Adult Search - Want porn? Search for it.
|
Monday, 26 December 2005
quote [ Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds. ]
No more shame for people who quote wiki articles! We are free!
[by Volcaos@9:35pmGMT] [+9] |
Comments
 |
sacrelicious
said @ 9:41pm GMT on 26th Dec
if only science were the only thing an encyclopedia covers. |
|
Volcaos
said @ 9:44pm GMT on 26th Dec
yes, you have a point, seeing as people "think" they know all about non-scientific stuff without actually knowing. They are usually more afraid to post an article on hard-science without having a clue. |
|
dook_sucks
said @ 10:26pm GMT on 26th Dec
[Score:1 Underrated]
wiki's great for math, science, computer science, geography, things with a right or a wrong answer. Wiki's also great for things you won't find in encyclopedia britannica, like "what is this sensible erection thing I keep hearing about" It's also great for getting simple biographies of most people. And surprisingly it's done a great job of chronicalling things like the "rap wars" and other such crap I could never follow until it got into wiki. sure, it's a never ending struggle with topics like "abortion", but isn't that also a perfect reflection of our society. So even in it's seventeen hundred edits a day on Roe v Wade it accurately captures everything we as a society know about that topic....mainly, its still unsettled and there are two major camps always at odds.... I bet you could use the edit frequency to guage very accurately the controversy of a topic, like a controversy thermometer. |
|
dook_sucks
said @ 10:35pm GMT on 26th Dec
Case in point...find me a paper based encyclopedia, an article, a reference site, a dictionary, an interview or any other source that can compare with this entry on this topic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse |
|
foobar
said @ 10:49pm GMT on 26th Dec
I don't know that that's a bad thing... |
|
childsizedhands
said @ 10:53pm GMT on 26th Dec
[Score:1 Funny]
|
|
childsizedhands
said @ 10:55pm GMT on 26th Dec
oh, duh.  |
|
Volcaos
said @ 11:21pm GMT on 26th Dec
The Wiki article on religion is actually quite good, except for the very very wrong estimate of the number of Zoroastrians in the world. It also doesn't go into too much complexity regarding rational study of religion, but its an encyclopedia article not a journal. |
|
blawiz
said @ 8:53am GMT on 27th Dec
I wathed this nobel-prize discussion where one of the winners admitted that he couldn't have written a better article in 3 weeks about his findings than the one on wikipedia. I love it. |
|
blawiz
said @ 8:54am GMT on 27th Dec
I wathed this nobel-prize discussion where one of the winners admitted that he couldn't have written a better article in 3 weeks about his findings than the one on wikipedia. I love it. |
|
EPT
said @ 10:29am GMT on 27th Dec
Taken with a grain of salt (as all reference works should), and there's nothing wrong with wikipedia. |
|
gunthar
said @ 4:55pm GMT on 27th Dec
encyclopedias are considered accurate, scholarly sources? |
|
Volcaos
said @ 5:33pm GMT on 27th Dec
no... neither are most newspaper articles even in the best most unbiased ones... or 99% of writing outside University Presses and Academic Journals... they are still useful tough. |
Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment,
then click the reply link on that comment instead]You must be logged in to comment on posts.
