Updating Wikipedia pages boosts public trust in scientific organizations, study finds

A recent study published in the journal Anatomical Sciences Education has found that updating Wikipedia pages for scientific organizations improves public access to accurate information. The research suggests that when experts actively edit these digital encyclopedia entries, readers tend to view the academic institutions as more credible and trustworthy. These findings offer a practical roadmap for professional societies to boost their digital visibility and engage with a broader audience.

Mike Pascoe, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz and the author of the study, conducted this research to address a noticeable gap in online science communication. Wikipedia receives billions of visits each month and consistently ranks at the top of search engine results. Because of this massive reach, the website serves as a primary entry point for people seeking scientific information on virtually any topic.

Despite Wikipedia serving as a foundational resource for both the general public and artificial intelligence models, many scientific societies lack well-developed pages. Pascoe noted that these organizations are often underrepresented on the platform. “Wikipedia is the world’s most accessed encyclopedia, yet many scientific organizations underestimate how they appear on the platform,” Pascoe said.

A lack of detailed information limits an organization’s ability to reach new audiences and share academic work. “That matters more than ever, not just for public understanding, but for how information is surfaced through search and AI,” Pascoe said. By systematically updating a specific organization’s Wikipedia page, the author aimed to demonstrate how academic engagement with the platform serves as a powerful form of science communication.

To test this idea, Pascoe designed a detailed case study focusing on the Wikipedia article for the American Association for Anatomy. This association was founded in 1888 to advance anatomical science through research, professional development, and education. Before making any changes, the author evaluated the existing encyclopedia entry to establish an objective baseline for comparison.

Free daily newsletter

This initial assessment took place in April 2025 and revealed significant deficiencies across multiple categories. The article was classified as a Stub, which is a term Wikipedia uses for very short entries that lack comprehensive coverage. The main body contained only 219 words, possessed no images or data tables, and featured only a single internal reference linking to another Wikipedia page.

A complete absence of outside citations meant the article failed to meet standard reliability guidelines. Pascoe then initiated a structured editing process over a ten-day period to overhaul the content. The author drafted all new content in a private digital workspace known as a sandbox.

This isolated environment allowed the text to be refined and checked against strict editorial standards before it became visible to the public. Pascoe noted that the platform maintains rigorous community guidelines that dictate how content is added and verified. “Many people assume Wikipedia is unregulated or lacks oversight, but that couldn’t be further from the truth,” Pascoe said.

“There are strong editorial standards and quality assessment frameworks in place,” Pascoe said. “The question is whether experts are actively engaging in shaping the information.” The scientist expanded the article by gathering information from highly reliable secondary sources.

Secondary sources are published documents that analyze or summarize original information, such as peer-reviewed journal articles, newspaper archives, and historical books. The author completely restructured the page by adding entirely new sections to provide a complete picture of the society. These additions detailed the history, mission, governance structure, academic publications, and outreach efforts of the American Association for Anatomy.

Pascoe also uploaded historical photographs and standardized the page format by incorporating a summary box of key organizational facts. To ensure transparency, the author posted proposed changes on the article’s public discussion page. This action invited feedback from other volunteer editors who focus on medicine and anatomy topics.

Following these extensive revisions, the article transformed dramatically. The main body text expanded from 219 words to over three thousand words. The number of links connecting to other relevant Wikipedia pages increased from 18 to 107, making the page much easier to discover.

External references grew from zero to twenty, providing verifiable evidence for all the claims made in the text. As a direct result of these additions, Wikipedia’s community assessment system upgraded the article from a Stub to a Start-class entry. This new classification indicates a measurable improvement in both structure and informational depth, positioning the page for further future growth.

To complement these objective metric changes, the researcher conducted an online survey to gather user perceptions. The survey collected responses from twenty-nine individuals who are active in the field of anatomy. This group included university educators, students, and research scientists from across North America, Europe, and Asia.

The participants answered questions rating their perceptions of the revised Wikipedia article using a standard scale. The survey data revealed very positive reactions to the newly updated content. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents rated the revised article as very or extremely credible.

Seventy-four percent of the surveyed individuals reported a high level of trust in the American Association for Anatomy after reading the page. In addition, eighty-two percent found the article very or extremely useful for learning about the organization’s role and history. Seventy-six percent indicated they would probably or definitely recommend the article to others as an educational resource.

Survey participants left open-ended comments praising the neutral tone and highly structured layout. They noted that the revised entry offered a strong starting point for students to gain a basic understanding of the subject without feeling overwhelmed. These outcomes provide evidence that thoughtful engagement with public platforms improves how people perceive scientific organizations.

While this study presents a strong model for digital outreach, the author acknowledges a few potential limitations and barriers. One primary obstacle involves the strict rules Wikipedia maintains regarding acceptable and reliable sources. Much of the detailed historical information about professional societies exists in internal documents, which the encyclopedia generally discourages editors from using.

Finding appropriate external sources requires significant time, patience, and investigative effort. Additionally, the platform requires a completely neutral point of view, which means editors must avoid writing in a promotional or marketing tone. Finding freely licensed images that comply with strict copyright rules also poses a constant, frustrating challenge for new contributors.

The open and collaborative nature of the encyclopedia presents another inherent risk to organizations. Because anyone can modify the text at any time, unsupervised pages might accumulate inaccuracies, outdated facts, or biased statements. Pascoe suggests that organizations should encourage their communication teams to periodically monitor their respective pages to maintain long-term content integrity.

The survey component of the study also features certain constraints that readers should keep in mind. The sample size of twenty-nine respondents is relatively small and relies on convenience sampling. This means the participants were easily accessible rather than randomly selected, which might not accurately reflect the opinions of the general internet public.

Future research could explore larger and more diverse groups of readers to confirm these initial perceptions. The author proposes several exciting directions for future projects to build on this success. “If academics care about public scholarship, they should care about Wikipedia,” Pascoe said.

Pascoe believes that updating public resources offers significant educational returns. “This is a direct way to ensure that accurate, accessible information reaches the public, and increasingly, the AI systems that mediate knowledge,” Pascoe said. Volunteer scientists and translators have already begun adapting the newly written content into Spanish, French, and Chinese to expand global access.

Scientists and educators might also incorporate Wikipedia editing assignments into their formal university classrooms. By assigning students to update science articles, instructors can teach media literacy while simultaneously improving public reference materials.

The study, “Improving science communication and organization visibility through Wikipedia: A case study of the American Association for Anatomy,” was authored by Michael A. Pascoe.