3 ms·

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

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 5y 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 5y 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.
  - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
    Hmmm... [citation needed]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

zasdffaa 5y 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 5y 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.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  Hmmm... [citation needed]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]