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"
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.
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?
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.