Pleas don't cite wikipedia as a source for facts

[Sane Asylum]

Once again, I just came across another poster citing wickipedia as a source. This one was for facts about nicotine. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but as stated on the wikipedia site, anyone can post and edit entries on the site and as a result, the information is not validated.

One of the 'facts' stated about nicotine on wikipedia that jumped out at me was:

Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases

Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So I looked at the reference and searched and found the site:

http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i46/7428.htm

Yep, that statement was on the site and was referenced to a study on pancreatic cancer in mice. So I found the site with the study:

Chronic pancreatic inflammation induced b... [Am J Gastroenterol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Two things stood out:

RESULTS:

In 58% (7/12) of the animals, exposure to 160 mg/m3 TSP cigarette smoke induced a chronic pancreatic inflammatory process with fibrosis and scarring of pancreatic acinar structures.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study provides experimental evidence of morphological pancreatic damage induced by the inhalation of cigarette smoke, which is likely to be mediated by alterations of acinar cell function.


So from this study, someone concludes that 'nicotene' causes cancer when in fact, the study was about 'smoking'. And if you do a google, it's amazing how many other sites use the information from the wikipedia site as 'facts' about nicotine. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct.

 

[EvilZoe]

I would always follow the source links on the wiki to see if THOSE were valid. So much can get fudged on that site from day to day.

Independently verify EVERYTHING...ALL THE TIME....ANYWHERE, even with news and other information.

 

[suspectK]

As long as there are references and study cites on Wikipedia searches, I'm good with it. I just have to remember not to use uncyclopedia..

Uncyclopedia

 

[yzer]

Why not edit the Wikipedia article?

 

[Btsmokincat]

Sad! I argued online with some fool a couple of weeks ago. He tried to claim that e-cigs produce carbon monoxide and pointed to a wiki page on smoke! I told him that maybe that would be true if I was setting e-juice on fire!

 

[Margate69]

Wiki can absolutely be used as a credible source, IF AND ONLY IF, the information is cited and sourced at the bottom of the page. IF YOU CAN VERIFY that the original source exists, and is published.

Otherwise, consider it useless.

 

[generic mutant]

There have been studies that have concluded that Wiki is approximately as accurate as conventional encyclopaedias, so I think it's an oversimplification to say "anyone can edit it so it must be full of lies..."

But yeah, I tend to think of Wiki as a useful starting point for research, rather than as a definitive source.

The evidence on nicotine and cancer seems inconclusive - it's certainly a cancer promoter, but whether it's carcinogenic is disputed. There's a decent amount of evidence that it is in vitro, but the epidemiology seems to point to there being a very low risk if there is a risk at all at clinically relevant doses.

 

[EddardinWinter]

The evidence on nicotine and cancer seems inconclusive - it's certainly a cancer promoter

I love it. Isn't this the topic you and I first locked horns over, GM?

 

[generic mutant]

I love it. Isn't this the topic you and I first locked horns over, GM?

I seem to recall us having a conversation about this before once, yes.

 

[EvilZoe]

Why not edit the Wikipedia article?

Because someone else just edits it back and no one wants to waste time editing the page every few hours?



I've seen no studies establishing that nicotine promotes cancer....can someone point me to them?

 

[generic mutant]

Take your pick...

nicotine oncogenesis - Google Scholar

nicotine angiogenesis - Google Scholar

 

[Sucker_dad]

Why not edit the Wikipedia article?

Because someone else just edits it back and no one wants to waste time editing the page every few hours?

Wait, the OP was complaining about misinformation on Wkipedia, and had an opportunity to correct said misinformation but didn't because it would just be wasted effort? Then why come here to complain about it?

 

[EvilZoe]

Hmmmm, you know what I'm noticing? There are links between almost anything one plugs into science journals and cancer in some way.

I'm coming to the conclusion that life causes cancer...lol

 

[EvilZoe]

Wait, the OP was complaining about misinformation on Wkipedia, and had an opportunity to correct said misinformation but didn't because it would just be wasted effort? Then why come here to complain about it?

He's just saying to not just cite it by itself and not wording it correctly.

It really IS better to find the sources the wiki is based on and use those after THEY'VE been validated. It will get you a better grade on a college paper, anyway.

 

[generic mutant]

...
I'm coming to the conclusion that life causes cancer...lol

Pretty much...

Toast, pesto, pure oxygen.

Fortunately, the Daily Mail is here to guide you

https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

(my favourite was "Facebook causes cancer". No, they weren't joking. And no, that's not quite what the researchers actually meant...)

Cells are built to reproduce, not that much of a surprise that sometimes they get overenthusiastic about it.

 

[vaperature]

Wiki isn't a bad place to start but like you said, then you have to confirm the validity of the statements made there. It's not the end all of the information but it's a good launching pad to give yourself an idea of where to dig deeper.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Hmmmm, you know what I'm noticing? There are links between almost anything one plugs into science journals and cancer in some way.

I'm coming to the conclusion that life causes cancer...lol

No it's Living on Planet Earth causes Cancer and I even have a link

 

[wheezal]

Hmmmm, you know what I'm noticing? There are links between almost anything one plugs into science journals and cancer in some way.

I'm coming to the conclusion that life causes cancer...lol

confirmed source of Cancer, it was on teh interweb so it must be trufax!

CAUSE OF CANCER - The Kids in the Hall - YouTube

 

[Sane Asylum]

Wait, the OP was complaining about misinformation on Wkipedia, and had an opportunity to correct said misinformation but didn't because it would just be wasted effort? Then why come here to complain about it?

My complaint isn't about correcting wikipedia. It's about people using wikipedia as a valid source of fact.

Wikipedia can be a good place to start to establish facts by using the references but the references have to be checked out for validity. Here's a good summary about wikipedia:

What's Wrong with Wikipedia? § Harvard Guide to Using Sources

 

[suspectK]

Hmmmm, you know what I'm noticing? There are links between almost anything one plugs into science journals and cancer in some way.

I'm coming to the conclusion that life causes cancer...lol

Your cells strive for immortality. Solution=cancer.