4 ms·

It's true wikipedia can be hit-or-miss sometimes, but in the STEM fields it's mostly solid, so not sure why the need to start a new one from scratch. Maybe just

It's true wikipedia can be hit-or-miss sometimes, but in the STEM fields it's mostly solid, so not sure why the need to start a new one from scratch. Maybe just make some initiative to fix existing pages and make them citable? http://www.scholarpedia.org/ http://www.scholarpedia.org/ has nice articles written by experts in the field. Usually pretty good and thorough reviews.

icc97 8y ago
I think I remember Peter Thiel talking about that the main value proposition of Facebook was the real identities of people. This wants to produce an encyclopedia using the real identities of people. So it's looking for some combination of Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and Quora [0]. [0]: https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-to-use-my-real-name-on-Quora-What-is-Quoras-%E2%80%98real-names%E2%80%99-policy https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-to-use-my-real-name-on-Quora...
pankajdoharey 8y ago
Wikipedia is really good, and if there is a mis surely more WikiBooks can be written, a separate Encyclopedia isnt required.
JdeBP 8y ago
In computing and computer science it is regularly appalling, even on basic topics. The article on wait() et al., for example, is significantly wrong, some of which is called out on its talk page. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call) There are similar errors in its article on MAC times. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times Its article on pax, a standard Unix utility for a fairly long while, is very misleading too. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix) Its article on CubeHash in 2013 did not include information from 2009. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_years_out_of_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_.... I've pointed out errors in its article on systemd, one of which was called out by one of the systemd authors. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=723037068 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=72... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=631031336 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=63... The irony of this edit to the NFS article is that in fact the problems and limitation of NFS with respect to full Unix filesystem semantics were called out by its authors when they first wrote about it, and are the widespread view. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_System&diff=385927363&oldid=383258055 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_Syst... Wikipedia people actually tried to delete articles on "Is" functions, C++ placement syntax, and the Process Environment Block. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Placement_syntax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff=prev&oldid=408628953 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environment_Block&diff=prev&oldid=375382173 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environme... They in contrast kept an article about a purported computer science concept that was invented within Wikipedia based upon a vague phrase in a book that did not in fact describe the Wikipedia concept. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legacy_encoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
- yesenadam 8y ago
  So did you help make it better?
  - lake99 8y ago
    I haven't touched these topics. But in my experience, nearly none of my edits remained, despite providing credible and neutral sources for whatever I added. Usually, there are long-term Wikipedia editors who have put plenty of pages on their watchlist, and treat the pages as their own personal property. Every tiny change is treated as if it were controversial, and must be fought over in the talk pages. Beginners to Wikilawyering and WikiBullying lose these fights. "Anyone can edit" has become a joke.
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      hehe yeah I've noticed that. They are the most boring arguments in the world, with those people, who with a life has time for that. Well, most pages aren't like that I think.
    - JdeBP 8y ago
      I was going to say that computing and computer science topics are free of such silliness, and that clearly you were editing a far more fraught subject area such as American current affairs; but: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=271144968&oldid=271144569 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=269732413&oldid=269668620 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...
princekolt 8y ago
The main issue with Wikipedia is that its main focus is providing references rather than being spot-on accurate[1], which is more useful for subjective and cultural subjects where the objective accuracy can not be trivially determined. For a STEM-focused platform, it would be beneficial to have a process where articles can only be edited if sources are provided (so there would never be a "citation needed" tag). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wik...

icc97 8y ago

I think I remember Peter Thiel talking about that the main value proposition of Facebook was the real identities of people. This wants to produce an encyclopedia using the real identities of people. So it's looking for some combination of Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and Quora [0]. [0]: https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-to-use-my-real-name-on-Quora-What-is-Quoras-%E2%80%98real-names%E2%80%99-policy https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-to-use-my-real-name-on-Quora...

pankajdoharey 8y ago

Wikipedia is really good, and if there is a mis surely more WikiBooks can be written, a separate Encyclopedia isnt required.

JdeBP 8y ago

In computing and computer science it is regularly appalling, even on basic topics. The article on wait() et al., for example, is significantly wrong, some of which is called out on its talk page. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call) There are similar errors in its article on MAC times. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times Its article on pax, a standard Unix utility for a fairly long while, is very misleading too. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix) Its article on CubeHash in 2013 did not include information from 2009. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_years_out_of_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_.... I've pointed out errors in its article on systemd, one of which was called out by one of the systemd authors. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=723037068 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=72... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=631031336 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=63... The irony of this edit to the NFS article is that in fact the problems and limitation of NFS with respect to full Unix filesystem semantics were called out by its authors when they first wrote about it, and are the widespread view. * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_System&diff=385927363&oldid=383258055 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_Syst... Wikipedia people actually tried to delete articles on "Is" functions, C++ placement syntax, and the Process Environment Block. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Placement_syntax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff=prev&oldid=408628953 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environment_Block&diff=prev&oldid=375382173 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environme... They in contrast kept an article about a purported computer science concept that was invented within Wikipedia based upon a vague phrase in a book that did not in fact describe the Wikipedia concept. * http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legacy_encoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

yesenadam 8y ago
So did you help make it better?
- lake99 8y ago
  I haven't touched these topics. But in my experience, nearly none of my edits remained, despite providing credible and neutral sources for whatever I added. Usually, there are long-term Wikipedia editors who have put plenty of pages on their watchlist, and treat the pages as their own personal property. Every tiny change is treated as if it were controversial, and must be fought over in the talk pages. Beginners to Wikilawyering and WikiBullying lose these fights. "Anyone can edit" has become a joke.
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    hehe yeah I've noticed that. They are the most boring arguments in the world, with those people, who with a life has time for that. Well, most pages aren't like that I think.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    I was going to say that computing and computer science topics are free of such silliness, and that clearly you were editing a far more fraught subject area such as American current affairs; but: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=271144968&oldid=271144569 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d... * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&diff=269732413&oldid=269668620 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Make_Compatible&d...

princekolt 8y ago

The main issue with Wikipedia is that its main focus is providing references rather than being spot-on accurate[1], which is more useful for subjective and cultural subjects where the objective accuracy can not be trivially determined. For a STEM-focused platform, it would be beneficial to have a process where articles can only be edited if sources are provided (so there would never be a "citation needed" tag). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wik...