Wikipedia

[-Demosthenes-]

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

If you have to find something out for something in school (if you are in school) and you're all disapointed because you find out wikipedia has very little on that subject, then add it.

[cosine]

If you have to find something out for something in school (if you are in school) and you're all disapointed because you find out wikipedia has very little on that subject, then add it.

 

Yep. I hopefully will have more to contribute as I take higher mathematics courses... by the way you got me to do it with the link in your sig. =)

[Mokele]

I think one very important thing to realize is that, while Wikipedia's open-access system allows vandalism and mistakes, I've seen some pretty crappy, insufficient entries in actual encyclopedias, including ones with blatant errors. "All reptiles lay eggs" my ass.

 

Wikipedia, due to it's online nature, can house more information with trivial cost than print encyclopedias, and more media types (which allows superior communication of knowledge; I have an animated gif up there which I made myself to demonstrate how sidewinding works, since it's a lot easier than trying to explain it via text).

 

The way I see it is that there's probably more mistakes, but there's also more information (*much* more), and so the actual signal-to-noise ratio is probably *better* than print encyclopedias.

 

Plus, frankly, I wouldn't reference a print encylopedia for *anything*. They're so superficial in their articles as to be practically useless, especially compared to wikipedia.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

Plus' date=' frankly, I wouldn't reference a print encylopedia for *anything*. They're so superficial in their articles as to be practically useless, especially compared to wikipedia.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

That's a really good point, Mokele. I didn't even think about that. People complain about Wiki-pedia being too open and that they'd never use it for a scholarly source. But who the hell writes the articles for encyclopedia's anyway? What makes they're information more pertinent then Wikipedia's?

 

I'd never reference an encyclopedia anyway, so who cares what they print!

I'd trust Wikipedia just as much an an encyclopedia.

 

 

edit:

[/quote=cosine].. by the way you got me to do it with the link in your sig. =)

 

me too Now I'll play the waiting game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ecoli

[-Demosthenes-]

Yep. I hopefully will have more to contribute as I take higher mathematics courses... by the way you got me to do it with the link in your sig. =)

me too Now I'll play the waiting game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ecoli

I am glad that you joined, Wikipedia is possible because of people like you.

[Tom Mattson]

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

 

In the physics community, a raging wiki-battle is waged over the articles on Bell's theorem. There is a semi-famous "local realist" named Caroline Thompson whose contribution causes no small amount of controversy. Other than that you can surf Wikipedia for any article that has a "biased POV" tag, and then step in and help out.

[Miss Perfect]

In the physics community, a raging wiki-battle is waged over the articles on Bell's theorem. There is a semi-famous "local realist" named Caroline Thompson whose contribution causes no small amount of controversy. Other than that you can surf Wikipedia for any article that has a "biased POV" tag, and then step in and help out.

 

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/groups.htm

I guess she's talking about you!

[ecoli]

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/groups.htm

I guess she's talking about you!

 

that's pretty amusing.