[pcrh]

The referenced article on a similar effect for scientific citations can be found below.

This isn't an entirely trivial matter, as it shows that "random" persons may be able to shape judicial and scientific narratives through wikipedia.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3039505

[jacobolus]

One big problem is that many “real” scholars discount the importance of making sure Wikipedia has good (comprehensive, accurate, well sourced) articles about their areas of expertise, leaving the task to the (often misguided) efforts of amateur enthusiasts.

A wikipedia article is going to have orders of magnitude more influence than nearly any journal article or textbook, and scholars should put at least a basic amount of effort into improving them.

It should be seen as a kind of public outreach.

[hackernewds]

And worrisome because random person = intentionally malicious actors can also be a reality