3 ms·

It’s extremely good for science and maths where there’s little room for argument or interpretation. History, or current events tend to be Abysmal. Literature te

It’s extremely good for science and maths where there’s little room for argument or interpretation. History, or current events tend to be Abysmal. Literature tends to be underrepresented and the arts in general are not well-curated, either in completeness or in finding ways to display the work or discuss it. I admire the project but ultimately at this point it’s not very useful.

reidjs 4y ago
How is something that’s extremely good at science and math documentation not very useful? Do you mean it’s not useful to historians/artists?
- MrPatan 4y ago
  The sleight of hand is to be Truth about science and math, then pretend you're Truth about everything else based on that. Pretty useful if you can pull it off. What could you do with that?
  - mhh__ 4y ago
    This is the kind of argument I was referring to. Anything specific you're referring to?
    - theknocker 4y ago
blueflow 4y ago
No its not... as soon as i learn deeper into a topic, i more and more encounter situations where wikipedia just plain diverges from the textbook knowledge and references some half-assed journalistic work as source for it. Basically, as soon as you have read the primary sources, you realize how crap wikipedia is in your field. And i infer that, for the other fields, wikipedia is similar crap, except that i don't notice it yet due to my lack of knowledge. I think their largest mistake was accepting journalistic works as reference.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  Another "wikipedia is shite but I'm not going to give any examples and I'm going to ignore the fact I could have edited it to make it better but didn't" post.
  - blueflow 4y ago
    If i have to edit it to make it accurate, why should i rely on wikipedia in the first place? When i wrote an MBR/VBR for some real mode x86 stuff, i initially relied but on the wikipedia and osdev pages for FAT and the bios/bootlader stuff. This is how i learned the hard way how unreliable it is. Details are left out, the scope of validity for information is rarely specified, vague "many implementations" phrases that do not give any hints whether a certain behavior needs to be emulated or not. I ended up discarding both wikipedia and the osdev wiki and using the IBM PS/2 reference manual, as well as some details from the MS PnP specification. I had similar issues with the wikipedia explanation of the german Hl- and Ks-Signal systems for train safety, as well as articles related to intel peripheral controllers and serial ports. Often they are just not deep and detailed enough to answer my questions. [tl;dr] It feels like reading a pop-sci article when you actually need the original paper.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      You are confused about wiki, it's encyclopaedic articles and an overview, a good jumping off point (that's what the references at the bottom of the page are for, does this help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record#References), not the sum of all human knowledge "If i have to edit it to make it accurate, why should i rely on wikipedia in the first place?" And there we have it, the entitlement with no expectation of giving anything back. It's for other people too. You're not the only person who uses wiki, you just haven't realised it yet.
      - blueflow 4y ago
        My recommendation for other people: Read the primary sources! They are the source of truth, there is no need to rely on wikipedia editors or journalists to rephrase it correctly, which they are often unable to. Just bypass wikipedia. Your implication that its something that the world requires is not correct.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
“History, or current events tend to be Abysmal. ” Am I surprised people don’t realize that this will always be true regardless of the medium, because humans are involved.
ghaff 4y ago
A common problem with math and some other science topics is that they often seem to be written by people who are overly fond of using the equation editor and are also often written in a very formalistic way that can be quite inscrutable to anyone who isn't already familiar with the topic.

reidjs 4y ago

How is something that’s extremely good at science and math documentation not very useful? Do you mean it’s not useful to historians/artists?

MrPatan 4y ago
The sleight of hand is to be Truth about science and math, then pretend you're Truth about everything else based on that. Pretty useful if you can pull it off. What could you do with that?
- mhh__ 4y ago
  This is the kind of argument I was referring to. Anything specific you're referring to?
  - theknocker 4y ago

blueflow 4y ago

No its not... as soon as i learn deeper into a topic, i more and more encounter situations where wikipedia just plain diverges from the textbook knowledge and references some half-assed journalistic work as source for it. Basically, as soon as you have read the primary sources, you realize how crap wikipedia is in your field. And i infer that, for the other fields, wikipedia is similar crap, except that i don't notice it yet due to my lack of knowledge. I think their largest mistake was accepting journalistic works as reference.

zasdffaa 4y ago
Another "wikipedia is shite but I'm not going to give any examples and I'm going to ignore the fact I could have edited it to make it better but didn't" post.
- blueflow 4y ago
  If i have to edit it to make it accurate, why should i rely on wikipedia in the first place? When i wrote an MBR/VBR for some real mode x86 stuff, i initially relied but on the wikipedia and osdev pages for FAT and the bios/bootlader stuff. This is how i learned the hard way how unreliable it is. Details are left out, the scope of validity for information is rarely specified, vague "many implementations" phrases that do not give any hints whether a certain behavior needs to be emulated or not. I ended up discarding both wikipedia and the osdev wiki and using the IBM PS/2 reference manual, as well as some details from the MS PnP specification. I had similar issues with the wikipedia explanation of the german Hl- and Ks-Signal systems for train safety, as well as articles related to intel peripheral controllers and serial ports. Often they are just not deep and detailed enough to answer my questions. [tl;dr] It feels like reading a pop-sci article when you actually need the original paper.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    You are confused about wiki, it's encyclopaedic articles and an overview, a good jumping off point (that's what the references at the bottom of the page are for, does this help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record#References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record#References), not the sum of all human knowledge "If i have to edit it to make it accurate, why should i rely on wikipedia in the first place?" And there we have it, the entitlement with no expectation of giving anything back. It's for other people too. You're not the only person who uses wiki, you just haven't realised it yet.
    - blueflow 4y ago
      My recommendation for other people: Read the primary sources! They are the source of truth, there is no need to rely on wikipedia editors or journalists to rephrase it correctly, which they are often unable to. Just bypass wikipedia. Your implication that its something that the world requires is not correct.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

“History, or current events tend to be Abysmal. ” Am I surprised people don’t realize that this will always be true regardless of the medium, because humans are involved.

ghaff 4y ago

A common problem with math and some other science topics is that they often seem to be written by people who are overly fond of using the equation editor and are also often written in a very formalistic way that can be quite inscrutable to anyone who isn't already familiar with the topic.