3 ms·

> Just like Wikipedia and the internet didn’t change everyone’s ability to know things in any meaningful way What are you talking about? Wikipedia substantiall

> Just like Wikipedia and the internet didn’t change everyone’s ability to know things in any meaningful way What are you talking about? Wikipedia substantially changed everyone's ability to know things. In fact, Wikipedia was so good at increasing everyone's ability to know things, I wonder if we're now having to build back a way to synthesize and ponder our desired context for all those things. That problem may be exaggerated due to unregulated app casinos sucking out any surplus time to reflect and wonder, but I think the problem is definitely there either way.

inetsee 6y ago
My biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that it refuses to publish anything that isn't supported by a dead tree publication, like the ones Elsevier publishes for a fortune. You could be a prominent, highly respected full professor, but unless your research paper has made it into one of these publications, and actually gone out the door, your research won't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for the kind of stuff that used to be published in print encyclopedias, but if you want to find out about cutting edge research, arXiv.org is a better source.
- ImaCake 6y ago
  Maybe the wider adoption of arXiv in other fields (taking off in biology right now) will lead to wiki's acceptance of these sources?
- ta988 6y ago
  There is a lot of crap on arXiv as well... So I respect the position of Wikipedia editors to have someone vet the information before them. To be fair many editors of Wikipedia have a better understanding of their fields than reviewers (at least in my domain)
- renewiltord 6y ago
  That's like the purpose, man. Wikipedia wouldn't be what it was if it didn't do that. In CS, we have these things called DSLs (domain specific languages) and usually one strives to not make them Turing complete because the restrictions give you advantages in reasoning. Wikipedia's strength is that it represents the viewpoints shown by (relatively) famous sources.
luplex 6y ago
Actually, why isn't there a Wikipedia-like open system for scientific publication? It doesn't seem to be too hard technically or operationally.

inetsee 6y ago

My biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that it refuses to publish anything that isn't supported by a dead tree publication, like the ones Elsevier publishes for a fortune. You could be a prominent, highly respected full professor, but unless your research paper has made it into one of these publications, and actually gone out the door, your research won't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for the kind of stuff that used to be published in print encyclopedias, but if you want to find out about cutting edge research, arXiv.org is a better source.

ImaCake 6y ago
Maybe the wider adoption of arXiv in other fields (taking off in biology right now) will lead to wiki's acceptance of these sources?
ta988 6y ago
There is a lot of crap on arXiv as well... So I respect the position of Wikipedia editors to have someone vet the information before them. To be fair many editors of Wikipedia have a better understanding of their fields than reviewers (at least in my domain)
renewiltord 6y ago
That's like the purpose, man. Wikipedia wouldn't be what it was if it didn't do that. In CS, we have these things called DSLs (domain specific languages) and usually one strives to not make them Turing complete because the restrictions give you advantages in reasoning. Wikipedia's strength is that it represents the viewpoints shown by (relatively) famous sources.

luplex 6y ago

Actually, why isn't there a Wikipedia-like open system for scientific publication? It doesn't seem to be too hard technically or operationally.