Perhaps because scientific papers are primary sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
2012/3/24 phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> > Of interest... an altmetrics paper published this week, "Altmetrics in > the Wild: Using Social Media to Explore Scholarly Impact" > http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1 > > counts Wikipedia citations as one possible alt-metric for scholars. I > got lost in the statistics around relationship between alt and > traditional metrics and use, but one of the takeaways is that around > 5% of their sample of 24,331 articles from PLOS (everything ever > published in PLOS) were cited in Wikipedia. > > The article is interesting for other reasons, but I am intrigued by > this 5% number. What do you think of this measure? At first I thought > -- "wow, 5% (1200 articles) is pretty high! We are doing a good job at > citing the scholarly literature!" Then I thought -- "actually, > considering all the bio articles on Wikipedia, it's pretty low!" Then > I thought "but this is only PLOS, which has only been around for a > decade, so actually that's pretty high!" > > Anyway, an interesting paper for the bibliometrics geeks among us. > > cheers, > phoebe > > > -- > * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers > <at> gmail.com * > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
