Editing Wiki (section)

=== Trustworthiness and reliability of content ===

Critics of publicly editable wikis argue that they could be easily tampered with by malicious individuals, or even by well-meaning but unskilled users who introduce errors into the content. Proponents maintain that these issues will be caught and rectified by a wiki's community of users.<ref name="Britannica"/><ref name="ebersbach10"/> High editorial standards in medicine and health sciences articles, in which users typically use peer-reviewed journals or university textbooks as sources, have led to the idea of expert-moderated wikis.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Barsky |first1=Eugene |last2=Giustini |first2=Dean |date=December 2007 |title=Introducing Web 2.0: wikis for health librarians |url=https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/497/c07-036.pdf |url-status=live |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=147–150 |doi=10.5596/c07-036 |issn=1708-6892 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120430195019/https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/497/c07-036.pdf |archive-date=April 30, 2012 |access-date=November 7, 2011 |journal=Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association |doi-access=free }}</ref> Wiki implementations retaining and allowing access to specific versions of articles has been useful to the scientific community, by allowing expert [[peer review]]ers to provide links to trusted version of articles which they have analyzed.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Yager |first=Kevin |date=March 16, 2006 |title=Wiki ware could harness the Internet for science |journal=Nature |volume=440 |issue=7082 |pages=278 |bibcode=2006Natur.440..278Y |doi=10.1038/440278a |pmid=16541049 |doi-access=free | issn = 0028-0836 }}</ref>