Wikipedia can shape the world, not just reflect it, according to research by panelist Neil Thompson, director of the FutureTech project at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Our experimental studies about Wikipedia have demonstrated the ways Wikipedia content makes its way into other knowledge production systems,” said Thompson, who led randomized control trials to examine the impact of Wikipedia content on scientific publishing and case law. In both studies, Thompson’s findings were clear: Wikipedia content influences real-world decisions and behaviors – in the case of his research, the decisions made in a court of law or in the development of scholarly publications.

“Because of Wikipedia’s scope, and how it is used and trusted, it has a lot of effect on the world,” said Thompson. “It’s pretty exciting, but it also speaks to the importance of getting the content as right as we can.”

Panelist Kai Zhu’s own research curiosities led him to explore how editing Wikipedia articles generates more attention paid to those articles and related articles, and the role of hyperlinks in driving this process.

“Wikipedia is not only a collection of textual content, but it is also a network of knowledge,” said Zhu, an assistant professor at Bocconi University, who emphasized the importance of the hyperlink structure of Wikipedia. “When there is a new link created, not only will more people read the linked article, but it also brings more content contribution because of that visibility.”

When panelist Shira Klein jumped into a Wikipedia talk page discussion in 2018, she never predicted it would lead to a two-year collaborative research study and a subsequent publication with nearly 55,000 views and counting. 

“The skirmish [on the talk page] was the tip of the iceberg,” said Klein, associate professor of history at Chapman University, who joined a debate between editors to support the citation of “Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz,” a book published by Princeton University Press and Random House in 2006. This experience led Klein to discover a group of editors working systematically to simplify and distort Holocaust history on the English-language Wikipedia.

In her research, Klein found that misleading information about Jews in Poland has been added to Wikipedia despite its policy violations, noting how the organized efforts of groups of editors to maintain the misinformation can lead to unchecked distortions in articles.

Along with her co-author, Klein studied 25 public Wikipedia articles and nearly 300 back pages, including noticeboards, arbitration cases, and talk pages. Together with interviews with editors and statistical data from Wikipedia, the analysis demonstrated how the addition of content that violates Wikipedia policies can evade scrutiny, leading to distortions and misinformation.

“One thing I’m curious about is what other areas on Wikipedia have this burning issue,” said Klein. “Is there a correlation between the amount of disinformation on a topic and the amount of dispute it has triggered on Wikipedia?”

For more than ten years, panelist Rosta Farzan has studied the social experience of new Wikipedia editors, including why people begin to edit and what helps them not only continue to edit but also contribute higher quality content to articles. According to Farzan’s research, intentional socialization practices for new editors can lead to their long term engagement with Wikipedia. 

Farzan, an associate professor in the School of Computing and Information at the University of Pittsburgh, emphasized the positive impact of the structure and support provided by Wiki Education’s Wikipedia Student Program. 

“The students feel proud of working on Wikipedia articles,” said Farzan. “Newcomers who join through classes are more likely to continue editing on Wikipedia compared to other comparable newcomers. They write more, they write better quality, and they stay on Wikipedia longer.”

Interested in hearing more from the panelists and other featured scholars? Catch up on our Speaker Series programs on YouTube and be sure to join our next webinar, “Wikipedia and Education, globally”, on Tuesday, May 14, 10 am PDT / 1 pm EDT.

Dr. Ingallinella outlines the benefits of utilizing the Wikipedia assignment in her undergraduate class, which is dedicated to reading Dante’s Divine Comedy in English. Her insights can be applied across disciplines, beyond Dante Studies. In the article, Dr. Ingallinella covers the educational outcomes of the assignment and other applications of this work for educators interested in digital public scholarship and knowledge equity. And she lays out a set of best practices for utilizing Wiki Education’s free resources. Reading this, you’ll find a blueprint for how one instructor incorporates our trainings and Dashboard into an actual classroom environment. She answers questions like:

• What does the assignment look like day by day?
• How does the task of writing Wikipedia articles fit into larger discussions of knowledge equity in your field?
• How do you set expectations with students who haven’t edited Wikipedia before, and have actually been told never to use it?

Dr. Ingallinella also provides insights into Academia’s acceptance (and nonacceptance) of Wikipedia, how representation of scholarly journal articles on Wikipedia benefits both public audiences and the academic field, and how a Wikipedia assignment provides students with a good entry point into the reference works important to your field.

Thank you Dr. Ingallinella for sharing your insights with us and our instructor community. We’re proud to support your work and that of many others each term. Every instructor who utilizes our resources (there are hundreds of you!) is part of a community doing this work across the US and Canada through our program. Reach out to us and each other, attend our office hours, present at conferences together, and let us know when you publish work like this. We love to share it. Read the article here!

Visit teach.wikiedu.org to find out more about how you can incorporate a Wikipedia project into your syllabus.

Since Spring 2019, the authors have collectively taught with Wikipedia in 29 courses. Their students have edited over 377 Wikipedia articles, created 37 new pages, and added 577,000 words and 6,510 references that have been viewed by almost 13 million Wikipedia users. In the detailed journal article, you’ll find the following and more:

Student learning outcomes

• which student learning objectives the assignment best meets (with research that backs it up)
• how the assignment kept students motivated and engaged even in the emergency teaching scenarios presented by the COVID-19 pandemic
• the implications of using Wikipedia to fulfill aspirations of inclusion and accessibility in the writing classroom

Course logistics

• how they structure and scaffold the assignment for their different disciplines
• what the instructor’s role in the assignment can look like (how much do you need to know before the course vs. how much can you learn along with your students?)

Institutional support

• what to say to Wikipedia skeptics about the value of the assignment
• what institutional support for the assignment can look like – from hosting pedagogical workshops to meeting Center for Teaching and Learning goals

Student experience

• what their students had to say about the assignment (Do they prefer editing Wikipedia over more traditional writing assignments? Are they more likely to think of themselves as digital citizens?)
• what happens when students go from consumers of information to creators of it

Notably, one of Dr. Shetty’s international students could connect what he was working on in class to his career aspirations and interest in law school, as well as his Korean culture. “I could apply my knowledge that I have learned at Boston University. Plus, the involved parties for the topic were from South Korea, my home country, and from the United States where I am studying,” the student shared. “I contributed to a kind of collective intelligence and feel excited because my efforts were published online where anyone can read.”

“Despite exhortations to avoid Wikipedia by some in higher education,” the authors write, “students understand the value of their contributions, both as a way to give back to a source that they themselves often use and as a means to enhance their learning in the composition classroom. Students, and especially international students, also see the Wikipedia assignment as a way to share information about their backgrounds and cultures on a forum where their cultures are not always represented or not represented accurately.”

Wiki Education has long provided professional development and networking opportunities for instructors. By incorporating a Wikipedia assignment into your next course, you are joining a unique academic community of hundreds that have come before you.

The Wikipedia assignment works for courses across all disciplines. Sign up for Wiki Education‘s free tools and assignment templates at teach.wikiedu.org

Three well-designed experiments from the last few years show some specific ways that Wikipedia has large, measurable effects in the real world — and hint at what I’ve long believed. When you improve Wikipedia, you can be confident that it’s reaching people, affecting what they think, what they write, and how they behave. The juice is worth the squeeze.

I.

“I sometimes think that general and popular treatises are almost as important for the progress of science as original work.” – Charles Darwin, 1865.

The first of these experiments — focused on chemistry — is a dramatic illustration that Wikipedia matters not just for the general public, but for experts working in their own areas of specialization as well. Neil Thompson and his colleagues added a set of new chemistry articles to Wikipedia, choosing topics that appeared in graduate-level syllabi. After posting these new articles, they analyzed new chemistry research papers that were published in the months that followed. Even with a relatively small sample size — they posted just over 20 articles, and composed that many more as controls — the effect these Wikipedia articles had on new scientific literature was large and significant: “each Wikipedia article is influencing ~ 250 scientific articles”, and the references used in the Wikipedia articles saw on average a 91% boost in citations. Put another way, a single Wikipedia article has about half the impact of a published review article — packing far more punch on a per-word basis. Darwin — writing to T. H. Huxley in the quote above — was righter than he could have known, and today the feedback loop between “popular treatises” and original work is much tighter than he imagined.

II.

“[Courts] should be bound down by strict rules and precedent […and] the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78 (1788)

In a recent follow-up experiment, “Trial by Internet”, Thompson worked with law scholars to show Wikipedia’s similar role in a very different context. This time the experimenters examined the invisible flows of information from Wikipedia to the Irish legal system, posting a set of 77 new Wikipedia articles about cases decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland. They analyzed subsequent decisions out of Ireland’s lower courts, finding that the cases with Wikipedia articles were 21% more likely to be cited as precedents and that lower court decisions drew on the Wikipedia articles in framing these precedents and their meaning. With more than two centuries running the kind of court system Hamilton was describing, we’re far past the point where even the longest and most laborious study is enough to overcome the challenge of taming that bulk of precedent. It seems that Wikipedia plays a big (if unacknowledged) role in keeping this knowledge system running. (The same is surely true of every field of serious intellectual endeavor.)

III.

Chemists and judges, of course, aren’t the only people who use Wikipedia. Another elegant randomized controlled experiment shows what you might have already guessed: Wikipedia content can have a big effect on the behavior of the general public. In their paper “Wikipedia Matters“, a team of economists explored this idea in the realm of tourism. Taking advantage of unusually-detailed public data available for hotels in Spain, these experimenters translated Wikipedia coverage of small Spanish cities into the corresponding pages on German, Italian, French and Dutch Wikipedias. For each city, they only improved two language versions of its article, leaving the other two as controls. Then they tallied how many tourists from Germany, Italy, France, or the Netherlands stayed in hotels in each city. Despite a relatively small intervention — typically adding just a few paragraphs — they found an average 9% boost in hotels stays caused by Wikipedia improvements. For example, improving a city article on German Wikipedia resulted in more tourists from Germany visiting that Spanish city. For cities with very little Wikipedia coverage to begin with, the effect was even larger — as much as 33%. The researchers estimated that a good Wikipedia article about one of these cities is worth about €160,000 per year in tourism revenue. (Unfortunately, marketers came to recognize the economic value of Wikipedia coverage long before the public sector, and the Wikipedia community devotes a lot of its energy to keeping puffery and advertising out.)

These three experiments are special in how they provide causal evidence for Wikipedia’s influence on specific domains, but the same invisible causal mechanisms are at work for almost any topic area that Wikipedia covers (or could cover). Experiments like these take advantage of content gaps on Wikipedia — topics with so little existing coverage that modest interventions provide a high “signal” compared with the baseline of what’s already on Wikipedia. But extant Wikipedia content is having ubiquitous real-world effects as well; we just can’t measure them as easily. When Wikipedia content is bad or missing, the world is tangibly worse for it. And like so many public goods, Wikipedia is systematically under-provisioned. But conversely — as these experiments have shown — a little bit of investing in Wikipedia can go a long way. (We can help.)

Thumbnail image by jareed, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Back in 2019 I wrote about a study by Neil Thompson and Douglas Hanley which suggested that Wikipedia content helped shape the scientists’ understanding of their own field of study. They showed that the language used in the technical literature in chemistry converged with the wording used in Wikipedia articles about a given topic. Through a fascinating study, they were able to demonstrate experimentally that this wasn’t coincidental — the way topics are discussed on Wikipedia influences the way they’re discussed in the literature. The fact that Wikipedia articles influence the way people understand their own fields highlights the importance of experts getting involved in the process of editing articles.

In a new study of Irish legal cases, Neil Thompson and colleagues were able to show that judges rely on Wikipedia articles to inform them about settled cases and precedents, and concluded that judges are relying on Wikipedia as a replacement for their own reading of Supreme Court rulings.

Much like in the previous study, the researchers created 154 new articles about Irish Supreme Court cases, and uploaded half of them to Wikipedia, while keeping the other half as a control set. Most of these articles were created by law students with the support and supervision of faculty (using a methodology based on Wiki Education’s Student Program). Wikipedia’s coverage of Irish Supreme Court cases was very incomplete, which meant that it was easy to create new articles about cases where none existed previously.

What happened next was probably not a huge surprise — creating a Wikipedia article about a case increased its rate of citation in rulings by almost 22%. While this showed that judges are relying on internet searches to locate relevant cases, it said little about how they are using the information on Wikipedia. But the second part of the study looked at the textual similarity between rulings and the Wikipedia articles. Here again, they found a statistically significant effect. In other words, judges (or, perhaps, their law clerks) were paraphrasing Wikipedia articles as they drafted their rulings.

The implications of this study are pretty major. While the best Wikipedia articles provide accurate, comprehensive, unbiased coverage of a topic, most fall short in one area or another. This is rarely intentional — while Wikipedia’s contributors are usually dedicated to producing high-quality articles, they’re mostly volunteers who face constraints of time, access to sources, and sometimes subject-matter expertise. But Wikipedia’s open nature also means that people with vested interests in the outcomes of a case have the ability to manipulate articles about important precedents.

To avoid these sorts of problems, Thompson and colleagues suggest ways to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles: “Policy-wise, this could be addressed by buttressing the reliability and review of Wikipedia content by including legal professionals as supervising editors to certify page quality, or by augmenting the content of authoritative but less-broad sources, and using those for the provision of legal information about particular jurisdictions.”

These are reasonable suggestions, but they’re also ones that the community has tried without much success throughout Wikipedia’s existence. It’s hard to convince experts to dedicate their limited time to reviewing Wikipedia articles. It can also be difficult for experts to work with the Wikipedia editing community, especially when outside experts don’t have a good sense of the community. (Despite the frequent assumption that Wikipedians are just random amateurs, many have advanced degrees in the subject areas where they contribute, while others have become experts while contributing over the last two decades.)

Short of convincing judges not to use Wikipedia, there are other ways to mitigate some of these problems. The more active editors there are in a subject area, the harder it is to insert bias. People pay more attention to changes to existing articles, especially if they are actively being edited. It’s much harder to insert bias into existing articles than it is to do it when you’re creating a brand new article. Programs that bring more contributors to Wikipedia — like Wiki Education’s Student Program — not only can fill content gaps in legal topic areas, they also bring more traffic and more editorial attention to these articles (and to articles that are downstream from them). After all, the articles that Thompson and colleagues used for this study were mostly created by student editors.

The other way to mitigate potential harm is to make people better consumers of information from Wikipedia. Few people who consult Wikipedia articles ever look at the history tab or the talk page, despite the fact that they can provide crucial information about the state of the article. Even fewer know about plug-ins like “Who Wrote That?“ that supply information about when individual “facts” were added (and by whom). Training judges (or the pool of legal professionals from which judges are appointed) would make them better consumers of Wikipedia. This isn’t a far-fetched idea — the model for this kind of thing exists in our Scholars & Scientists Program, where participants gain these kinds of skills (among others).

As Thompson’s research has shown, Wikipedia is influential on multiple disciplines. If you’re interested in influencing the public’s understanding of your topic area, as well as future ways of writing about your subject area, adding neutral, fact-based information to Wikipedia is the way to go. Instructors who are interested in teaching with Wikipedia, visit teach.wikiedu.org for more information on Wiki Education’s support for assignments. Knowledge or disciplinary organizations, empower your staff or members to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of your topic by hosting a Wikipedia editing course.

Thumbnail image by Blogtrepreneur, (CC BY 2.0) via Wikimedia Commons

The paper, “Time-series Analyses of the Editors and Their Edits for Adding Bibliographic References on Wikipedia”, was published in the Journal of Japan Society of Information and Knowledge, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2021. The text is in Japanese.

Two figures from the paper show Wiki Education’s impact on these numbers. The researchers excluded bots and IP addresses (unregistered editors), looking only at registered users who were adding scholarly citations to English Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia’s start in 2001 through the start of what is now known as the Wikipedia Student Program in 2010, there were small seasonal spikes as editors added more scholarly references. Group A, in blue, is users who add just one scholarly reference a month; Group B, in pink, are users who add 2–4 scholarly references per month; and Group C, in gray, are users who add 5+ references per month. Group D (purple) is our participants. When our program gets going, you can see the seasonal spikes on all four lines start. But when Wiki Education’s program started scaling, the spikes became much more pronounced, particularly in November and April.

To investigate the cause of these spikes, the researchers called out Wiki Education student editors in their own purple line, concluding that these large seasonal spikes every April and November can be attributed to student editing coming from Wiki Education’s program. Figure 3, below, shows a detailed view on the years Wiki Education’s program was in operation. Note Wiki Education’s participants are included in the groups A, B, and C (based on how many scholarly citations each user added), and then are separately called out as Group D to showcase how closely they align to the spikes.

The researchers built the dataset using the data dump of English Wikipedia as of March 1, 2017, meaning the latest year in this study is from 2016. Even in 2016, Wiki Education’s student editors represented 15.5% of all registered non-bot users on English Wikipedia who added scholarly citations. In 2016, the program had about 10,000 students participating; last year, more than 16,500 students participated, meaning we expect that percentage has only grown over time.

I’m always gratified to see external researchers identify editing patterns of our program participants as an important area of study. We enable any researcher to download usernames of our participants through our Dashboard, and we are happy to answer any questions that arise. Many thanks to Jiro and colleagues for their excellent study.

One major effect is an increase in pageviews — up 12%, on average, compared to the control group, and the more an article expanded, the larger the impact on pageviews. Not only that, but there’s a “spillover”, with increased pageviews for the articles linked to from the students’ articles — especially for newly added links. Along with more pageviews, these students’ articles got more edits from more unique editors after the class ended. As with the pageview effect, the more an article was expanded during the Fall 2016 term, the more edits and editors it was likely to attract afterwards. This increased attention for the students’ articles represents a combination of more traffic coming from related articles that link to them as well as more direct traffic from search results.

Their findings underscore the impact of our work, and reinforce a few ideas that are at the heart of what we do. First, it shows the impact and scale of our Wikipedia Student Program: student editors are doing so much to expand Wikipedia’s content gaps, especially in academic content areas, that it’s possible to study their activity and find statistically significant effects. (In an average month, our program participants represent nearly 20% of English Wikipedia’s new active editors.)

It also shows that the work students are doing isn’t just an “academic exercise”; it has an audience, and it matters enough that people are both reading it and building on it. Because of the way articles lead readers to explore the network of related articles, this “attention contagion” for substantially improved articles spills over to related articles, and this suggests that a particularly effective strategy is to focus on clusters of underdeveloped but important articles. That happens naturally in many of our Student Program courses, where the instructor guides their students to work on underdeveloped articles related to the course content. We’re also doubling down on this strategy for our Wiki Scholars & Scientists courses, where a cohort of experts comes together to learn how to apply their knowledge to a particular topic area — such as our recent courses focused on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research like this is an important part of the Wikimedia ecosystem. Not only does this help quantify the impact of Wiki Education’s work, but it also offers insight for other Wikimedia program leaders interested in focusing editors on a cluster of underdeveloped but important articles. Wiki Education is always interested in independent researchers using our programs as a focus of academic study; for information on data available, reach out to us through our contact us page.

“Wikipedia’s popularity and reach mean that archaeologists should actively engage with the website by adding and improving archaeological content.”

Academia is changing its mind about Wikipedia. Peer-reviewed research studies published in the last few years have found value in teaching students how to evaluate the site, rather than turning them away from using it altogether. One such study from 2019 conducted by Katherine Grillo and Daniel Contreras (published by Cambridge University Press) narrows in on teaching with Wikipedia in archaeology courses. The paper concludes that having students write Wikipedia articles related to archaeological course topics:

• brings academic information out of the silo and into the hands of the public,
• helps correct misinformation prevalent in mainstream narratives of history, and
• gives students skills to communicate what they’re learning to non-specialist audiences.

“We conclude that Wikipedia’s utopian mission aligns with many of the goals of public archaeology and argue that archaeology has much to gain by engaging with—rather than ignoring or even shunning—Wikipedia.”

 

The importance of public engagement

Like with many academic disciplines, archaeologists are seeking new ways to engage the public in their field. “Without public engagement, awareness and funding of archaeological research and conservation of archaeological sites are unlikely to find continued popular support,” the paper states.

Why is Wikipedia the answer?

With 500 million readers each month, Wikipedia offers a massive and effective public educational tool. “The publics whom archaeologists seek to reach now overwhelmingly rely on Wikipedia as a source of basic information,” Dr. Grillo and Dr. Contreras assert, citing Schroeder 2018:122–124.

Wikipedia presents opportunities not only to improve coverage of archaeology in a publicly accessible place, but also to correct misinformation by pointing people to academic knowledge when they seek information about popular culture. Students of archaeology can improve a Wikipedia article about Indiana Jones, for example, by linking to articles about the real archaeological sites.

“The need for accurate and widely available information about archaeology is acute, especially considering our discipline’s notable problems with the proliferation of pseudoscientific theories in the public realm (Ancient Aliens, Legends of the Lost, and similar television programs are obvious and egregious offenders),” write Dr. Grillo and Dr. Contreras.

How do we bring more archaeological information to Wikipedia?

Students are well-positioned to do this public outreach work on behalf of the archaeological field. They’re already consulting academic sources to write research papers. A Wikipedia writing assignment can channel that work into a public place. Students also remember what it’s like learning about these topics for the first time and often have a good perspective on how to speak about them to a non-specialist audience. The process of synthesizing course topics also “invest[s] and immerse[s] students in the production of archaeological content.”

Student learning outcomes

“By actively editing Wikipedia pages themselves, students improve their abilities to critically evaluate problematic Wikipedia pages, and they gain experience in reviewing academic literature,” the paper concludes. “Student motivation and dedication to producing quality writing is overall high, given the understanding that thousands of people will be reading their work.”

“Given the growing emphasis on job training in higher education, activities such as participation in the Wiki Education program that both provide marketable skills and promote media literacy, may be particularly valuable.”

It’s now Dr. Grillo’s fourth term teaching a Wikipedia writing assignment. Since she began in 2016, the total impact her students have made on Wikipedia is this: They’ve added 69,000 words and 900 references to 70 articles. They’ve created 18 new articles. And all of that work has been viewed by Wikipedia’s readers more than 3 million times.

“In practice, taking advantage of Wiki Education has proven effective both as pedagogy and as public outreach.”

 

Want to get involved? Wiki Education can help.

With Wiki Education’s free assignment management tools and student trainings, instructors new to Wikipedia can feel well-equipped to guide their students in editing assignments. Visit teach.wikiedu.org to access those resources.

Read more perspectives from instructors who have done this assignment here. Explore other research studies here. 

Header image by Maclemo, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Thumbnail image by Florenceguillot, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

“Most medical students use Wikipedia, yet most medical schools do not train students to improve Wikipedia or use it critically.”

So begins the research study published by MedEdPublish this spring about the use of Wikipedia in medical education. The article ultimately encourages the implementation of Wikipedia writing assignments “across all health professional schools.”

Attitudes toward Wikipedia’s place in higher education have evolved quite a bit since our Student Program began in 2010. Early adopters of Wikipedia writing assignments were questioned by their colleagues at best, and mocked at worst. Occasionally someone would walk up to a Wiki Education representative at a conference hiding their face so “my department head doesn’t see me talking to you guys.”

What academics can all agree on, though, is that their students are using Wikipedia constantly, regardless of faculty attitudes or class policies. And those students don’t necessarily have the media literacy skills to critically consume the information they find. Instructors are looking for ways to teach those critical skills. A Wikipedia writing assignment is one of the best ways.

The movement of Wikipedia in education has grown one instructor at a time. Institutions have begun recognizing their instructors for the ways they utilize the assignment to engage students. Students have received awards for their contributions to Wikipedia. And now academic journals are publishing articles commending the approach for teaching critical media literacy, science communication, collaborative writing, and research skills across disciplines.

These journal articles span a wide range of disciplines: archaeology, English, feminist theory, and politics, just to name a few. The influx of peer reviewed arguments encouraging academics to implement Wikipedia assignments in the college classroom points to the growing acceptance of Wikipedia-based assignments in academia.

Amin Azzam–a full professor at three San Francisco bay area health professional schools and contributor to the MedEdPublish article–writes about this shift in a recent guest blog post,

“Reflecting back on when I first created my course 5 years ago, I used to warn my medical students about being ‘out’ about my course on their interview trails for their next professional steps. I’d say, ‘Most of your faculty and senior professionals still shun Wikipedia as inadequate and unprofessional.’ But more recently I’ve stopped that caveat. My students—and all health professional students who edit Wikipedia—SHOULD be OUT and PROUD about making the world’s most heavily used health information source more accurate and thorough. Can you imagine a world where everyone has access to high quality health information for free? I sure can, and I’m grateful to be a part of that movement.”

Let Wiki Education and the vast community of educators we support help you become a part of that movement too. Join us!