> great for some types of information (math, well-established science), but really bad for others Wikipedia seems to be quite good on article diversity [0] [0

> great for some types of information (math, well-established science), but really bad for others Wikipedia seems to be quite good on article diversity [0] [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shares-of-articles-in-each-category-in-English-Wikipedia-Source-own-calculation-based_fig3_335176651 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shares-of-articles-in-ea... > It's not accepted as a proper reference source for a reason! Wikipedia is not a source in itself. It's even a principle of the website [1]. The sources are linked in most cases. If not, the source is null. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_r... > teach kids to do independent research From my own scholar experience, searching books and the web was mostly a "bad practice"; even self teaching or asking ourselves questions to conduct was misregarded. > abandoning classroom education in favor of self-study Successful self-teaching (self-teaching activity that leads to progress and evolution maybe) is from my experience mostly found in priviliged economic groups but with a various range of mindsets and family background (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts)