Wikipedia is one of the largest online encyclopedias, which relies on scientific publications as authoritative sources. The increasing prevalence of open access (OA) publishing has expanded the public availability of scientific knowledge; however, its impact on the dynamics of knowledge contestation within collaborative environments such as Wikipedia remains underexplored. To address this gap, we analyze a large-scale dataset that combines Wikipedia edit histories with metadata from scientific publications cited in disputed Wikipedia articles. Our study investigates the characteristics of scientific publications involved in disputes and examines whether OA articles are more likely to be contested than paywalled ones. We find that scientific disputes on Wikipedia are more frequent in the social sciences and humanities, where topics often involve social values and interpretative variability. Publications with higher citation counts and publications in high-impact journals are more likely to be involved in disputes. OA publications are significantly more likely to be involved in disputes and tend to be contested sooner after publication than paywalled articles. This pattern suggests that increased accessibility accelerates both engagement and scrutiny. The relationship between OA status and dispute involvement also varies across disciplines, reflecting differences in Wikipedia editorial practices and norms. These findings highlight the dual role of OA in both expanding access to scientific knowledge and increasing its visibility in contexts of public negotiation and debate. This study contributes to a broader understanding of how scientific knowledge is collaboratively constructed and contested on open platforms, offering insights for research on open science, scholarly communication, and digital knowledge governance.

翻译：维基百科作为最大的在线百科全书之一，依赖科学出版物作为权威信源。开放获取出版的日益普及扩展了科学知识的公共可及性，但其对维基百科等协作环境中知识争议动态的影响仍未得到充分探索。为填补这一研究空白，我们分析了结合维基百科编辑历史与争议条目所引科学出版物元数据的大规模数据集。本研究调查了争议所涉科学出版物的特征，并检验了开放获取文章是否比付费墙文章更易引发争议。研究发现，维基百科上的科学争议在社会科学和人文学科中更为频繁，这些领域的议题常涉及社会价值与阐释多样性。高被引文献与高影响力期刊发表的文献更易卷入争议。开放获取出版物显著更易引发争议，且往往在发表后比付费墙文章更早受到质疑。这一模式表明，可及性的提升既加速了知识参与也强化了审查机制。开放获取状态与争议参与的关系在不同学科间存在差异，这反映了维基百科编辑实践与规范的学科特性。这些发现揭示了开放获取在拓展科学知识获取渠道的同时，也增强了其在公共协商与辩论场域中的可见性。本研究深化了对开放平台上科学知识如何被协作建构与争议的理解，为开放科学、学术传播与数字知识治理研究提供了新的见解。