Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #542111 > unrolled thread

Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:35 -0600
    Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 23:05 -0800
      Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 03:02 -0500
        Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 05:06 -0800
    Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-31 18:08 +0000
      Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 13:00 -0600
        Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-31 19:46 +0000

#542111 — Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment

Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science’s detriment
> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/


> For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
> vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
> view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
> I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
> basics—who, what, when, where, and why—and a long list of references
> if going beyond the basics is required.
>
> Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
> have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
> the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
> excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
> effectively incomprehensible.
>
> This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
> people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
> problem for science. The problematic entries reinforce the popular
> impression that science is impossible to understand and isn't for
> most people—they make science seem elitist. And that's an impression
> that we as a society really can't afford.
>
> What's an encyclopedia for?
>
> I've looked up several definitions of encyclopedia (including
> Wikipedia's own), but they're not especially useful: it's something
> that contains information on a diverse range of topics and is
> arranged alphabetically. The lack of utility comes from the fact that
> the definition has to encompass everything from general-purpose
> encyclopedias to narrowly focused ones like the Encyclopedia of
> Analytical Chemistry.
>
> But Wikipedia clearly aims at being a general-purpose Encyclopedia,
> which means it should be providing information for a general reader.
> That, to me, should include the basics: enough context to understand
> why a subject is in there in the first place, along with information
> about the entry that could be understood by a reasonably informed
> reader.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#542421 — Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 9:35:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment
> > http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/
> 
> 
> > For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
> > vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
> > view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
> > I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
> > basics--who, what, when, where, and why--and a long list of references
> > if going beyond the basics is required.
> >
> > Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
> > have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
> > the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
> > excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
> > effectively incomprehensible.
> >
> > This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
> > people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
> > problem for science. 

I agree.  It's instrumental in halting progress.  It does a good job of reflecting and supporting the consensus position.  But a strong consensus can often be a barrier to advancement.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542424 — Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment

On 12/31/2015 02:05 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 9:35:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment
>>> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/
>>
>>
>>> For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
>>> vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
>>> view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
>>> I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
>>> basics--who, what, when, where, and why--and a long list of references
>>> if going beyond the basics is required.
>>>
>>> Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
>>> have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
>>> the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
>>> excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
>>> effectively incomprehensible.
>>>
>>> This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
>>> people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
>>> problem for science.
>
> I agree.  It's instrumental in halting progress.  It does a good job of reflecting and supporting the consensus position.  But a strong consensus can often be a barrier to advancement.

Wikipedia (like all institutions that get large and need money) has 
clearly fallen to the pressures of political correctness. All "forbidden 
subjects" in science are censored out of existence by Wiki editors. Even 
a fair presentation of nothing but facts of one of these topics is soon 
replaced by establishment propaganda.

He who controls the information controls the future.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542436 — Re: Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 3:02:21 AM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 12/31/2015 02:05 AM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 9:35:08 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment
> >>> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/
> >>
> >>
> >>> For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
> >>> vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
> >>> view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
> >>> I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
> >>> basics--who, what, when, where, and why--and a long list of references
> >>> if going beyond the basics is required.
> >>>
> >>> Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
> >>> have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
> >>> the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
> >>> excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
> >>> effectively incomprehensible.
> >>>
> >>> This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
> >>> people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
> >>> problem for science.
> >
> > I agree.  It's instrumental in halting progress.  It does a good
> >job of reflecting and supporting the consensus position.  But a
> >strong consensus can often be a barrier to advancement.

Often? Your autocorrect SW, I think, misspelled the word: absolutely.

> Wikipedia (like all institutions that get large and need money) has 
> clearly fallen to the pressures of political correctness. All "forbidden 
> subjects" in science are censored out of existence by Wiki editors. Even 
> a fair presentation of nothing but facts of one of these topics is soon 
> replaced by establishment propaganda.

Wikipedia has also fallen to financial collectness, as of late.

At times I wonder, after repeatedly hearing how the Chinese censor
access to the WWW Internet, I say to myself wait... how would I know
if the country I state to be in, isn't doing its own censoring?!

> He who controls the information controls the future.

"He" HE he... knows this already all too well. Ben, Franklin.

> -- 
>          ___           ___           ___            ___
>         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
>        /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
>       /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
>      /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
>     /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
>     \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
>      \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
>       \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
>        \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
>                       \/__/         \/__/

-- Mahipal "IPMM... Information Propaganda Media Mafia (== IPMM)"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542473

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science?s detriment
>> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/
> 
> 
>> For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
>> vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
>> view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
>> I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
>> basics?who, what, when, where, and why?and a long list of references
>> if going beyond the basics is required.
>>
>> Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
>> have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
>> the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
>> excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
>> effectively incomprehensible.
>>
>> This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
>> people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
>> problem for science. The problematic entries reinforce the popular
>> impression that science is impossible to understand and isn't for
>> most people?they make science seem elitist. And that's an impression
>> that we as a society really can't afford.
>>
>> What's an encyclopedia for?
>>
>> I've looked up several definitions of encyclopedia (including
>> Wikipedia's own), but they're not especially useful: it's something
>> that contains information on a diverse range of topics and is
>> arranged alphabetically. The lack of utility comes from the fact that
>> the definition has to encompass everything from general-purpose
>> encyclopedias to narrowly focused ones like the Encyclopedia of
>> Analytical Chemistry.
>>
>> But Wikipedia clearly aims at being a general-purpose Encyclopedia,
>> which means it should be providing information for a general reader.
>> That, to me, should include the basics: enough context to understand
>> why a subject is in there in the first place, along with information
>> about the entry that could be understood by a reasonably informed
>> reader.
 
Someone that thinks they will get in-depth learning from Wikipedia is
a fool.

It is great for a quick look up of most subjects, as long at there is
no controversy, but anything beyond that requires going to the article
references, if they exist, or a text book on the subject.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542485

On 12/31/15 12:08 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science?s detriment
>>> http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/12/editorial-wikipedia-fails-as-an-encyclopedia-to-sciences-detriment/
>>
>>
>>> For all its flaws, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. Despite the
>>> vandalism, edit wars, and arguments over what constitutes a point of
>>> view, it provides key information about a dizzying variety of topics.
>>> I've relied on them for a lot of information. Most entries have the
>>> basics?who, what, when, where, and why?and a long list of references
>>> if going beyond the basics is required.
>>>
>>> Most entries, but not all. Disturbingly, all of the worst entries I
>>> have ever read have been in the sciences. Wander off the big ideas in
>>> the sciences, and you're likely to run into entries that are
>>> excessively technical and provide almost no context, making them
>>> effectively incomprehensible.
>>>
>>> This failure is a minor problem for Wikipedia, as most of the entries
>>> people rely on are fine. But I'd argue that it's a significant
>>> problem for science. The problematic entries reinforce the popular
>>> impression that science is impossible to understand and isn't for
>>> most people?they make science seem elitist. And that's an impression
>>> that we as a society really can't afford.
>>>
>>> What's an encyclopedia for?
>>>
>>> I've looked up several definitions of encyclopedia (including
>>> Wikipedia's own), but they're not especially useful: it's something
>>> that contains information on a diverse range of topics and is
>>> arranged alphabetically. The lack of utility comes from the fact that
>>> the definition has to encompass everything from general-purpose
>>> encyclopedias to narrowly focused ones like the Encyclopedia of
>>> Analytical Chemistry.
>>>
>>> But Wikipedia clearly aims at being a general-purpose Encyclopedia,
>>> which means it should be providing information for a general reader.
>>> That, to me, should include the basics: enough context to understand
>>> why a subject is in there in the first place, along with information
>>> about the entry that could be understood by a reasonably informed
>>> reader.
>
> Someone that thinks they will get in-depth learning from Wikipedia is
> a fool.

   The more scholarly Wikipedia reader follows up the references, as the
   Wikipedia article tend to target a more general audience.  It is very
   unfortunate that the Wiki article are over the heads of many USENET
   posters these days.

>
> It is great for a quick look up of most subjects, as long at there is
> no controversy, but anything beyond that requires going to the article
> references, if they exist, or a text book on the subject.
>
>

   We are in agreement.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542505

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>   The more scholarly Wikipedia reader follows up the references, as the
>   Wikipedia article tend to target a more general audience.  It is very
>   unfortunate that the Wiki article are over the heads of many USENET
>   posters these days.

The Little Engine that Could is way over the heads of many USENET
posters these days.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web