Wikipedia is important in higher education because students and scholars often use it. Nevertheless, the issue of Wikipedia’s quality is an obstacle for its use at the higher education level. In order to contribute to this discussion, we have proposed ‘Verifiability by respected sources’ as an indicator for assessing the quality of Wikipedia articles at the higher education level and conducted an analysis of the most frequently visited articles in the category of Environment on Wikipedia. Results show that these articles contain many unreferenced statements, so their usage at the higher education level is problematic. Therefore, we also propose specific steps for relevant actors that could help to improve the quality of Wikipedia.
MessnerMSouthJ.Legitimizing Wikipedia: how U.S. national newspapers frame and use the online encyclopedia in their coverage. Journal Pract2011; 5(2): 145–160.
HiltonJ.Open educational resources and college textbook choices: a review of research on efficacy and perceptions. Educ Tech Res Dev2016; 64: 573–590.
10.
JemielniakDAibarE.Bridging the gap between Wikipedia and academia. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2016; 67(7): 1773–1776.
11.
KoniecznyP.Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21st-century classroom: perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2016; 67(7): 1523–1534.
12.
Meseguer-ArtolaAAibarELladósJet al. Factors that influence the teaching use of Wikipedia in higher education. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2016; 67(5): 1224–1232.
GilesJ.Internet encyclopaedias go head to head: Jimmy Wales’ Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries. Nature2005; 438(7070): 900–901.
KoniecznyP.Joining the global village: teaching globalization with Wikipedia. Teach Sociol2017; 45(4): 368–378.
17.
RajagopalanMSKhannaVKLeiterYet al. Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of Wikipedia and a professionally maintained database. J Oncol Pract2011; 7(5): 319–323.
18.
ReavleyNMackinnonAMorganAet al. Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources. Psychol Med2012; 48(8): 1753–1762.
19.
KoniecznyPKleinM.Gender gap through time and space: a journey through Wikipedia biographies via the Wikidata Human Gender Indicator. New Media Soc2018; 20(12): 4608–4633.
20.
ReagleJMRhueL.Gender bias in Wikipedia and Britannica. Int J Commun2011; 5: 1138–1158.
21.
JemielniakDWilamowskiM.Cultural diversity of quality of information on Wikipedias. J Assoc Inf Sci Tech2017; 68(10): 2460–2470.
22.
KitturAChiEPendletonBAet al. Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. World Wide Web2007; 1(2): 19.
23.
BungeM.What is a quality of life indicator?Soc Indic Res1975; 2(1): 65–79.
24.
MoldanBJanouškováSHákT.How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol Indic2012; 17: 4–13.
25.
HákTJanouškováSMoldanB.Sustainable development goals: a need for relevant indicators. Ecol Indic2016; 60: 565–573.
DlouháJPetiškaEDlouhýJet al. Opportunities and risks of the use of open education resources in environmental disciplines at university level in the Czech Republic: a criteria for assessing quality. Envigogika2015; 10(4), https://www.envigogika.cuni.cz/index.php/Envigogika/article/view/503
30.
Romero-RodríguezLMde-Casas-MorenoPTorres-ToukoumidisÁ.Dimensiones e indicadores de la calidad informativa en los medios digitales [Dimensions and indicators of the information quality in digital media]. Comunicar2016; 24(49): 91–100.
31.
AlkhattabiMNeaguDCullenA.Information quality framework for e-learning systems. Knowl Man E-Learn2010; 2(4): 340–362.
32.
LeeYWStrongDMKahnBKet al. AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Inform Manage2002; 40(2): 133–146.
33.
HuangK-TLeeYWWangRY.Quality information and knowledge. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
McKiernanECBournePEBrownCTet al. Point of view: how open science helps researchers succeed. eLife2016; 5: e16800.
39.
NeumanMDGoldsteinJNCirulloMAet al. Durability of class I American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guideline recommendations. JAMA2014; 311(20): 2092–2100.
40.
AtkinsDBestDBrissPAet al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2004; 328(7454): 1490–1490.
41.
MuradMHAsiNAlsawasMet al. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evid-Based Med2016; 2016: 110401.
42.
BoothASuttonAPapaioannouD.Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2012.
43.
OnwuegbuzieAJLeechNLCollinsKMT. Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qual Rep2012; 17: 1–28.
44.
EatonSE.Educational research literature reviews: understanding the hierarchy of sources. University of Calgary, Calgary, 2018, http://hdl.handle.net/1880/106406
JemielniakDMasukumeGWilamowskiM.The most influential medical journals, according to Wikipedia: how quickly does new medical research propagate in a non-academic encyclopedia. J Med Internet Res2019; 21(1): e11429.
KitturAKrautRE. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia: quality through coordination. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, 8–12 November 2008, pp. 37–46. New York: ACM.
YaariEBaruchson-ArbibSBar-IlanJ.Information quality assessment of community generated content: a user study of Wikipedia. J Inform Sci2011; 37(5): 487–498.
TauberSKDunloskyJRawsonKAet al. General knowledge norms: updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms. Behav Res Methods2013; 45(4): 1115–1143.
