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

Groups > sci.physics > #542473

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

Show all headers | View raw

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

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web