedia has been criticized for hosting fringe theories, quackery, and unbalanced views
I was going to say I've never really witnessed this, but I use wikipedia predominantly for math/engineering questions that have relatively highly objective, black-and-white answers.
With the importance of search engines such as Google for people who seek health information, we believe that Wikipedia’s global reach gives it a vast and underestimated potential as a tool for medical knowledge translation
Of course this also provides opportunities for misleading people when it comes to health questions.
Additions to articles are judged based upon their verifiability, and information added without references may be challenged or removed.
Wikipedia used to be much more poorly monitored, but it's become highly credible over the years.
some have voiced concerns that Internet information may undermine their authority and lead to self-treatment
I feel that the complexity of medicine combined with people liking to think they know best has caused online health information to do more harm than good...
However,itsauthoritycanbeandisappropriatedforinterestedpurposes,preciselybecausethelaityisofteninnopositiontodistinguishspuriousfromgenuineclaimstosuchauthor-ity
Reminds me of the Volkswagen fiasco...
Propertyrightsinsciencearewhittleddowntoabarerninimumbytherationaleofthe§cientificethic.Thescientist'sclaimto"bis"intellectual"property"islimitedtothatofrecognition.andesteemwhich,iftheinstitutionfunctionswithamodicumofefficiency,isroughlycommensuratewiththesignificanceoftheincreroentsbroughttothecom-monfundofknowledge
It's difficult to believe that the feeling of expanding human knowledge is sufficient incentive for big, patent-seeking companies.
Thepoliticalapparatusmayberequiredtoputdemocraticvaluesintopracticeandtomaintainuniversalisticstandards.
We have to look to policy makers to remedy our issues surrounding the obtainability of knowledge due to intellectual property laws...
TorestrictscientificcareersongrouQdsotherthanlackofcompetenceistoprejudicethefurtheranceofknowledge.Freeaccesstoscientificpursuitsisa.functionalimperative.
Since we've been talking about intellectual property, I initially interpreted this as anti-(patent,copyright, etc.) sentiment. In context though, especially since this comes shortly after the author talking about nationalism and ethnocentrism, my original idea seems wrong.
Thustheyhavecomefullcircletothepointofthereemergenceofscienceinthemodernworld.
This sounds like a desired result: democratizing science.
Authenti6cation no longer required reference to the in-dividual who had produced them; the role of the author dis-appeared as an index of truthfulness and, where it remained as an inventor's name, it was merely to denote a specillc theorem or proposition, a strange effect, a property, a body, a group of ele-ments, or pathological syndrome.
This highlights the difference between science and literature: a theorem in science relies on natural laws instead of opinions, and natural laws don't have a human author.
f some have found it convenient to by· pass the individuality of the writer or his status as an author to concentrate on a work, tl,ey have failed to appreciate the equally problematic nature of the word "work" and the unity it designates.
At some point you just have to accept the amount of context you have for the author as an individual; otherwise you'd spend forever "preparing" to look at a work.
Holding patents that are sometimes absurdly vague
Relatively recent, complex devices like the iphone (which has hundreds of patents associated with it) have given rise to "patent thickets:" clumps of patents that make it incredibly hard for new companies to enter market places without unknowingly infringing. While proponents of patents say that getting a patent gives new companies a chance to grow while the patent holds, the reality is the opposite.
What if a series of Supreme Court rulings make matters worse, putting onerous burdens on inventors while making it easier for big companies to steal unlicensed innovations?
This assumes that someone's desire to invent something derives from getting a patent (incentive for monetary gain or recognition) rather than a spirit of curiosity and creativity.
Whenever the university’s scientists come up with innovations — which they rarely intend to use to manufacture a product — WARF applies for a patent and then seeks to license it, just as trolls do
The case for universities seems different to me... getting a patent for your work is often used as a measure of a researcher's success, and may be the university's way of recognizing you for your work (i.e. "great job, you made something patentable"). Additionally, research can be costly. It would be financially ill-advised if WARF didn't seek patents, since licensing can produce viable income for the university.