Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where can I get a job as an overpaid high school teacher?
Go apply I'm sure they're hiring seeing as they'll hire anyone.
Dear god, they’ll overpay just anyone?
School vs. Wikipedia
491–500 of 501 posts
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 webpage…
> But you know what I’ve found ? That you can stick a space between the last word and the question mark to annoying effect, I suppose. > The rest of what you said Is mostly disheveled in its organization to the point where I can’t really respond effectively. Glad to know private schools are failing people as well, I guess. Nevertheless > I disagree. Seriously, with what. From context it seems to be that you disagree…
I'm not a bot. I may just have been tired when writing this comment and not at all objective. I didn't mean that budget in public schools is an issue. What I meant to say is that the budget in public schools is not the cause of teachers saying that wikipedia is bad, it's more like a general mindset that people have.
There definitely isn't a solution in my comment. I certainly just critiqued. I did not mean that adblockers don't exist but that the solutions that my teachers seem to give me are also bad.
> That you can stick a space between the last word and the question mark to annoying effect, I suppose.
I didn't mean to make it annoying. I used to put it right besides the last letter but I've found that the French language uses an extra space. I think it looks better. I see you have a different opinion. I did not mean to be overly annoying with it.
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
And this is cherry picking. As studies show the quality varies strongly for historical, politically controversial and highly scientifical topics ( only few wikipedia editors ). Link https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3178876.3186132#BibP... So nothing "easily disproven"
No, it's a counter-example which unequivocally disproves your inaccurate generalization. Cherry picking can only occur if I'm generalizing, and I am not. Counter-examples aren't cherry-picking. Your statement "At best you can get some people's opinion about something" has been disproven.
My thesis was "you can't take Wikipedia quality for granted" it fails to be objective on many topics. And your thesis is? Your counter thesis?
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that, 4 paragraphs until the first citation, 16 paragraphs until the next one. All that information might be correct, but there's no easy way to confirm it. PDEs are a significant enough thing that the article is probably correct. But once you get into more niche math articles, a lot of the writing is incorrect.
Once again, any articles with incorrect content that you can cite?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numerati...
I know enough to know the examples for Base sqrt(2) are not correct, but I don't know enough to write a proper example.
For example if this is true "Base √2 behaves in a very similar way to base 2 as all one has to do to convert a number from binary into base √2 is put a zero digit in between every binary digit"
Then Base(10) 3 aka Base(2) 11 converted to Base(sqrt2) would be 101. But it is actually 1000.000001
As RDBury on the Talk page mentions, "bases that are not Pisot–Vijayaraghavan numbers are not guaranteed to terminate or even be periodic". Whomever wrote that example just happened to pick an integer where the Base(sqrt2) version terminates and has such a pattern, and treated it as if it applies to all integers.
> Once again,
This is your first comment to me
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, any articles with incorrect content that you can cite?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-integer_base_of_numerati... I know enough to know the examples for Base sqrt(2) are not correct, but I don't know enough to write a proper example. For example if this is true "Base √2 behaves in a very similar way to base 2 as all one has to do to convert a number from binary into base √2 is put a zero digit in between every binary digit" Then Base(10) 3 aka Base(2) 11 converted t…
> Then Base(10) 3 aka Base(2) 11 converted to Base(sqrt2) would be 101. But it is actually 1000.000001
I don't see how. As per the expansion definition in the article 101 = 2+0+1 = 3
1000.000001 = sqrt(8) + epsilon.
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#496Earlier 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_…
Wouldn't this make something published in Playboy an acceptable source, but someone's YouTube video of an actual event unacceptable?
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pedantry alert, but it drives me crazy: "Wiki" is a type of software, like "editor" or "web browser". It is not the name of wikipedia. Yes yes, language evolves, but this is like someone deleting the Internet Explorer link from their Windows desktop and saying "I deleted the internet from this computer, I don't have the internet any more".
See also “crypto” and “text”.
Good god, yes.
Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#498Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#499Re: School vs. Wikipedia
#500Just out of curiosity; has anyone here contributed to Wikipedia?
Yes, back before I lost faith in the project. I actually initiated some somewhat-notable articles such as those on Tank Man (the Tiananmen Square protester) and traditional ("hand-drawn") animation. Most of my more recent contributions have been fixing typos/grammar or removing obvious spam, but I've given up on doing even that little as of late.
Why have you given up? Is there too much spam-bashing?