4 ms·
> Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic. Tr
by dvt 6y ago
> Really? Technical subjects tend to be some of the worst on wikipedia. Articles on say undergrad math topics tend to be very poor introductions to a topic.
True, that's why I said very technical. The ones on advanced math are pretty good (for example, technical logic/metalogic articles have impressed me). The ones on undergrad math tend to be edited by.. undergrads ;)
- bawolff 6y agoOn the contrary, the problem with undergrad math articles is they are usually written at the wrong level. They are often written at a graduate level, where the function of an introductory article is to introduce someone to the topic. You should be able to understand any encyclopedia article just with a high school education imo (its an encyclopedia, not a scientific paper or a textbook), or at the most you should maybe have to read 1 or 2 other articles for background.
- dvt 6y agoI did a double-check on a few "simple" math topics, and -- yeah -- I think you're right. The Pythagorean theorem[1] article (even though rated as "Good") is all over the place, not to mention way too long. If I want a super simple introduction, Math Planet does a much better job[2]. And if I want a more technical deep-dive, Wolfram Alpha does a better job[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem [2] https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/right-triangles-and-algebra/the-pythagorean-theorem https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre-algebra/right-trian... [3] https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagoreanTheorem.html