Surely someone else appreciated the irony of referring to one of the few better known knowledge sources around that is trusted by so few on this board?
I’ve found Wiki to be shockingly good for mathematics. It generally offers more detailed explanations than Wolfram or any other source than a good textbook, and sometimes much more clearly.
This is because it’s often the quickest way to find an article on any particular topic, not because it’s the most reliable source.
In my experience, it’s usually pretty easy to tell whether the author of an article knew what he was talking about or not, and whether an article has been vandalized. Plus, the good articles link to several more definitive sources.
Where wikipedia really beats conventional encyclopedias is on obscure topics, for several reasons:
(1) Obscure topics get cut from regular encyclopedias, but wikipedia can essentially grow without limit
(2) Obscure topics don’t attract much vandalism
(3) Obscure articles are more likely to be written by experts, since they’re the only ones who care about that stuff.
I agree with SlowMindThinking that the math articles are generally quite good (at least compared to other online resources), and I’d say this is why. A lot of them were probably written by math grad students while they were procrastinating on their research.
Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of very good short articles on basic topics. If someone asks a question in GQ I can spend an hour writing an answer for them, or I can link to the wikipedia article. Thing is, even if I spent that hour my answer probably isn’t going to be as complete as the wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn’t a textbook but it’s a damn impressive compilation of knowledge. If someone wants to know some basic facts it does a great job.
The fact that Wikipedia’s content is free of charge and it doesn’t require signing up to view it is a big point in its favor. I had a paid subscription to Britannica Online but I couldn’t post any links to any articles there because the reader would have to have a paid subscription also in order to read it.
Links to the NYT, The Washington Post and other similar sources often require the viewer to sign up first, and for some online outlets like Salon a subscription is required, too. Some articles are open to all, but many are not.
Wikipedia is free, and is an example of a source that delivers much more than what you pay for…
I’m guessing people interested in political or pop culture articles are a different breed than those looking after science/mathematical articles. Is there anything to drive someone to perform the subtle vandalism noted above to the latter type of articles.
As for the article linked to in the OP, I’d worry more about newspapers cracking before Wikipedia, especially in the UK.
(4) However, obscure topics that are politically sensitive to a small group of zealots (see: basically anything to do with linguistics) will be a hopeless mess.
Subtle vandalism, no. Other types, not so much (click “Edit” and look at the comment at the top of the code for the page!)
You know, I don’t know how Wiki vandals get away with anything. Whever I edit an article ( as not logged in) some “editor” always reverses my edit. Even when I edited a typographical error, it was immediately undone (and almost never with an explanation). :rolleyes: Do the vandals do their work logged on?:dubious:
They really don’t, most of the time. I read an article once where the author “vandalized” a page just to test how long it would take to be fixed and - - I don’t remember exactly but I swear I think it was something like 27 seconds.
I personally saw a hilarious vandalization of a pretty obscure page one time, immediately called my brother to tell him to look at it - he was at work sitting in front of a computer - and after the few seconds it took him to pull it up he says, “what are you talking about?”
Just use common sense. If it’s important at all, verify. Y’know, like you should with everything else you ever read.