Wikipedia Citations: Why Academic Engagement Matters Now
For the past couple of years, I've been working with colleagues at University of Michigan Press, Digital Science, and Wikimedia Foundation on a question that matters deeply to me: how can we strengthen the connections between academic research and Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is the world's largest freely accessible encyclopaedia, but what makes it particularly interesting for researchers is that it functions as a gateway, not a final destination. The citations embedded within Wikipedia articles are bridges connecting public curiosity to peer-reviewed scholarship. A 2025 study I co-authored, published in PLOS ONE, set out to understand how academics perceive this relationship.
What the research tells us
We surveyed 750 authors whose work had been cited in Wikipedia articles. The findings revealed generally positive sentiment: researchers rated citation accuracy, subject representation, and willingness to recommend Wikipedia pages with mean scores above 7 out of 10. Crucially, the research found that authors view Wikipedia as a "funnel" to primary sources rather than a substitute for them. As one survey respondent noted: "In the context of research, Wikipedia is a funnel, not a source. That is, it helps finding in a single place an aggregate of references, with a commentary to facilitate their digestion.
This framing matters: Wikipedia citations don't replace academic rigour but extend its reach. When research is cited on Wikipedia, it becomes discoverable to audiences who might never encounter it through traditional channels - students, journalists, policymakers, and members of the public seeking to understand complex topics.
Opportunities for Humanities and Social Sciences
This is where my commitment becomes personal. The study found that Humanities and Social Sciences scholars showed lower confidence in recommending Wikipedia pages compared to STEM researchers - and this matters, because HSS disciplines produce scholarship that directly informs public understanding of culture, society, and human experience.
Many HSS researchers have been actively discouraged from engaging with Wikipedia throughout their careers. The platform's open editing model can feel at odds with the interpretive complexity and contextual nuance that characterises humanities scholarship. Respondents sometimes noted "inaccurate emphasis" - not factual errors, but a loss of context. This concern is particularly acute for scholars whose work resists reduction to simple claims.
Yet if HSS researchers remain disengaged, their fields risk being underrepresented in the world's most consulted reference source. This is a significant part of why I continue this work: the potential benefits to HSS communities are substantial.
Benefits across research communication communities
Greater academic engagement with Wikipedia citations benefits multiple stakeholders. For researchers, Wikipedia citations extend scholarship's reach beyond traditional audiences. For institutions, they represent societal impact complementing traditional metrics. For librarians, Wikipedia offers practical context for teaching information literacy. For the public, improved citation quality makes Wikipedia more trustworthy as a starting point.
Trust, AI, and human-curated knowledge
The question of what builds trust in digital knowledge has taken on new urgency. Large language models can generate fluent text on any topic, but typically without transparent citation practices. Wikipedia's model offers something different: verifiable sources, transparent editing history, and human editors committed to accuracy. By contributing their expertise, researchers help sustain knowledge production that values transparency, verifiability, and human curation.
What's next?
Coming VERY SOON, I'll share news about an extension of my collaboration with University of Michigan, Digital Science, and Wikimedia Foundation colleagues - work that builds on our earlier ideas and offers practical ways for researchers to engage.
In the meantime, I'd love to hear from you: How do you currently use Wikipedia in your research or teaching? Have you traced a Wikipedia citation back to its source - or discovered your own work cited there? What would help you feel more confident engaging with Wikipedia as part of your scholarly practice?
Connect with me via email or BlueSky and stay tuned for more in the next month or so.
DOI: 10.17613/1vhf4-f8a98
Reference: Areia, C., Burton, K., Taylor, M., & Watkinson, C. (2025). Research citations building trust in Wikipedia: Results from a survey of published authors. PLOS ONE, 20(4), e0320334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320334
