5 ms·

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m f

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

creato 6y ago
I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.
- oooooooooooow 6y ago
  Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.
- e12e 6y ago
  Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.
  - vmurthy 6y ago
    I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1] If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one. [0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
    - qsort 6y ago
      What do you think are the problems with the regular page? I just skimmed it, and it seems to me like high-school level math is more than enough to understand what the page is saying (at least superficially). I get the idea behind simple.wikipedia.org, but more often than not it's just a dumbed down version of the main article that uses worse English (which is obvious, since it presumably has less contributors than en.wiki, but that doesn't help your average reader)
      - vmurthy 6y ago
        @qsort: To give you an analogy, think of the "original" wikipedia article as the equivalent of an academic paper. It is absolutely the right level of detail for a particular audience (with references and links and even fancy language) whereas the simple wikipedia article is the equivalent of a NYT article introducing the same idea and probably going a bit deeper. As a further analogy, if I had to learn about Covid-19, I'd likely start with NYT (no affiliation) and then move onto Nature/Science/BMJ
jakelazaroff 6y ago
This is slightly distressing — I’m fascinated by a lot of complicated math concepts that are far above my comprehension level, and Wikipedia is high on the list of places I check. Do you have any suggestions of better sites to read?
nerdponx 6y ago
It's a good reference, though. Even the articles that are obviously copied and pasted from someone's homework tend to at least be useful places to find references.
elliotec 6y ago
Why do you say that? Are there examples of inaccuracies in it's mathematics articles? What do you wish were better about it? What IS better than it?
- cyphar 6y ago
  In order to understand most Wikipedia mathematics articles you need to already be well versed in the topic you're looking up. Even after finishing a Physics degree I struggle to understand the derivations of common physics equations because they use far more advanced concepts than necessary to demonstrate their point.
  - elliotec 6y ago
    So, should it have all the foundational build-ups to get to an understanding of the topic? I think that'd be amazing but quite difficult given it took you however many years to get that degree, and I can barely get a computer to do basic arithmetic for me.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      That's not my point. My point is that to understand a fairly rudimentary topic using only Wikipedia you already have to understand post-grad mathemarics concepts because the derivation and terminology is needlessly contrived because the editors are usually post-grads writing as though the article is for other post-grads. There are countless examples but I'm on my phone at the moment.
      - elliotec 6y ago
        Hmm. Maybe these post-grads are on their phone too writing about very complicated mathematics that to a post-grad might seem rudimentary. The beauty is that nothing prevents YOU from adding clarity to these "needlessly contrived" concepts... so what's stopping folks like you from contributing?
        6y ago

It’s not very good as a learning resource for mathematics. That’s pretty minor, but it is the main point about Wikipedia that I wish were better (I know, I’m free to help out...).

creato 6y ago

I can barely believe I'm reading this comment! Wikipedia is my first and almost always only stop whenever I want to learn something related to math.

oooooooooooow 6y ago
Yes I had the same thought, then I guessed parent might be referring to how wiki doesn't present topics in a way that's easily digestible for someone approaching new topics in math, which I can get behind. It is an encyclopedia after all.
e12e 6y ago
Sometimes the "simple English" version is better than the "full" English version - perhaps especially for mathematics.
- vmurthy 6y ago
  I came here to post that simple wikipedia exists :) . Just to prove your point, have a look at the simple page for "Prime number" [0] and the regular page for the same [1] If I were just starting out with mathematics, I'd be rather intimidated by the regular page. I find the simple version to be the right start for any topic and then move on to the regular one. [0] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number
  - qsort 6y ago
    What do you think are the problems with the regular page? I just skimmed it, and it seems to me like high-school level math is more than enough to understand what the page is saying (at least superficially). I get the idea behind simple.wikipedia.org, but more often than not it's just a dumbed down version of the main article that uses worse English (which is obvious, since it presumably has less contributors than en.wiki, but that doesn't help your average reader)
    - vmurthy 6y ago
      @qsort: To give you an analogy, think of the "original" wikipedia article as the equivalent of an academic paper. It is absolutely the right level of detail for a particular audience (with references and links and even fancy language) whereas the simple wikipedia article is the equivalent of a NYT article introducing the same idea and probably going a bit deeper. As a further analogy, if I had to learn about Covid-19, I'd likely start with NYT (no affiliation) and then move onto Nature/Science/BMJ

jakelazaroff 6y ago

This is slightly distressing — I’m fascinated by a lot of complicated math concepts that are far above my comprehension level, and Wikipedia is high on the list of places I check. Do you have any suggestions of better sites to read?

nerdponx 6y ago

It's a good reference, though. Even the articles that are obviously copied and pasted from someone's homework tend to at least be useful places to find references.

elliotec 6y ago

Why do you say that? Are there examples of inaccuracies in it's mathematics articles? What do you wish were better about it? What IS better than it?

cyphar 6y ago
In order to understand most Wikipedia mathematics articles you need to already be well versed in the topic you're looking up. Even after finishing a Physics degree I struggle to understand the derivations of common physics equations because they use far more advanced concepts than necessary to demonstrate their point.
- elliotec 6y ago
  So, should it have all the foundational build-ups to get to an understanding of the topic? I think that'd be amazing but quite difficult given it took you however many years to get that degree, and I can barely get a computer to do basic arithmetic for me.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    That's not my point. My point is that to understand a fairly rudimentary topic using only Wikipedia you already have to understand post-grad mathemarics concepts because the derivation and terminology is needlessly contrived because the editors are usually post-grads writing as though the article is for other post-grads. There are countless examples but I'm on my phone at the moment.
    - elliotec 6y ago
      Hmm. Maybe these post-grads are on their phone too writing about very complicated mathematics that to a post-grad might seem rudimentary. The beauty is that nothing prevents YOU from adding clarity to these "needlessly contrived" concepts... so what's stopping folks like you from contributing?
      - 6y ago