University of Glasgow

Roderic Page

![wikipediaisaccuratecitationneeded.jpg](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/So5zPLxflGI/AAAAAAAAAhA/g001vRvNdRQ/wikipediaisaccuratecitationneeded.jpg?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="200" align="right"}  
While thinking about measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles by
counting the number of times they cite external literature, and
conversely measuring the impact of papers by how many times they\'re
cited in Wikipedia, I discovered, as usual, that somebody has already
done it. I came across this nice paper by Finn Årup Nielsen
([arXiv:0705.2106v1](http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2106v1)) (originally
published in *First Monday* as a [HTML
document](http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1997),
I\'ve embedded the PDF from arXiv below).  
  
Nielsen retrieved 30,368 citations from Wikipedia, and summarised how
many times each journal is cited within Wikipedia. He then compared this
with a measure of citations within the scientific literature by
multiplying the journal\'s impact factor by the total number of
citations. In general there\'s a pretty good correlation.  

::: {style="text-align:center;"}
![1997-20088-1-PB.gif](http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Gct8lVAxKqQ/So5vOAPA_aI/AAAAAAAAAg8/zyc5IqRYRoc/1997-20088-1-PB.gif?imgmax=800){border="0"
width="425" height="502"}
:::

  
  
What is striking to me is that  

> When individual journals are examined Wikipedia citations to astronomy
> journals stand out compared to the overall trend (Figure 2). Also
> Australian botany journals received a considerable number of
> citations, e.g., *Nuytsia* (101 \[citations\]), in part due to
> concerted effort for the genus *Banksia*, where several Wikipedia
> articles for Banksia species have reached \"featured article\" status.

  
  
In the diagram, note also that [*Australian Systematic
Botany*](http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/150.htm) (ISSN 1030-1887),
which has a impact factor of 1.351, is punching well above its weight in
Wikipedia. What I want to find out is whether this is true for other
taxonomic journals. Nielsen\'s study was based on a Wikipedia dump from
2 April 2007, and a lot has been added since then (and the journal
*Zootaxa* has become a major publisher of new taxonomic names).  
  
But what I\'m also wondering is whether this is not a great opportunity
for the taxonomic community. By responding to [{{citation
needed}}](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed), we
can improve the quality of Wikipedia, and increase the visibility of
their work. Given that many Wikipedia taxon pages are in the top 10
Google hits {{citation needed}}, our work is but one click away from the
Google results page. Instead of endlessly moaning about the [low impact
factor of taxonomic
journals](http://network.nature.com/groups/taxonomy/forum/topics/3983),
we can actively do something that increases the quality and visibility
of taxonomic information, and by extension, taxonomy itself.  
  
[Scientific citations in
Wikipedia](http://www.scribd.com/doc/18964274/Scientific-citations-in-Wikipedia "View Scientific citations in Wikipedia on Scribd"){style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;"}


While thinking about measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles by counting the number of times they cite external literature, and conversely measuring the impact of papers by how many times they're cited in Wikipedia, I discovered, as usual, that somebody has already done it. I came across this nice paper by Finn Årup Nielsen (arXiv:0705.2106v1) (originally published in
<em>
 First Monday
</em>
as a HTML document, I've embedded the PDF from arXiv

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Scientific citations in Wikipedia