Recent research published in journals anatomy education We found that updating a scientific organization’s Wikipedia page improves public access to accurate information. This study suggests that when experts actively edit the entries in these digital encyclopedias, readers tend to view academic institutions as more trustworthy. These findings provide a practical roadmap for professional associations to increase their digital visibility and engage with broader audiences.
Mike Pascoe, associate professor at the University of Colorado Anschutz and author of the study, conducted the study to address a glaring gap in online science communication. Wikipedia receives billions of visits each month and consistently ranks at the top of search engine results. This broad reach allows this website to serve as a primary entry point for those seeking scientific information on virtually any topic.
Although Wikipedia serves as a fundamental resource for both the general public and artificial intelligence models, many academic societies do not have well-maintained pages. Pascoe noted that these organizations are often underrepresented on the platform. “Wikipedia is the world’s most accessed encyclopedia, but many scientific organizations underestimate how Wikipedia appears on the platform,” Pascoe says.
A lack of detailed information limits an organization’s ability to reach new audiences and share academic research. “This is more important than ever, not only for public understanding, but also in terms of how information surfaces through search and AI,” Pascoe said. By systematically updating the Wikipedia page of a specific organization, the authors aimed to demonstrate how scholarly engagement with the platform can serve as a powerful form of scientific communication.
To test this idea, Pascoe designed an in-depth case study focusing on the American Anatomical Society’s Wikipedia article. The society was founded in 1888 to advance anatomy through research, professional development, and education. Before making changes, the authors evaluated existing encyclopedia entries to establish an objective baseline for comparison.
This initial assessment was conducted in April 2025 and revealed significant deficiencies across multiple categories. This article has been classified as a stub. A stub is the term Wikipedia uses for very short entries that lack comprehensive content. The main text contained only 219 words, no images or data tables, and only one internal reference linking to another Wikipedia page.
A complete lack of external citations means the article does not meet standard credibility guidelines. Pascoe then began a structured editorial process over 10 days to thoroughly review the content. Authors drafted all new content in a private digital workspace known as the Sandbox.
This isolated environment allowed the text to be refined and checked against strict editorial standards before being released to the public. Pascoe noted that the platform maintains strict community guidelines governing how content can be added and verified. “Many people think that Wikipedia is unregulated or lacks oversight, but that couldn’t be further from the truth,” Pascoe said.
“We have strong editorial standards and quality assessment frameworks in place,” Pascoe said. “The question is whether experts are actively involved in shaping the information.” The scientists expanded the article by gathering information from 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 has completely reorganized the page by adding completely new sections to provide a complete picture of society. These additions detailed the history, mission, governance structure, scholarly publications, and advocacy activities of the American Anatomical Society.
Pascoe also standardized the page format by uploading historical photos and incorporating summary boxes for key organizational facts. To ensure transparency, the authors posted proposed changes to the article’s public discussion page. This activity solicited feedback from other volunteer editors who focus on medical and anatomy topics.
After these major revisions, the article changed dramatically. The text has grown from 219 words to over 3,000 words. The number of links connecting to other related Wikipedia pages has increased from 18 to 107, making pages easier to discover.
External references increased from 0 to 20, providing verifiable evidence for every claim made in the text. As a direct result of these additions, Wikipedia’s community rating system has upgraded articles from stubs to start-class entries. This new classification shows a visible improvement in both structure and depth of information, positioning the page for further growth in the future.
To complement these changes in objective metrics, researchers conducted an online survey to collect user perceptions. This survey collected responses from 29 people working in the field of anatomy. The group included university educators, students, and researchers from across North America, Europe, and Asia.
Participants answered questions assessing their perceptions of the revised Wikipedia article using a standard scale. Survey data revealed a very positive response to the newly updated content. 79% of respondents rated the revised article as very or very reliable.
74% of people surveyed reported a high level of trust in the American Anatomical Society after reading this page. Additionally, 82% said this article was very or extremely helpful in learning about the organization’s role and history. 76% said they would probably or definitely recommend this 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 provides a strong starting point for students to gain a basic understanding of the subject without becoming overwhelmed. These results provide evidence that thoughtful engagement with public platforms improves people’s views of scientific organizations.
Although this study presents a powerful model for digital outreach, the authors acknowledge that there are some potential limitations and barriers. One of the main obstacles has to do with the strict rules Wikipedia maintains regarding acceptable and authoritative sources. Much of the detailed historical information about professional associations exists in internal documents, which encyclopedias generally do not recommend that editors use.
Finding appropriate external sources requires a great deal of time, patience, and research effort. Additionally, the platform requires a completely neutral point of view, so editors must avoid writing in an advertising or marketing tone. Finding freely licensed images that adhere to strict copyright rules is also always a frustrating challenge for new contributors.
The open and collaborative nature of encyclopedias poses another unique risk to organizations. Because anyone can change text at any time, unmonitored pages can accumulate inaccuracies, outdated facts, or biased statements. Pascoe suggests that organizations should encourage their communications teams to regularly monitor their pages to maintain long-term content integrity.
The research component of this study also has certain limitations that readers should be aware of. The sample size of 29 respondents is relatively small and relies on convenience sampling. This means participants were not randomly selected and were easily accessible, which may not accurately reflect the opinions of the internet at large.
Future research may examine larger and more diverse groups of readers to confirm these initial perceptions. The authors build on this success and suggest several exciting directions for future projects. “If academics care about public scholarship, they should care about Wikipedia,” Pascoe said.
Pascoe believes that updating public resources can have a significant educational impact. “This is a direct way to ensure accurate and accessible information reaches the public and the AI systems that mediate knowledge,” Pascoe said. Volunteer scientists and translators have begun translating newly written content into Spanish, French, and Chinese to expand global access.
Scientists and educators could also incorporate Wikipedia editing assignments into formal university classrooms. By assigning students to update scientific papers, instructors can teach media literacy and improve published reference materials at the same time.
The study, “Improving Scientific Communication and Organizational Visibility through Wikipedia: A Case Study of the American Anatomical Society,” was authored by Michael A. Pascoe.
