5 ms·

I don't think that's a fair criticism of wikipedia. Summarizing knowledge is literally the job of an encyclopedia. There was a reason all my professors in col

I don't think that's a fair criticism of wikipedia. Summarizing knowledge is literally the job of an encyclopedia. There was a reason all my professors in college told us to use wiki as a jumping off point for further reading in the citations.

arp242 3y ago
I think it's a fair criticism; or rather, an important limitation one needs to keep in mind. Wikipedia articles can miss out on a great deal of nuance and context, which can matter a great deal.
- thebooktocome 3y ago
  Worse than that, motivated editors often color their pet pages with specific nuance and context, and no casual editor has a hope of winning an edit war against such opposition. My favorite example of this is the debate between a faction that believes Lithobates is the proper genus of a certain set of frogs, and another faction that believes the correct genus is Rana. The Lithobates side is essentially one person along with his sock and/or meat puppets, so in the end, after many rounds of moderation, most of the species in question are listed under both genuses.
- jurimasa 3y ago
  [flagged]
Closi 3y ago
> I don't think that's a fair criticism of wikipedia. It's not a fair criticism of Wikipedia, but it is a fair criticism of using Wikipedia as a single-source.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Once you stray off the popsci/undergrad topics, wikipedia's summation of knowledge is often a few sentences if any. Topics for which numerous books have been written may get only one or two sentences on wikipedia, so I think it's fair to say that wikipedia is an inch deep. Maybe a few inches deep since popular topics do get longer articles, but the long tail of knowledge gets very shallow coverage on wikipedia.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  If you're knowledgeable about missing topics that's a perfect opportunity to give back to wikipedia and write the article yourself.
  - CSMastermind 3y ago
    I generally agree with you and I will say that my experience contributing to wikipedia has been extremely pleasant. The community does a good job of making newcomers feel welcome even if you make mistakes. With that said I've seen two areas where contributing to wikipedia falls short: The first is things involving what I'd call editorialization (I'm sure there's some wikipedia term for it). Any article that's about an unsettled or somewhat contentious issue seems to give outsized weight to the non-consensus view. Even if 85% of a field thinks that one thing is more likely than the other the wikipedia article will often split its coverage of the views 50/50 and then maybe tack a sentence on at the end saying that the majority of people in the field favor xyz view. Contributing to or changing those pages is often a hassle because you have to argue with people and that's generally not worth your time (unless you're of the minority opinion and you want to give legitimacy to your side - in which case you are motivated to argue). The second are the stub articles. The ones that say "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Often I could help wikipedia by expanding it but it's so much work to write a full encyclopedia entry. Like it might take me 4 hours to summarize what I know, look up references, etc. It's easier to just not do it. Where I find contributing useful is when I'm fixing a small factual error, updating based on a recent discovery, fixing a citation, etc. I'm not sure if they do it but it would be good for Wikipedia to pay someone to go through and fill out the basics of a bunch of pages on a topic so that there's a scaffolding to work with and then the occasional volunteers could come through and add on facts and fix problems.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Often it's a topic I don't yet know much about. I hear about a topic and search for it, and find a disappointing wikipedia stub. I continue my search to find there are numerous books and research papers about the subject. After reading those my intellectual curiosity may be satisfied, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert and I also don't have any inclination to go back and write a proper wikipedia page.

arp242 3y ago

I think it's a fair criticism; or rather, an important limitation one needs to keep in mind. Wikipedia articles can miss out on a great deal of nuance and context, which can matter a great deal.

thebooktocome 3y ago
Worse than that, motivated editors often color their pet pages with specific nuance and context, and no casual editor has a hope of winning an edit war against such opposition. My favorite example of this is the debate between a faction that believes Lithobates is the proper genus of a certain set of frogs, and another faction that believes the correct genus is Rana. The Lithobates side is essentially one person along with his sock and/or meat puppets, so in the end, after many rounds of moderation, most of the species in question are listed under both genuses.
jurimasa 3y ago
[flagged]

Closi 3y ago

> I don't think that's a fair criticism of wikipedia. It's not a fair criticism of Wikipedia, but it is a fair criticism of using Wikipedia as a single-source.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Once you stray off the popsci/undergrad topics, wikipedia's summation of knowledge is often a few sentences if any. Topics for which numerous books have been written may get only one or two sentences on wikipedia, so I think it's fair to say that wikipedia is an inch deep. Maybe a few inches deep since popular topics do get longer articles, but the long tail of knowledge gets very shallow coverage on wikipedia.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
If you're knowledgeable about missing topics that's a perfect opportunity to give back to wikipedia and write the article yourself.
- CSMastermind 3y ago
  I generally agree with you and I will say that my experience contributing to wikipedia has been extremely pleasant. The community does a good job of making newcomers feel welcome even if you make mistakes. With that said I've seen two areas where contributing to wikipedia falls short: The first is things involving what I'd call editorialization (I'm sure there's some wikipedia term for it). Any article that's about an unsettled or somewhat contentious issue seems to give outsized weight to the non-consensus view. Even if 85% of a field thinks that one thing is more likely than the other the wikipedia article will often split its coverage of the views 50/50 and then maybe tack a sentence on at the end saying that the majority of people in the field favor xyz view. Contributing to or changing those pages is often a hassle because you have to argue with people and that's generally not worth your time (unless you're of the minority opinion and you want to give legitimacy to your side - in which case you are motivated to argue). The second are the stub articles. The ones that say "This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Often I could help wikipedia by expanding it but it's so much work to write a full encyclopedia entry. Like it might take me 4 hours to summarize what I know, look up references, etc. It's easier to just not do it. Where I find contributing useful is when I'm fixing a small factual error, updating based on a recent discovery, fixing a citation, etc. I'm not sure if they do it but it would be good for Wikipedia to pay someone to go through and fill out the basics of a bunch of pages on a topic so that there's a scaffolding to work with and then the occasional volunteers could come through and add on facts and fix problems.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Often it's a topic I don't yet know much about. I hear about a topic and search for it, and find a disappointing wikipedia stub. I continue my search to find there are numerous books and research papers about the subject. After reading those my intellectual curiosity may be satisfied, but I wouldn't consider myself an expert and I also don't have any inclination to go back and write a proper wikipedia page.