5 ms·

Your comment reminds me of a comment made almost 2 decades ago by professor regarding wikipedia - it's just random people writing text, it'll never compete with

Your comment reminds me of a comment made almost 2 decades ago by professor regarding wikipedia - it's just random people writing text, it'll never compete with encyclopedia, I will never trust it. Don't ignore rate of change, recognise it can only improve with time, you're looking at very early system that will quickly be orders of magnitude better.

silisili 4y ago
I think you were half right? I mean, I think it's a case people wanted something for free instead of paying, rather than a quality issue. I've come across a lot of really poor wiki articles, and in general to this day prefer the old encyclopedias or even something like Encarta to Wiki. Add to that the recent 'scandals' if you call them that, eroding trust by some. Still, it's awesome how Wiki evolves and moves so fast. And most of the articles are pretty great. My wish is that the foundation would spend money on academics and researchers to enhance contributions, rather than a lot of the junk they spend money on today.
jacquesm 4y ago
Your professor was and is correct in one respect: Wikipedia should not be cited whereas an encyclopedia in print can be cited (though it probably would still be much better to go to the source). At best Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as your professor correctly identified it is just random people writing text. It does compete with encyclopedia but not for that purpose and they are of course well within their rights not to trust it, especially not on subject matter that they are an expert in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use For day to day use it's fine though and the chances of your queries intersecting with a page that has errors on it and/or has been vandalized are relatively remote. But to be skeptical about what you read on WP isn't a bad thing per-se.
- igravious 4y ago
  @hagbarth: > I still struggle to see chatgpt’s value as a search engine. It works great for me as a partner in creativity, so to say. Both for writing and coding. […] @mirekrusin: >> Your comment reminds me of a comment made almost 2 decades ago by professor regarding wikipedia - it's just random people writing text, it'll never compete with encyclopedia, I will never trust it. Don't ignore rate of change, recognise it can only improve with time, you're looking at very early system that will quickly be orders of magnitude better. @jacquesm: >>> Your professor was and is correct in one respect: Wikipedia should not be cited whereas an encyclopedia in print can be cited. […] === The reason why @mikerusin was invoking the Wikipedia analogy was to point out that at a certain moment in time in the heady .com bubble days Wikipedia was an acorn and it was hard to imagine how it could ever grow to compete with the likes of Britannica. I remember the arguments at the time. Some people said "no way" and other said "huh, wouldn't be so sure, just you wait and see". Turns out the latter group were not only correct they were very correct. Wikipedia has entirely supplanted Brittanica and its ilk. I wouldn't even like to guess how more used Wikipedia is than its print rivals. (And for the purposes for which Wikipedia is used people are aware of its limitations. It's not "At best [] a tertiary source", it's a secondary source for when it comes to citations but if one needs information in a hurry people the information they retrieve from it directly and do not go through the hassle of looking up the primary sources unless they have to. If you use it any other way I'd be very surprised. But this is by-the-by.) As a response to @hagbarth's pessimism this perfectly echoes the debates we had around the time of the birth of Wikipedia. I wouldn't be so sure. Don't bet against it. Etc. Wikipedia scaled quickly because of crowd-sourcing but a ChatGPT turbo-charged Bing (or whatever) may not need a democratised version of ChatGPT, it may just need to harness the relentless pace of change in the hardware/software sector. Long story short: I believe @mikerusin is correct and the analogy is a good one, I believe @hagbarth needs to try harder to see the potential here, and I reckon you're responding to a argument that was never put forward! (and I have no idea why I spent 20 minutes going through all this rather than taking a shower and starting my day :/ but such is life …)
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > It's not "At best [] a tertiary source Sorry, but that's incorrect. Wikipedia mostly uses secondary sources, rarely primary ones that makes it for the most part a tertiary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_an... > "For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source." As for the rest of the comment: it's a free world. And if you want to save some time there are 'vote' buttons which allow you to express the same sentiment in a less nuanced way (though I appreciate the effort) which would allow you to start your day on time ;)
    - igravious 4y ago
      > Sorry, but that's incorrect. Wikipedia mostly uses secondary sources, rarely primary ones that makes it for the most part a tertiary source. I'd like to see empirical analysis substantiating this claim. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I'd like some hard data. Hmm, having said that, look at what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_terti... “ Wikipedia is not a primary source Wikipedia avoids describing topics that never have been described before — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research. Unsourced eyewitness accounts or other unsourced information obtained from personal experience should not be added to articles, as this would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for the added information (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Wikipedia is not a secondary source Wikipedia does not offer interpretations or analyses that deviate from previously published interpretations and analyses — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source Wikipedia summarizes descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources, or bases such summaries on tertiary sources. Wikipedia illustrates such summaries and descriptions with material that is as close as possible to the primary source(s) on the described topic. ” > As for the rest of the comment: it's a free world. And if you want to save some time there are 'vote' buttons which allow you to express the same sentiment in a less nuanced way (though I appreciate the effort) which would allow you to start your day on time ;) fair point :)
w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
Wkipedia is Propaganda machine for those who are able to pay people to edit page all day long.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Sure, but one big difference with wikipedia is that it is upfront about disagreements, and you can look them up in the Talk page.

silisili 4y ago

I think you were half right? I mean, I think it's a case people wanted something for free instead of paying, rather than a quality issue. I've come across a lot of really poor wiki articles, and in general to this day prefer the old encyclopedias or even something like Encarta to Wiki. Add to that the recent 'scandals' if you call them that, eroding trust by some. Still, it's awesome how Wiki evolves and moves so fast. And most of the articles are pretty great. My wish is that the foundation would spend money on academics and researchers to enhance contributions, rather than a lot of the junk they spend money on today.

jacquesm 4y ago

Your professor was and is correct in one respect: Wikipedia should not be cited whereas an encyclopedia in print can be cited (though it probably would still be much better to go to the source). At best Wikipedia is a tertiary source and as your professor correctly identified it is just random people writing text. It does compete with encyclopedia but not for that purpose and they are of course well within their rights not to trust it, especially not on subject matter that they are an expert in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use For day to day use it's fine though and the chances of your queries intersecting with a page that has errors on it and/or has been vandalized are relatively remote. But to be skeptical about what you read on WP isn't a bad thing per-se.

igravious 4y ago
@hagbarth: > I still struggle to see chatgpt’s value as a search engine. It works great for me as a partner in creativity, so to say. Both for writing and coding. […] @mirekrusin: >> Your comment reminds me of a comment made almost 2 decades ago by professor regarding wikipedia - it's just random people writing text, it'll never compete with encyclopedia, I will never trust it. Don't ignore rate of change, recognise it can only improve with time, you're looking at very early system that will quickly be orders of magnitude better. @jacquesm: >>> Your professor was and is correct in one respect: Wikipedia should not be cited whereas an encyclopedia in print can be cited. […] === The reason why @mikerusin was invoking the Wikipedia analogy was to point out that at a certain moment in time in the heady .com bubble days Wikipedia was an acorn and it was hard to imagine how it could ever grow to compete with the likes of Britannica. I remember the arguments at the time. Some people said "no way" and other said "huh, wouldn't be so sure, just you wait and see". Turns out the latter group were not only correct they were very correct. Wikipedia has entirely supplanted Brittanica and its ilk. I wouldn't even like to guess how more used Wikipedia is than its print rivals. (And for the purposes for which Wikipedia is used people are aware of its limitations. It's not "At best [] a tertiary source", it's a secondary source for when it comes to citations but if one needs information in a hurry people the information they retrieve from it directly and do not go through the hassle of looking up the primary sources unless they have to. If you use it any other way I'd be very surprised. But this is by-the-by.) As a response to @hagbarth's pessimism this perfectly echoes the debates we had around the time of the birth of Wikipedia. I wouldn't be so sure. Don't bet against it. Etc. Wikipedia scaled quickly because of crowd-sourcing but a ChatGPT turbo-charged Bing (or whatever) may not need a democratised version of ChatGPT, it may just need to harness the relentless pace of change in the hardware/software sector. Long story short: I believe @mikerusin is correct and the analogy is a good one, I believe @hagbarth needs to try harder to see the potential here, and I reckon you're responding to a argument that was never put forward! (and I have no idea why I spent 20 minutes going through all this rather than taking a shower and starting my day :/ but such is life …)
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > It's not "At best [] a tertiary source Sorry, but that's incorrect. Wikipedia mostly uses secondary sources, rarely primary ones that makes it for the most part a tertiary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_an... > "For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source." As for the rest of the comment: it's a free world. And if you want to save some time there are 'vote' buttons which allow you to express the same sentiment in a less nuanced way (though I appreciate the effort) which would allow you to start your day on time ;)
  - igravious 4y ago
    > Sorry, but that's incorrect. Wikipedia mostly uses secondary sources, rarely primary ones that makes it for the most part a tertiary source. I'd like to see empirical analysis substantiating this claim. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I'd like some hard data. Hmm, having said that, look at what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_tertiary_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_a_terti... “ Wikipedia is not a primary source Wikipedia avoids describing topics that never have been described before — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research. Unsourced eyewitness accounts or other unsourced information obtained from personal experience should not be added to articles, as this would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for the added information (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Wikipedia is not a secondary source Wikipedia does not offer interpretations or analyses that deviate from previously published interpretations and analyses — doing otherwise qualifies as performing original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source Wikipedia summarizes descriptions, interpretations and analyses that are found in secondary sources, or bases such summaries on tertiary sources. Wikipedia illustrates such summaries and descriptions with material that is as close as possible to the primary source(s) on the described topic. ” > As for the rest of the comment: it's a free world. And if you want to save some time there are 'vote' buttons which allow you to express the same sentiment in a less nuanced way (though I appreciate the effort) which would allow you to start your day on time ;) fair point :)

w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago

Wkipedia is Propaganda machine for those who are able to pay people to edit page all day long.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

Sure, but one big difference with wikipedia is that it is upfront about disagreements, and you can look them up in the Talk page.