Suggestion Enhancing Your Science Knowledge: Introducing the Resources Section on PF

[Wallace]

AM, this is a theorist/empiricist argument. You are pointing out how your theory of Wikipedia management would make it unsuitable, others argue that from observation, Wikipedia is in wide spread use a well trusted for this kinds of things we'd like to be able to use it for at PF. When the theory doesn't fit the evidence, you need a new theory...

 

[Anti-Meson]

AM, this is a theorist/empiricist argument. You are pointing out how your theory of Wikipedia management would make it unsuitable, others argue that from observation, Wikipedia is in wide spread use a well trusted for this kinds of things we'd like to be able to use it for at PF. When the theory doesn't fit the evidence, you need a new theory...

Would you care to quantify "wide spread" with supporting evidence as it is harder for you to substantiate your claims that wikipedia is a reliable source than it is for me to prove otherwise.

 

[Wallace]

I work in cosmology. When working with collaborators etc it is routine to check a wiki page to answer some question, and then go for a textbook etc if more detail is needed (or if it is too niche to be covered by wiki, which is of course pretty common). I've never heard anyone in the field complain that wiki is inappropriate for this purpose, or that it is inaccurate, an oligarchy or any other issues. If you find an error (not very common these days) you simply correct it.

Now, for the purposes of cosmology discussions on PF then, it would be foolish to reject the use of wiki when the people working in the field use it on a daily basis. Now, beyond that field, when I talk to people in other areas I hear basically the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no qualms with wikipedia being used to direct someone to introduce them to a subject,...

See now, it is so strange that you would say that.

I used Wiki to introduce you to further reading on the subject of antimatter. You'll note that I worded it - not as a source of authority - but specifically to introduce you to the subject. My exact words were:

Feel free to start here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577662&postcount=20", casting aspersions upon me and upon PF:

Dave, you are a PF contributor and supposed science advisor. I thought PF was a serious site promoting education. If you believe this you should stop referencing unregulated WIKIPEDIA and start referencing papers from scientific authority.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This suggestion has been resolved. thanks