When Sci-Hub made a lot of papers available to the public, I started clicking through to more references on Wikipedia.
My goal was to learn more and go deeper on subjects, but I was stunned by how often the linked citation didn't support the claim in the Wikipedia article. There were many times where the linked citation said the opposite of the Wikipedia article.
My theory was that overly competitive Wikipedia authors were skimming PubMed abstracts and assuming the paper would support their assertion. Ironically, some of the statements with 5 or more citations were the most incorrect.
Trying to correct these articles is some times like going to war with editors who refuse to admit they were wrong.
My goal was to learn more and go deeper on subjects, but I was stunned by how often the linked citation didn't support the claim in the Wikipedia article. There were many times where the linked citation said the opposite of the Wikipedia article.
My theory was that overly competitive Wikipedia authors were skimming PubMed abstracts and assuming the paper would support their assertion. Ironically, some of the statements with 5 or more citations were the most incorrect.
Trying to correct these articles is some times like going to war with editors who refuse to admit they were wrong.