Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

School vs. Wikipedia

ratfactor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 501 posts

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#291

Post by TrinaryWorksToo »

IncRnd wrote: post #281
TrinaryWorksToo wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're about the same accuracy according to this data: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/study-wikipedia-as-a...

I'm glad you posted that information, because it really shows that random online information can often be wrong or conflict with other online authorities. Here are two quotes from an article that was posted 10 years after your link. [1] "There has been lots of research on the accuracy of Wikipedia, and the results are mixed—some studies show it is just as good as the experts, others show [that] Wikipedia is not accur…

Bias is not the same thing as being correct or incorrect.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#292

Post by flaviut »

akolbe wrote: post #278
flaviut wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting--looks like I came across an older policy document. But in this case, it sounds like the author is an established and published expert on this topic, so their blog would be acceptable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin... > The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party public…

Well, on the same page (which is an essay, not a policy) you have: " Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about any living people, except for claims by the author about themself. This holds even if the author of the source is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." That limits things quite severely. The relevant policy is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_…

I see, thank you for pointing out the classifications of policy-like writings.

I still disagree in the narrow bounds of this conversation, which is articles about technical topics. The prohibition there seems to be on accepting someone's claims about themselves, which is different from an expert on a subject making specific fact-based claims in their field.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#293

Post by winphone1974 »

aimor wrote: post #89

Every now and then I like to read through Wikipedia pages for things I know more than the average person on. It keeps me skeptical of the things I read on there. For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. That doesn't make Wikipedia useless, but the author's best advice is to use Wikipedia as a map to other sources of information. I d…

But the entire point of Wikipedia is that there is no possible way a traditional gatekeeping expert encyclopedia could be as current or encompassing as a crowd sourced version. Maybe that would be the ideal best solution, but let's not have it stand in the way of progress to a better reality

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#294

Post by davidjfelix »

strangattractor wrote: post #155

Wow - these comments are wackier than anything I have ever read in Wikipedia. 1. Using XKCD as a source for academic malfeasance. 2. Thinking that encyclopedias should be/are written by a single individual. 3. Wikipedia's editorial policies result in the amplification and ossification of (political, academic, medical, etc.) establishment narratives and standards, which are often corrupt for a wide variety of reasons.…

This is the kind of FACT based analysis I look for when complaining about computers on a computer forum. Could you possibly assign a "truth score" to this for me so that I can ask a scholarly journal (which has never been accused of publishing falsified data) to publish it!?

Sorry for the sarcasm. I've been rolling my eyes at the comments too. Where do these lunatics come from?

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#295

Post by winphone1974 »

encylopinion wrote: post #111
aimor wrote: post #89

Every now and then I like to read through Wikipedia pages for things I know more than the average person on. It keeps me skeptical of the things I read on there. For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. That doesn't make Wikipedia useless, but the author's best advice is to use Wikipedia as a map to other sources of information. I d…

I stopped using Wikipedia a while ago. Its math and science content is too nonsensical to be useful. I occasionally read a history article, maybe once every 6 months. But history from things happening hundreds to thousands of years ago, predating modern media... sorry historians, it might as well be fiction. I'm sure someone has thought long and hard about why the content is losing quality.

So you stopped using it, but now use it less, and you read history articles that are fiction because they're so old, but the quality had declined recently? Pick a lane.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#296

Post by davidjfelix »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #218
akolbe wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. That's why the world thinks an "Alan MacMasters" invented the electric toaster. That particular hoax lasted ten years and spread far and wide: https://wikipediocracy.com/2022/08/11/wikipedias-credibility... Example from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1D0xzxYf9ykH9gcYp9... Several books have the false info too. Wikipedia is useful, but it is never a good idea to rely on Wikipedia blindly.

>Several books have the false info too Sounds like we shouldn't trust books blindly, either. Is there a source we can trust blindly?

Realistically, no. Credibility is often a crapshoot which I think is why you see so many otherwise-intelligent individuals believing nonsense.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#297

Post by winphone1974 »

yamtaddle wrote: post #225
encylopinion wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped using Wikipedia a while ago. Its math and science content is too nonsensical to be useful. I occasionally read a history article, maybe once every 6 months. But history from things happening hundreds to thousands of years ago, predating modern media... sorry historians, it might as well be fiction. I'm sure someone has thought long and hard about why the content is losing quality.

Books are still where the good stuff's at. Even some periodicals. Not sure what went wrong with the Internet but it's not living up to the early hype, and doesn't really even seem to be heading the right direction.

I'm confused by what you think the internet is, and this hype you feel it's failing?

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#298

Post by ghaff »

yamtaddle wrote: post #219
squeaky-clean wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is all about the citations. 90% of my Wikipedia edits are either adding citations or [Citation Needed] if I couldn't find a source for an uncited claim. There are some math and physics articles that can go 10 paragraphs without a single citation. They'd be great blog posts or chapters in a book. But they're poor quality Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia's math articles are so bad that I can't even follow the ones about things I already know.

Math is one of the main categories--although there are other especially adjacent ones--where I often think that 1.) You either already know this stuff or you're going to emerge no more enlightened and probably click elsewhere after the first few sentences, and 2.) Some people really love to play with their equation editors.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#299

Post by nkingsy »

wpietri wrote: post #289
nkingsy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

disclaimer: Yes the grayzone hires RT reporters and has a strongly anti-us take on pretty much everything. Please don't spout "russian propagandist" takes. They've been heard plenty. This is the lack of truth I'm talking about. These are investigative journalists--a dying breed that western propagandists are attempting to make extinct. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censor...

That's not evidence, that's a series of disconnected vague complaints from a publisher who is salty that they're not considered a reliable source. They complain about conflicts of interest, but I didn't see them even acknowledging their own. I also couldn't find any financial transparency, so it's not clear to me who is funding this or their other writing. And I'll point out for the last time that you still haven't a…

I thought the article answered your question pretty well and they clearly state on their about page that they are not backed by any government and rely on donations.

The entire internet points to wikipedia and its consensus mechanism is inherently vulnerable to editors for hire, as clearly demonstrated with scores of links.

So my answer is "pick any publication from 1980 and it is better because its bias can be audited and it is not polluting every search query I make"

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#300

Post by bergenty »

aimor wrote: post #89

Every now and then I like to read through Wikipedia pages for things I know more than the average person on. It keeps me skeptical of the things I read on there. For people unfamiliar with a subject (students) I think Wikipedia pages are misleading, poorly organized, and sometimes wrong. That doesn't make Wikipedia useless, but the author's best advice is to use Wikipedia as a map to other sources of information. I d…

What a bunch of bull, use specific examples if you’re trying to make claims like that. I also read articles I’m an expert in and I’m always amazed how complete the articles are.
Post reply on HN