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

401–410 of 501 posts

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#401

Post by ericd »

codetrotter wrote: post #331
m463 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe traditional encyclopedia might give wikipedia a run for the money on subjects, say toilet paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper But wikipedia is far ahead on more practical articles like which way the toilet paper goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

Something I recently became aware of is that in some cases toilet paper orientation preference may be due to left handedness vs right handedness. I am right handed and prefer to have the paper oriented over itself. A member of my family is left handed and prefers to have the paper under itself. She once said that for her, with left handedness, having the paper under itself makes it easier to grab.

I think it depends mostly on whether you enjoy hitting your hand on the wall or not ;-)

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#402

Post by ignaloidas »

pessimizer wrote: post #140
jacobolus wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is an excellent source about many topics, and a mediocre source about many other topics. For example, the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid was mostly written by the world’s foremost expert about geodesics on an ellipsoid, and would be a fine source. Edit to add an aside: In my opinion it is worth teaching students to look at Wikipedia’s talk pages and history pages to help the…

There shouldn't be original research on Wikipedia, so any citation of Wikipedia would be better sourced directly from the reference linked to by Wikipedia. Circular references aren't only a problem when it involves Wikipedia. You shouldn't ever be citing sources who only claim to be communicating the work of others, outside of being an antiquities scholar when the original works have been lost.

> You shouldn't ever be citing sources who only claim to be communicating the work of others

With the exception of secondary research, like systematic reviews. Conclusions are good to have.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#403

Post by trevcanhuman »

raydiatian wrote: post #359

What is most interesting about this article is that this doctrine seems not to have changed for 20 years. I was told the exact same thing back in the early 00's: "Wikipedia is the devil". It's a well known fact to anybody that has passed through them that public schools are a fucking joke. It's not the teachers fault, it's the budget's fault. Another point with regard to this article is that the notion of single-sour…

why would it be the budget's fault ?

I disagree. The private high school were I attended also said this about wikipedia. Yet it recommended using Google search and Google scholar for getting the primary sources.

But you know what I've found ? It's hard to read primary sources. I tried reading up on e.g. the cell. The parts of a cell. But I've barely found any primary sources for it. Everything is in ad-filled webpages or cool academic webpages with images but no references!

Also, I think recommending Google search is bad because it tries to guess what you're searching for based on the profile they have about you! That's just so bad for getting objective information.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#404

Post by franciscop »

Three years? I was a highschool student 10+ years ago and back then they already didn't allow us to use Wikipedia, luckily at least we were explained that we could read thing in Wikipedia and then use the sources as our own sources.

I remember spending waay too many hours reading bout "exotic" physic topics there and then asking my teacher, who was luckily not annoyed! (or at least didn't show so)

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#405

Post by inawarminister »

I used to read a LOT of random Wikipedia articles in English when I was in late primary school and middle school. Might be the main activity I did that allowed me to start learning proper, academic English.

I've been doing the same now in Japanese and Interlingua (or Latin directly). And while I don't know if the truth is there, at least for daily level comprehension it's a very useful method.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#406

Post by untech »

sk55 wrote: post #138
EGreg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have found the opposite… there is hardly a consistsntly more organized and accurate source that is accessible to the public, but I would be glad to hear what it is if you have one in mind. Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than local news channels even about recent events, and everything is sources (casualty count: who said it etc.)

I think Wikipedia is a great start to finding content at a general level. Though, vertical specific niches often have better sources of information. For e.g. Examine.com currently seems better for nutrition and supplement information. Or even an old school reference book like The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth is better for algorithms.

Wikipedia is how you find a reference like The Art of Computer Programming for a given subject.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#407

Post by franciscop »

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…

True, but still it's way better than most other sources than the general population has casual access to. Reading some of the general public magazines that include some of those topics is... an interesting experience.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#408

Post by froh »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #332
hindsightbias wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wiki is transparent in a self-referential sense only. History started in 1992. If there’s no hyperlink, it’s lost. Pick any wiki page and see all the dead, rotting citations. I’d bet any mining of actually working citations would average closer to 2015. It used to be people citing something from the 70’s or 80’s would get strange looks from people who lived then, now I see Millenials looking at Gen-Z kids that way. H…

> If there’s no hyperlink, it’s lost This just isn't true. Most wikipedia references have a hyperlink and a proper citation which can be looked up using traditional means. For example, a cite might look like this: "Intel Pentium Processor G6950 (3M Cache, 2.80 GHz) with SPEC Code(s) SLBMS". Ark.intel.com. 2010-07-13. Archived from the original on 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2010-07-29. The link to intel.com has rotted, but…

with history begins 1992 they are referencing books, content which is not in the web. you talk about the link quality. other problem.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#409

Post by protomyth »

Slow_Hand wrote: post #367
m463 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe traditional encyclopedia might give wikipedia a run for the money on subjects, say toilet paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper But wikipedia is far ahead on more practical articles like which way the toilet paper goes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet_paper_orientation

I’m team “over” as far as toilet paper goes :), but the best argument I ever heard for TP rolled “under” was that in this configuration your cat couldn’t unspool the entire roll onto the floor.

From personal experience, that assumption is false. One of my parents thought they were clever, and Frostbite speed unrolled it by using the cabinet as a backing. I do miss that monster.

Re: School vs. Wikipedia

#410

Post by throwaway09223 »

froh wrote: post #408
throwaway09223 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there’s no hyperlink, it’s lost This just isn't true. Most wikipedia references have a hyperlink and a proper citation which can be looked up using traditional means. For example, a cite might look like this: "Intel Pentium Processor G6950 (3M Cache, 2.80 GHz) with SPEC Code(s) SLBMS". Ark.intel.com. 2010-07-13. Archived from the original on 2011-03-09. Retrieved 2010-07-29. The link to intel.com has rotted, but…

with history begins 1992 they are referencing books, content which is not in the web. you talk about the link quality. other problem.

No, OP specifically referenced "dead, rotting citations" which is a link quality problem.

In terms of book references Wikipedia simply wins, hands down. Those don't rot.

Post reply on HN