Wikipedia

[Bettina]

On another forum, I was challenged that Wiki is not a good source for material which I think it is.

 

Does anyone else feel this way or is there a better place.

 

Bettina

[Phi for All]

Wiki antagonists are usually put off because ANYONE can edit the entries, and may put in false info. But just because they can doesn't mean they do, and I for one find Wikipedia an invaluable resource. Watch for bias the way you would anywhere, but with Wikipedia, HowStuffWorks.com and SFN I could rule the world.

 

If AzurePhoenix lets me, of course.

[ecoli]

I like it... all the information you need in one easy to find location. Saves time.

 

I wouldn't reference it in a paper, but its great if you want to pick up some useful facts. I use it all the time for biographies.

 

edit:

 

If AzurePhoenix lets me, of course.

 

I don't see her agreeing to share power.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Simply put, if it's an article on a popular topic, it's most likely correct--there are too many people looking at it for a mistake to be unnoticed for very long. If it's an article that is obscure and very little noticed, it's quite likely that it isn't correct or detailed enough for reference.

 

Simply put, I use it for research, but not for a reference to list on a paper.

[Bluenoise]

I find it to be a good source of information, but I would need to varify it from somewhere more reputable before using it for anything.

[Bettina]

Ok..thanks

 

Now...what would you consider a good web source for physics information. Someplace that is respected.

 

Bettina

[swansont]

The problem with the web in general is whether the person looking for information already knows enough to discriminate the good information from the crud. There is no hurdle of competence to overcome when posting to the web. Any crackpot or con artist can post his or her point of view, and use some fancy phrases to make it sound good to the uninitiated and gullible.

[Bluenoise]

Well for any scientific information the best place to go are journal articles. Though depending on what you know they maybe hard to read. Review articles shouldn't be too dificult for anyone though.

[Ophiolite]

I find it an excellent starting point for all sorts of information, not just in the sciences. Since I am excessively paranoid and sceptical I don't tend to believe anything from anywhere without corroboration and plenty of evidence, but wikipedia gives that leg up quite quickly. I usually go to it third though: first my own library, then a quick google, but if I can't find anything at the right level there on the first couple of hits, its of to wikipedia.

[-Demosthenes-]

Very good reference tool if you just want to know what something is.

[bascule]

On another forum' date=' I was challenged that Wiki is not a good source for material which I think it is.

 

Does anyone else feel this way or is there a better place.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

The concept is not inherently flawed, but the collaborative editing process presently leaves a lot to be desired because the concept is not yet evolved enough.

[Drake]

Ok..thanks

 

Now...what would you consider a good web source for physics information. Someplace that is respected.

 

Bettina

 

 

http://physicsforums.com/

 

P.S. to get the best of the e-learning experience, one must have valuable sources such as Wikipedia, but the ability to discuss the material with others on places such as a forum like this.

 

If enough people understood the e-learning process, we would have many more educated minds without the expense of shelling out cash. I think some people here with me will agree that the reason people contribute to the forum is so people can get more intelligent, and while on their journey help others too.

[In My Memory]

Bettina,

On another forum' date=' I was challenged that Wiki is not a good source for material which I think it is.

 

Does anyone else feel this way or is there a better place.[/quote']

The information on math is usually very good, but sometimes you can avoid the skepticism just by clicking on the sources at the bottom of the page.

 

I just think Wikipedia has an edge above all other sources because it keeps all the information in a single place, so there is no single "better place". But here are some places I regularly get my information:

 

Religion and Philosophy

- Feminist Theory Website

- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

- Utilitarian.net

- Catholic Encyclopedia

- Early Christian Writings

- Early Jewish Writings

- EgyptianMyths.net

- Jewish Encyclopedia

- Society of Bible Literature

- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

Math and Physics

- Index of Creationist Claims

- Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy (this site counters common myths like moon hoax theorists and astrologers)

- MathWorld

- Skepdic's Dictionary

 

 

Ophiolite,

 

I usually go to it third though: first my own library, then a quick google, but if I can't find anything at the right level there on the first couple of hits, its of to wikipedia.

Theres theory that if something cant be found on Google or Wikipedia, then it probably doesnt exist anywhere in the universe. *cue "The More You Know" logo*

[Pangloss]

I think Ophiolite and bascule have the most relevent points above, and the closest to my view on it.

 

I actually see the Wikipedia as the next "killer app" of the Internet. It does something that the WWWeb was supposed to do but has never quite accomplished. It serves as a central point of focus for beginning an investigation or information gathering effort, it's a repository and communications tool with a common organizational theme and best practices, and it's more or less uncensored.

 

Isn't that what the Web was supposed to be, but has never quite been?

 

Broop broop!

[Drake]

Theres theory that if something cant be found on Google or Wikipedia, then it probably doesnt exist anywhere in the universe. *cue "The More You Know" logo*

 

I've found this to be false at time, seeing as I've been on the web long enough. There are things that don't hit google quite quickly.

[AL]

On another forum, I was challenged that Wiki is not a good source for material which I think it is.

What do they mean by not a good source? Do they mean that the information is factually incorrect or unreliable, or do they mean that the information is too general and not "scholarly" or "esoteric" enough? If the latter, there's still nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for general info -- that's what encyclopedias do. If the former, then you should ask them to tell you what information specifically did Wikipedia provide that was incorrect or questionable. Otherwise, the objection itself is too general and introduces a red herring -- forcing you to defend Wikipedia rather than defending the merits of the information you quoted from it.

[-Demosthenes-]

It can be reconized that an article by Professor someone Ph.D. would be a better source is all.

 

Edit: Not to mention the Wikipedia vandalism that isn't always caught straight off. You have to check the history of the article to see if anything fishy is happening. On the article "Macbeth" on wikipedia a large portion of the article was deleted by a vandal, and it wasn't noticed until almost four hours later.

[Bettina]

Thanks everyone. Thanks IMM for the links too.

 

One trick a classmate taught me was to use - and + in my search to eliminate wasted time...for example searching google for the planet saturn I would use: saturn -.com +.org....This way I get the org and the more reliable sites.

 

FYI....they questioned Wiki as being unreliable, biased, and unscientific. I've ignored there comments and continue using it.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

I actually see the Wikipedia as the next "killer app" of the Internet.

 

[...]

 

Isn't that what the Web was supposed to be' date=' but has never quite been?

[/quote']

 

I'd say Semantic MediaWiki is the killer app of the Semantic Web, and that the Semantic Web was what the Web was supposed to be, but has never quite been...

 

The underlying idea of the Semantic Web is that the nodes in the graph ultimately become meaningless in most contexts and that it's the connection structure (i.e. the metadata) which becomes important. Right now since we have no way of divining what the connection structure represents (because links have no semantics, no associated metadata that describes what kind of relationships exist between two nodes in a graph) all we can do is interpret the nodes themselves and links merely provide pointers to find more nodes that might be related, but the job of understanding the connection structure itself is left entirely up to us. This is why the web is still so damn hard to search.

[bascule]

FYI....they questioned Wiki as being unreliable, biased, and unscientific. I've ignored there comments and continue using it

 

Good show. They're working on fixing the problems. MediaWiki (the software underlying WikiPedia) is evolving all the time.

[ecoli]

I;ve always wanted to add or edit something on Wikipedia, but I have never found any information there that I knew to be incorrect. It's actually kind of a let down

[bascule]

I just think Wikipedia has an edge above all other sources because it keeps all the information in a single place, so there is no single "better place".

 

I hope that the Semantic Web, in conjunction with things like Semantic MediaWiki, will let that "single place" become highly distributed yet still let you seamlessly access information as if it were part of a single, enormous archive.

 

The Semantic Web is trying to solve a problem our own brains have as far as distributing information among specialists (and thus letting specialists collaborate on problems which impinge upon multiple different specialist disciplines), and that is representing all phenomenological constructions in a way that they all interconnect and can be shared equally among all specialists and used in the formulation of higher level constructions.

[-Demosthenes-]

Thanks everyone. Thanks IMM for the links too.

 

One trick a classmate taught me was to use - and + in my search to eliminate wasted time...for example searching google for the planet saturn I would use: saturn -.com +.org....This way I get the org and the more reliable sites.

 

FYI....they questioned Wiki as being unreliable' date=' biased, and unscientific. I've ignored there comments and continue using it.

 

Bettina[/quote']

"-domain:com" or "-domain:net" can get rid of some useless commercial sites as well.

 

As far as wikipedia being unreliable (ect.) it surely is very useful but we have to reconize that there are better sources that have more specific information, and wikipedia is good for general information. Also having anyone be able to edit it does have it's negatives. Wikipedia is an amazing tool, but not the ultimate encyclapdia of all time that has info on everything.

[cosine]

I;ve always wanted to add or edit something on Wikipedia, but I have never found any information there that I knew to be incorrect. It's actually kind of a let down

 

Haha same here. I just started an account... no idea what to say that isn't already there...

[Pangloss]

Yeah I have a feeling the Semantic Web concept will finally tip in 2006.

 

For what it's worth, I take exactly the opposite approach of my traditionalist college professors when I teach classes -- I tell my students all about the Wikipedia, what's good and bad about it, etc. Even if the class is about something that would benefit very little form the info, I usually at least mention it in passing. A fair amount already know about it, but a surprising number do not, even amongst my MCSE-track students. (I'm a part-time Microsoft trainer, finishing a master's in CS, shooting for PhD/professorship.)