User:ReaderofthePack/Academic papers vs Wikipedia articles

Academic papers and Wikipedia articles might seem like they're the same thing, however the two differ in some of their key points. This essay is a description of some of the more major differences.

My basic point in writing this is to highlight some of the differences between the two, in the hopes that it will be helpful to both students and to editors who may interact with them. Many student articles are tagged for deletion for various issues, many of which are surmountable with a little bit of work. As editors on Wikipedia we need to take into account that many student/academic editors are only familiar with writing academic papers. They genuinely want to make a helpful article, however they're coming into this from a completely separate mindset than some of the other editors on Wikipedia.

Tone

One of the first differences between the two has to do with tone. All encyclopedia articles need to be written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone that's free of bias. While a good academic paper strives to be free of any obvious bias, they are frequently more casually written as it's expected that the piece will be written from the academic viewpoint of a specific person. As such, they can insert some words that might be seen as puffery or a personal opinion on Wikipedia. In other words, they're free to write their work like an essay because that's what people expect from an academic paper. An encyclopedia article shouldn't read like it was written by a person with a specific viewpoint.

Another difference would be that an academic paper can take a questioning, even experimental tone as they're excellent ways to learn about the topic or the difference between two or more topics. An encyclopedia article wouldn't have this per se because while an encyclopedia article might reference something else (ie, an article about water referencing ice), it can only draw those two conclusions if there is an independent and reliable source that explicitly states this end - but more on that in the next section.

Sourcing

Sourcing is another way that the two differ. For example, an encyclopedia article on Wikipedia requires coverage in reliable sources that would not only establish notability for the topic, but would also verify the claims made in the article. Someone writing an academic paper would be under less pressure to establish both needs and as such would have relatively more freedom with the sourcing they used in the article. They still have to back up their point, but because it's typically being argue a specific viewpoint or concept, someone writing about a literary work would be able to use say, the author's website to back up their claims. Someone writing an academic paper wouldn't really have to worry about establishing notability with sourcing since notability is far less important when it comes to writing academic work, at least notability in the way that Wikipedia determines notability. There's still an expectation that the source will be legitimate and reliable, but the expectations for the two are very different. The reason for this is because of original research, which I'll go into in the next section.

One other thing to note is that you need to be very careful when citing academic databases. The reason for this is that not everyone has access to them (or to a specific database), so you need to make sure that you include as much citation information as possible. This means that you need to include all of the material that would be in a typical APA or MLA citation. Here's an example of what you would need from a book citation, followed by a journal citation:

Perkins, Kathy (1998). Strange Fruit: Plays on Lynching by American Women. pp. 222–225. ISBN 0253211638.

Johnson, Cheryl (Autumn 2001). "The Language of Sexuality and Silence in Lillian Smith's "Strange Fruit"". Signs 27 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1086/495668.

Original research

This is perhaps the biggest way that the two differ, as original research is something that's not only allowable in academic papers but also encouraged and recommended. The point of an academic paper is frequently to showcase the author's particular stance or research on a topic, or - in the case of student papers - to help a pupil learn how to think and write creatively and to show that they understand the paper's topic. In contrast, original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Any and all content in a Wikipedia article needs to be backed up with a reliable source that explicitly states the espoused viewpoint. For example, I could write a paper stating that Kevin Bacon's character in Hollow Man represents humanity's tendency for evil, however that should not be in the article unless a trusted authority (like a film critic) has written that specific theory/opinion in a reliable source like a film review, academic paper, or book. You cannot use a source to back up something that isn't specifically and explicitly made in the source itself.

Off topic material

Another way the two differ is that academic papers are written with the idea that the reader will possibly not be familiar with the subject matter or will not have access to the material. This means that they'll mention other works, explain a specific point that's somewhat related to the topic, and so on. This is fine in academic papers for the above reasons, however on Wikipedia the content is usually accessible via a single click. That doesn't mean that the article should be free of any explanation, but there's no reason to explain invisibility in the article for Hollow Man since a reader can easily click on the applicable link and receive an explanation.

Technical language

Academic papers frequently use terminology geared towards a specific audience. This means that someone writing a paper for lawyers would assume that the reader would be familiar with the technical language used by those in the legal profession and wouldn't feel as pressing a need to explain the subject matter. While you don't need to give a lengthy explanation for readers, all material should be in Plain English.

See also

• Common notability arguments, especially ones applied at AfD
• Author notability
• Notability for YouTube and social media personalities