The longevity of retracted scientific papers on Wikipedia is a cause for concern, according to a study examining nearly 1,200 citations. The research, led by Ph.D. candidate Haohan Shi from the Media, Technology, and Society Program at Northwestern University, reveals a troubling pattern. Of the 1,181 retracted citations identified, just over half were added to Wikipedia before the paper was retracted, a fifth were added after retraction but without any reader warning, and just over a quarter explicitly noted the retraction. This highlights a fundamental disconnect between retraction data and the Wikipedia community's workflow.
The study also measured the time it took the Wikipedia community to correct citations added before the paper was retracted. While many corrections occurred swiftly, the median time for a correction was a staggering 3.68 years. This is particularly concerning given the vast reach of Wikipedia, which contains over 66 million articles and receives about 508 million views per day. The presence of retracted citations on such a large platform could potentially misinform millions of people.
The researchers found that physical science citations are corrected the fastest, with a median correction time of 228 days. However, corrections to life sciences and health sciences citations take significantly longer, with median correction times of 2,720 days and 1,846 days, respectively. This disparity in correction times suggests that certain fields are more vulnerable to the lingering presence of retracted papers.
One potential solution proposed by the study is the use of automated tools such as RetractionBot to accelerate the correction process. These tools can help flag retracted citations and ensure that readers are not misled by outdated or incorrect information. Additionally, browser extensions like LibKey Nomad can assist users by flagging links to retracted papers.
Despite the potential risks, it's important to note that the number of retracted articles cited on Wikipedia is relatively small, accounting for less than 0.1% of the total scientific papers cited. However, this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is immune to the issue of retracted papers. The study emphasizes the need for a more proactive approach to addressing this problem, especially in fields where retractions are more common.
In conclusion, the study highlights a critical issue with the longevity of retracted scientific papers on Wikipedia. The slow and uneven response to post-publication knowledge failures could have far-reaching consequences. It is crucial for the Wikipedia community to address this issue and ensure that readers are not inadvertently exposed to misinformation. By implementing automated tools and fostering a more vigilant approach to citation verification, Wikipedia can maintain its reputation as a reliable source of information.
