- #1
Bob3141592
- 236
- 2
Specifically in their mathematical topics, of course. It seems awfully good to me, but I don't know enough to be a proper judge. What's the general opinion of the people here?
Bob3141592 said:Specifically in their mathematical topics, of course. It seems awfully good to me, but I don't know enough to be a proper judge. What's the general opinion of the people here?
stewartcs said:Anything that doesn't go through a formal peer review or similar process should be viewed with some degree of skepticism.
statdad said:"I wouldn't spare peer-reviewed material from skepticism, myself."
In mathematics and statistics peer review works fine. [...snip...]
Is peer-reviewed material always perfect? No, nothing is - but done correctly it is the best mechanism for separating wheat from meaningless junk.
CRGreathouse said:I wouldn't spare peer-reviewed material from skepticism, myself.
stewartcs said:Not entirely no. However, in my opinion it is definitely better than a source that can be "reviewed" by self proclaimed experts with no credentials.
CS
Count Iblis said:Eric Weisstein's world of physics, which is supposed to be edited by vetted experts, simply cloned many wiki articles. In case of some thermodynamics articles, that was a fatal mistake, they cloned some erroneous versions, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CombinedLawofThermodynamics.html" :rofl:
Count Iblis said:Wikipedia is reviewed by millions of people every day. All it takes to make it a reliable source is for experts to correct errors in it.
Count Iblis said:But the system still works. Wikipedia really took off after 2004 or 2005. From that period onward the science articles improved in quality, because from then on there were a huge number of Ph.Ds, postdocs etc. who started to contribute. They keep science articles of their interest in their watchlist and revert any changes that are not appropriate.
rbj said:and sometimes their reversions are reverted back by the non-experts and a WP edit war may ensue. these edit wars are not always resolved with authority. you should find and ask Chris Hillman (who hangs around here sometimes) about this. (i'm not too objective, i was around since 2005 and was banned, without any review by ArbCom, in 2007. you won't be able to convince me that it works.)
madmike159 said:They are planing some sort of wiki CD, because the version 1.0 review team look at stuff and approve it is its good. I don't know how much they know about the more complex subjects (which aren't often good enough).
Wikipedia is known for its accuracy as it relies on the collaborative efforts of a large number of volunteer editors to fact-check and verify information. However, due to its open editing policy, there is always a possibility for errors or biased information. It is recommended to verify information from multiple reliable sources before using it for research purposes.
Wikipedia's credibility has been a topic of debate for many years. While it is not considered a primary source, it can be a good starting point for research as it often provides a comprehensive overview of a topic. However, it is always recommended to cross-check information with other reliable sources.
Yes, anyone with internet access can edit Wikipedia articles. However, there are strict guidelines and policies in place to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of information. Changes made by new or unregistered users are also closely monitored by experienced editors.
Wikipedia has a robust community of volunteer editors who continuously monitor and review articles to maintain quality and accuracy. The website also has a system of flagging and removing articles that do not meet the required standards.
While Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for academic research, it can be a useful tool for getting a general understanding of a topic and finding relevant sources. However, it is always recommended to use primary and secondary sources for academic purposes.