3 ms·
I have found the opposite… there is hardly a consistsntly more organized and accurate source that is accessible to the public, but I would be glad to hear what
by EGreg 4y ago
I have found the opposite… there is hardly a consistsntly more organized and accurate source that is accessible to the public, but I would be glad to hear what it is if you have one in mind.
Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than local news channels even about recent events, and everything is sources (casualty count: who said it etc.)
- sk55 4y agoI think Wikipedia is a great start to finding content at a general level. Though, vertical specific niches often have better sources of information. For e.g. Examine.com currently seems better for nutrition and supplement information. Or even an old school reference book like The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth is better for algorithms.
- EGreg 4y agoI disagree that the old school books are better. It is like saying MacOS 7 is better than today’s Linux that has many people fixing bugs and expanding its features over the years
- bawolff 4y ago> Or even an old school reference book like The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth is better for algorithms. It is rediculous to compare an encyclopedia like wikipedia to an advanced text like Knuth. They aren't trying to do the same thing.
- untech 4y agoWikipedia is how you find a reference like The Art of Computer Programming for a given subject.
- concordDance 4y ago> Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than local news channels even about recent events, and everything is sources (casualty count: who said it etc.) That's more due to the very low quality of news.
- EGreg 4y agoWhat is CONSISTENTLY higher quality that wikipedia?