5.2. Web Sources of Literature
The majority of respondents very often read and download scientific works via the Internet (
Figure 1). Overall, 32.74% of respondents download scientific works every day, and 38.94% download works several times a week. Only 1.77% of respondents never use the Internet to read or download scientific papers. These data tell us that among the respondents, the Internet is widely used for reading and downloading scientific papers.
On the Internet, respondents mostly use foreign web portals to access scientific and professional papers. We can see this from the grades they gave regarding claims about the use of different types of web portals (
Table 1). A large share, amounting to 61.06% of respondents, gave a grade of 5 to the statement that they use foreign web portals to access scientific and professional papers. A grade of 5 indicates the highest level of agreement with the statement, and a grade of 1 indicates the lowest level of agreement with the statement. Also, 22.57% of respondents gave this statement a grade of 4, which also indicates a strong agreement with this statement. If the percentages of respondents who graded their agreement with statement 1 as grades 4 and 5 are added up, the total percentage of those respondents is as high as 83.63%—therefore, it can be concluded that a vast majority of respondents completely or almost completely agree with statement 1, indicating that foreign web portals are very important for respondents to access scientific and professional papers.
In second place in terms of frequency of use, are Croatian web portals—36.73% of respondents gave a grade of 5 to statement 2 about their use of Croatian web portals to access scientific and professional papers. Also, 14.16% of respondents gave this statement a grade of 4. It can be concluded that the majority of respondents completely or almost completely agree with statement 2 that they use Croatian web portals to access scientific and professional papers. This means that Croatian web portals are very important for respondents to access scientific and professional papers; but still, on average, they are less frequently used by respondents than foreign web portals.
As for the individual web portals through which the respondents access scientific papers, the most popular are Google Scholar and Scopus (
Table 2). Approximately 63% of the respondents gave grades of 4 and 5 to the statements that they use these portals. Hrčak—the portal of Croatian scientific and professional journals—is also a very popular source for respondents, for which 50% of respondents gave grades of 4 and 5 to the statement that they use this portal [
74]. This means that the Croatian portal Hrčak is not far behind in usage compared with the globally popular Google Scholar portal. A smaller share of respondents uses the portals ‘DOAJ—Directory of Open Access Journals’, and ‘Portal of electronic resources’ at the National and University Library in Zagreb (Croatia).
Respondents also had the option to name some other web portals that they often use to access scientific papers, and 18.58% of respondents used this option. Most respondents stated that they use Research Gate (seven respondents), followed by Web of Science (six), Google (four), Pubmed (three), IEEE Xplore (two), Archive.org (two), Google Books (two), and ScienceDirect (two).
As we can see in
Table 3, almost all respondents strongly support the statement that all scientific works should be freely available on the Internet to all interested parties without the need to pay subscriptions for databases—74.34% of respondents completely agree with this statement (grade 5), while 12.39% of respondents almost completely agree with this statement (grade 4). Additionally, almost all respondents strongly support the statement that they are acquainted with the existence of the ‘Open Access’ movement. These data indicate that the vast majority of respondents are acquainted with the existence of the ‘Open Access’ movement and that the vast majority of respondents support one of its fundamental postulates that all scientific works should be freely available on the Internet without the need to pay for access.
Also, 42.48% of respondents completely agree with the statement that most of the scientific and professional works of which they are (co)authors are freely available on the Internet, while 21.68% of respondents almost completely agree with this statement (grade 4).
5.3. Respondents’ Practices and Attitudes about Wikipedia
The majority of the respondents do not use Wikipedia every day, nor several times a week, but about a third of the respondents use it several times a month, and about a third of the respondents use it only a few times a year (
Figure 2). However, only 6.19% of respondents never use Wikipedia.
One of the research findings is that the largest number of respondents uses the English version of Wikipedia—85.84% or 194 respondents—while the Croatian version of Wikipedia is used by a much smaller percentage of respondents—65.93% or 149 respondents. These data also tell us that the large majority of respondents understand the English language. These data also indicate that the English-language Wikipedia has certain qualities that attract a larger share of respondents compared with the Croatian-language Wikipedia.
Versions of Wikipedia in other languages are used by significantly fewer respondents as follows: Italian-language Wikipedia—10 respondents, German-language Wikipedia—10 respondents, Spanish-language Wikipedia—5 respondents, French-language Wikipedia—5 respondents, Serbian-language Wikipedia—2 respondents, Portuguese-language Wikipedia—1 respondent, and Slovenian-language Wikipedia—1 respondent.
As we can see in
Table 4, more than half of the respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 1 that while they are reading articles on Wikipedia, sometimes they study the references based on which the articles were written. Only 13.72% of respondents completely or strongly disagree with statement 1 (grades 1 and 2). In addition, more than half of the respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 2 that while reading articles on Wikipedia, sometimes, following the references, they also read some texts based on which the articles were written. Only 17.7% of respondents completely or strongly disagree with statement 2 (grades 1 and 2).
Respondents who read Wikipedia had the opportunity to state the main reasons why they do so. This question was answered by 80.53% of the respondents, and the most common reasons they cited for reading are that Wikipedia serves to inform them, that it provides quick and easy access to information, and that it helps them find basic information about the topic they are interested in. In today’s world where we are bombarded with information and topics from various sides, many of which we have not had the opportunity or time to encounter before, these research findings indicate that Wikipedia is used by many respondents as the accessible starting information point for basic, orientational information gathering. The following respondents’ statements confirm that Wikipedia is used because of its speed, simplicity, and general insight into many topics:
A good general source of information provided that this information is not accepted as absolute facts.
Considering its easy accessibility, coverage of a wide area, and almost always being among the first results of web search engines, I consider it good for getting to know a certain topic.
I use it when I want to find an explanation of an insufficiently clear term or when I want to get to know the facts about what the person I’m interested in has been dealing with professionally.
It is the shortest way to obtain basic information about an unknown term. According to personal experience, the information is 90% accurate.
Also, respondents often stated that their reason for reading Wikipedia is that links to articles on Wikipedia often appear in search results when using web search engines.
One of the frequently cited reasons for reading Wikipedia is that references in Wikipedia articles help respondents find additional sources of information related to topics of interest. The following statement from one respondent speaks about the use of Wikipedia because of the possibility of finding further research on the topic by following the references in Wikipedia articles:
Also, respondents use Wikipedia both in their work and private life. The following respondents’ statements refer to the use of Wikipedia for work purposes:
Sometimes I check some information, and it serves as a landmark for a historical and cultural course.
As a rule, I read texts on Wikipedia when students’ written term papers refer me to it, because students often use Wikipedia as a source in their term papers, even though they are advised not to do so as a rule.
I use Wikipedia to find simpler concepts and references for explaining more complex physical systems to students.
As a main source of information, I use published scientific articles, but if I need to find a term quickly and in Croatian, I enter it in the search engine and the first link is usually Wikipedia. I mostly use it for certain biochemical terms, medical conditions, or diseases that I would like to know more about.
Scientific—help in preparing lectures, checking the data of final and graduate theses, and writing your own papers.
The following respondents’ statements refer to the use of Wikipedia for private purposes:
I can quickly obtain information that is often of sufficient quality; I mainly use it for information that is not from my profession.
Gives great insight into certain areas where I am not an expert.
I do not read it for the purposes of scientific and teaching work, except in the case of obtaining faster information about the year of birth and death of a certain person. I use it most often for information about things that interest me in my free time, for example, for information about music albums and the like.
The following respondents’ statements refer to the use of Wikipedia for private and work purposes:
Mainly for expanding general knowledge, but relatively often also due to workplace needs.
I read it because I believe that the information I come across is correct, because I check it from several sources. Also, Wikipedia usually lists the source in small letters below the main text. My use is not directly related only to work, but also hobbies (computers, game consoles, the car industry, music, history, art, etc.).
Less often, respondents cited the following reasons for using Wikipedia:
Credible source of information; verification of data and opinions; defining unknown terms; informing about less important topics; the comprehensiveness and variety of topics it contains; finding information that is then passed on to children in the family or at work; useful, comprehensive, and detailed information; and learning.
Respondents who do not read Wikipedia had the opportunity to state the main reasons why they do not read it. Only 27.88% of respondents answered this question, and the explanation for the relatively small percentage of respondents who answered is that, as we could see in the answers to the previous questions, most of the respondents read Wikipedia. Among those who do not read Wikipedia and who answered about the reasons for not reading it, most of them stated that the main reason for not reading it is that they consider it unreliable or inaccurate and therefore use other more reliable sources. The following respondents’ statements refer to the non-use of Wikipedia because of its unreliability or inaccuracy:
I do not use it because I am not sure of the accuracy of the data, and I have the possibility of using verified literature.
Depending on the field under consideration, Wikipedia is an unreliable source, so it is better to avoid it.
I read it very selectively because I know it does not always offer valid information.
I do not use Wikipedia texts related to scientific and teaching work, given that I make sure that the information is verified (despite the fact that many articles on Wikipedia, especially in English, are well-founded and extensive). Even for the purpose of entertainment, I do not rely on articles on Croatian Wikipedia that deal with national history.
Less often, respondents gave the following reasons for not reading Wikipedia:
Contains superficial, trivial, biased information and unverified content; not relevant and updated; anyone can write articles; does not contain enough information; and the texts are not peer-reviewed and contain wrong references.
We also asked respondents if they use Wikipedia to prepare their lessons and writing their scientific articles. As we can see in
Table 5, the vast majority of respondents ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ use Wikipedia to prepare their lessons—82.3%. In contrast to that, a very small percentage of respondents ‘always’ and ‘often’ use Wikipedia to prepare their lessons—2.21%. In correspondence to these findings, it was also found that almost all respondents ‘never’ or ‘rarely’ use Wikipedia to write scientific papers—91.59%.
It is clear from these data that the vast majority of respondents do not use Wikipedia to prepare their lessons or write their scientific articles. It can be observed that the non-use of Wikipedia is somewhat more pronounced for writing scientific articles compared with the non-use of Wikipedia for preparing lessons.
As we can see in
Table 6, almost half of the respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 1 that the level of accuracy of the information available on Wikipedia is quite high (grades 4 and 5). It can be concluded that there are considerably more respondents who think that the level of accuracy of the information available on Wikipedia is quite high than there are respondents with the opposite opinion.
From the answers related to statements 2 and 3, it can be seen that many more respondents consider Wikipedia useful for students’ learning and writing undergraduate and master’s theses than respondents who consider it useful for professors’ learning and writing scientific and professional papers.
With regard to statement 4, the majority of respondents strongly or completely agree with the statement that they use Wikipedia primarily for private purposes but not for work purposes (grades 4 and 5). It can be concluded that the majority of respondents primarily use Wikipedia for private purposes, but also approximately a fifth of respondents disagree with this statement, i.e., it can be assumed that they primarily use Wikipedia for work purposes or use it equally for private and work purposes.
With regard to statement 5, it was found that a significant number of respondents are not very familiar with how Wikipedia works or how to add new content to it.
Table 7 contains data about writing for Wikipedia and learning from Wikipedia. We can see that 8.41% of respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 1 that they would like to write Wikipedia articles on topics from their professional fields (grades 4 and 5). The majority of respondents completely or strongly disagree with this statement (grades 1 and 2). In addition to that, 4.42% of respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 2 that they would like to write Wikipedia articles on topics that are not in their professional fields (grades 4 and 5). The majority of respondents completely or strongly disagree with this statement (grades 1 and 2).
These data indicate that the vast majority of respondents would not want to write articles on Wikipedia, whether they are articles on topics from their professional field or articles on topics that are not in their professional fields. But it can be noticed that the respondents are even less likely to write articles on topics that are not in their professional fields.
Regarding the educational activities about the way Wikipedia works and the process of writing texts and developing articles on Wikipedia, it is worth noting that among the questions in the survey, there was a question about the respondents’ participation in educational programs whose goals are to familiarize them with the possibilities, procedures, or principles of writing texts for Wikipedia. Only 5 respondents out of 226 participated in educational programs of this type. Thus, there is a large, currently unused space for familiarizing teaching and research staff with the way Wikipedia works and methods of writing texts and adding other content to this online encyclopedia.
As for statement 3 in
Table 7, only 20.08% of respondents strongly or completely agree with this statement that the texts they read on Wikipedia are often very useful for acquiring new knowledge about topics from their professional fields (grades 4 and 5). In contrast to that, a significant share of respondents completely or strongly disagree with this statement (grades 1 and 2). In addition to that, with regard to statement 4, the majority of respondents strongly or completely agree with the statement that the texts they read on Wikipedia are often very useful for acquiring new knowledge about topics that are not in their professional fields (grades 4 and 5).
As we can see in
Table 8, respondents had an opportunity to express their level of agreement with statements related to the following topics and Wikipedia: educational programs, promotion of knowledge and repositories, and participation of faculty staff.
Overall, 20.35% of respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 1 that they would be interested in participating in educational programs for learning about different aspects of writing articles for Wikipedia (grades 4 and 5). In addition to that 11.95% of respondents strongly or completely agree with statement 2 that they would be interested in organizing and conducting educational programs about different aspects of writing articles for Wikipedia aimed at scientists or students (grades 4 and 5).
Out of the total 226 respondents, 14 or 6.19% of them have participated in writing articles for Wikipedia. Some of these respondents answered the question about what types of articles they wrote and what were their reasons for writing those articles. Five respondents wrote texts related to a topic in their field of science (theoretical physics, mathematics…). These respondents mentioned the activities of supplementing Wikipedia articles and writing introductory texts and key concepts from the scientific field they deal with, as well as writing Wikipedia articles for the purpose of researching how Wikipedia works. In addition to these five respondents, one respondent wrote a text about a mathematical method for the purpose of promoting the work of his/her colleagues. Two respondents wrote articles on Wikipedia related to the study program they attended—one respondent wrote an article for Wikipedia in the German language as an assignment during his/her studies, and the other respondent wrote an article on Wikipedia using parts of his/her thesis. Also, two respondents stated that they corrected errors on Wikipedia, and one respondent stated that he/she wrote texts about key terms related to his/her field of interest in his/her free time (linguistics, history, local history, and geography…).
Four respondents stated that they wrote articles on Wikipedia, but it was not clear from their answers whether they wrote articles about the topics related to the field they deal with at work or some other topics related to interests outside their work. One of the respondents gave the following answer:
I decided to write or supplement Wikipedia content because, in Croatian, there was either no entry for a certain term or the existing one was outdated or incorrect in part, and I thought it was important for the wider social community so much so that I introduced or corrected it.
One respondent wrote about ‘sports facts’ on Wikipedia, and the other wrote the ‘description of Prosecco’ (a type of wine from Dalmatin Croatia). Finally, one respondent wrote a large number of articles in various fields.
Some of the respondents who wrote articles on Wikipedia answered the question about what were their biggest content or technical challenges or problems when writing these articles and how they solved them. Seven respondents answered that they had no challenges or problems when writing articles. This is one of their answers:
Three respondents had certain challenges or problems while writing Wikipedia articles including the following:
The biggest challenge was to find relevant sources for the topic (a small sports club) because the information available online was limited. I solved that problem by contacting people from the club who gave me the necessary literature.
There are a lot of problems, from the editorial war of several authors to the large number of unverified data found there, as well as the deliberate distortion of data.
The creation of graphic representations and use (i.e., the impossibility of using existing ones) due to copyright.
Also, some of the respondents who wrote articles on Wikipedia answered the question of whether they used scientific and professional works to support them in writing these articles. Nine respondents answered affirmatively to this question. This is one of their answers:
Only one respondent did not answer this question affirmatively:
Because of the topic, there was no need to use scientific or professional works, but if the topic had been different, I would definitely have used the sources mentioned.
As previously stated, out of the 226 respondents, most of them have not written articles on Wikipedia—212 respondents or 93.81%. Overall, 141 respondents answered the question asking them to state the main reasons why they did not decide to get involved in that activity. The most frequent reason given by the respondents for not participating in the activity of writing articles on Wikipedia was that they did not have time. After that, a lot of respondents also stated the following reasons:
Some respondents also stated the following reasons:
The reasons for not writing articles for Wikipedia are also explained by the following respondents’ statements:
I think that with my background in mostly writing scientific papers, writing texts on Wikipedia would be very demanding and would be too burdensome with referencing, and the text would probably be unclear to the average reader who does not deal with my topics.
I think there are more competent people, sub-specialist oriented in the areas that are being written about.
I never thought at all that I could write for Wikipedia, and in the academic community, Wikipedia is generally perceived as an undesirable source of information.
I believe that it is work and that it should be approached in detail and responsibly, which I did not have time for, nor did I ever include in my plans.
I do not know how to publish a text on Wikipedia, and I am not too interested in writing such content.
I have not had such an idea yet because it seems to me that the site is already full of most of the information
I often write scientific and professional papers, so, in this way, I satisfy such a need, passion, and interest.
I still do not consider Wikipedia to be reliable enough to submit or correct texts.
In one of the survey questions, respondents were asked to indicate their levels of agreement with statements about the reasons that motivate them to write articles for Wikipedia. Among the six reasons presented in
Table 9, most respondents completely or strongly agree with the following two statements—they agree that they would have the motivation to write articles for Wikipedia if it would be valued for the advancement to a higher work position, and they agree with the statement that they would have the motivation to write articles for Wikipedia if they could correct errors in its articles. After that, most respondents completely or strongly agree with statement 1 that they would be motivated if their writing on Wikipedia would contribute to the dissemination of knowledge in the community and to the popularization of science and the profession in which they work. The next most frequent motive for writing articles is when their writing on Wikipedia would contribute to the presentation of topics on Wikipedia that are not sufficiently represented.
Also, respondents had the opportunity to state some additional reasons that could motivate them to write articles for Wikipedia or to write something additional about that topic. Fifteen respondents responded to this option. Of these, five respondents stated that they would be motivated by some benefit they would gain from writing articles, for example, a financial benefit or a professional benefit, in the sense that this activity is valued during the process of advancement to higher positions. In this regard, we cite the answer of one respondent:
Given the opportunity cost, i.e., limited time to meet the conditions for promotion, the best motive would be to value this activity for promotion. I am familiar with the way of creating text on Wikipedia, and, considering the influence of Wikipedia, it would be very important for academic institutions with their academic standards to get involved in content creation as much as possible. However, if it is not valued, then academic institutions cannot spend their limited resources on such an activity.
Two respondents answered that their motivation for writing articles on Wikipedia would be if they had more free time at their disposal. One respondent saw the expansion of his/her knowledge and contribution to the general culture as a motivation for writing. One respondent stated that he/she would participate in writing articles on Wikipedia if it was performed as part of a project and if several other colleagues participated in it. Another respondent stated that he/she has not yet thought about writing articles on Wikipedia, while five respondents answered that they would not write articles on Wikipedia for various reasons. For example, one respondent had the following opinion about writing articles on Wikipedia:
Among this group, two respondents preferred to write texts elsewhere, not on Wikipedia:
I prefer to publish original scientific texts and books that occupy and fulfill me.
If it is about the popularization of science, I write biographical lexicographical units, for example, in the Croatian Biographical Lexicon.
Table 10 contains data about the role of Wikipedia in the promotion of scientific and professional knowledge and repositories, as well as the participation of university researchers and teaching staff in writing articles on Wikipedia. With regard to statement 1, 32.74% of respondents almost completely or completely agree with the statement that Wikipedia is a very suitable platform for the promotion of scientific and professional knowledge (grades 4 and 5). In addition to that, 29.65% of respondents almost completely or completely agree with statement 2 that Wikipedia is a very suitable platform for the promotion of scientific and professional repositories, such as the Hrčak portal with articles from Croatian scientific and professional journals (grades 4 and 5).
Based on the respondents’ answers related to statements 1 and 2, we can see that there is a significant share of respondents who almost completely or completely agree with these two statements (grades 4 and 5), but also, there is a significant share of respondents who completely or almost completely disagree with these statements (grades 1 and 2).
With regard to statement 3, it is an interesting finding that 45.13% of respondents almost completely or completely agree with the statement that it would be desirable for university researchers and teaching staff to write articles on Wikipedia with the aim of spreading knowledge about topics from their professional fields (grades 4 and 5).
Respondents also had the option to write comments related to the topics covered in the survey or to highlight something that was not covered by the questions in the survey. Thirteen respondents responded to this option. These are several respondents’ comments:
I believe that the survey should have included—in my opinion—the main problem of Wikipedia, which is also the main source of its unreliability, which is the freedom to self-assess the author’s competence because people simply immodestly self-assess themselves, that is, they consider themselves competent enough to open a profile and write; this applies especially to Croatian Wikipedia.
I think that such a simple and freely available open (both in terms of access to readers and in terms of access to authors) encyclopedia is a very good idea and that everyone should have the *opportunity* to write, but I also think that not everyone should get the opportunity to realize that opportunity, and some kind of screening that guarantees the author’s competence must exist. Self-correction of the system from other authors apparently does not work.
I must clarify that Wiki is unfortunately not considered a reliable source, that is why I said that I do not use that source when writing, but I also think that if the academic community were to get involved in the formatting of the texts, it could be a great way to obtain reliable information easy and efficient.
I am currently at a stage in my life where I do not have time to write on Wikipedia (two small children). But in about 10 years, it would be interesting to me.
Political and social topics are often quite distorted. The references are, to put it mildly, funny, and the truth of the content is often questionable.
The English version has some quality, while the Croatian version is at the level of the yellow press (often, the references are articles from the yellow press).
Wikipedia is a project I grew up with since my student days. At first, it seemed a bit hippie. And now it is one of the main sources of information for smart and AI internet searchers, such as ChatGPT, Bing AI, Bard, etc. I do not like that because Wikipedia has a concept that I never liked: the truth is what the majority say! That is how writing Wikipedia articles works, especially if they turn into a discussion. The majority wins. This means, for example, from the aspect of history, that the history of small nations can always be overcome and written by historians of larger nations because there are more of them. One should search for the objective truth, and not agree on the truth. For me personally, Wikipedia is a potentially very dangerous project!