News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on School vs. Wikipedia. Parent comment

Re:School vs. Wikipedia by throwaway09223 on Saturday October 08, 2022 @01:07AM (#33129925)
No, OP specifically referenced "dead, rotting citations" which is a link quality problem.

In terms of book references Wikipedia simply wins, hands down. Those don't rot.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by end_of_line on Sunday October 09, 2022 @02:24AM (#33138684)
The owner of the site can remove content even from the web archive. It's far harder to remove books with isbns from national libraries.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by throwaway09223 on Sunday October 09, 2022 @12:59PM (#33142961)
Wikipedia has book citations, and more and better book citations than traditional encyclopedias.

It's unclear what your point is. Are you suggesting wikipedia shouldn't also have citations to content published online, simply because it might be removed?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by end_of_line on Sunday October 09, 2022 @01:07PM (#33143062)
Most wikipedia citations are linked to some news articles (this is not too bad, still newspapers are being archived) and some random internet blog articles of some random people which show up and disappear. Source creditworthness analysis? Good joke Wikipedia says :-) At best you can get some people's opinion about something.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by throwaway09223 on Sunday October 09, 2022 @06:53PM (#33146093)
That's a very silly take and is easily disproven. For example, pick any science topic at random. Let's look at Quantum Mechanics:

There are 81 citations. Of these, only 9 are not citing published books with an ISBN, or articles published in journals.

4 are citations to papers or articles published by physics professors on their university websites (Berkeley, Riverside, CUNY, Caltech)

Three are links to magazines: Quanta Magazine, Scientific American, Physics World

The remaining two are a link to the Nobel Foundation (regarding a nobel prize award) and a link to Merriam-Webster for a definition of "Quantum."

> At best you can get some people's opinion about something.

Nah, not even close.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by end_of_line on Monday October 10, 2022 @04:58AM (#33149269)
And this is cherry picking. As studies show the quality varies strongly for historical, politically controversial and highly scientifical topics ( only few wikipedia editors ). Link https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3178876.3186132#BibP... So nothing "easily disproven"
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by throwaway09223 on Monday October 10, 2022 @10:06AM (#33151575)
No, it's a counter-example which unequivocally disproves your inaccurate generalization.

Cherry picking can only occur if I'm generalizing, and I am not. Counter-examples aren't cherry-picking.

Your statement "At best you can get some people's opinion about something" has been disproven.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:School vs. Wikipedia by end_of_line on Tuesday October 11, 2022 @01:45PM (#33166385)
My thesis was "you can't take Wikipedia quality for granted" it fails to be objective on many topics. And your thesis is? Your counter thesis?
[ Parent | on HN ]