Insights Why You Should Not Use Wikipedia As Your Primary Source - Comments

[Greg Bernhardt]

ZapperZ submitted a new PF Insights post

Why You Should Not Use Wikipedia As Your Primary Source

Continue reading the Original PF Insights Post.

 

[Geometry_dude]

I like wikipedia. I know it's not always correct and personally I've read entire articles that are bullocks, but I still like it, because it usually gives a nice intuitive introduction to a topic that is hard to get in a proper book.
Personally, I have made it a custom to first read the wikipedia article about a topic, be very critical about it and then get to the actual literature with a glimpse of what it's all about that I wouldn't have otherwise.

If you find an error in wikipedia, then just correct it or at least criticize it in the discussion. Also I think you are being delusional if you think that peer-reviewed journals and academic books are error free and don't have nonsense-articles or statements. Think for yourself, you can obviously do it! No automaton can replace personal scepticism.

It appears to me that you're having trouble grasping the entire open-source idea. Do you like arxiv?

 

[verty]

Wikipedia follows the example of the famous French Encyclopédie of 1750-1770:

The Encyclopédie was an innovative encyclopedia in several respects. Among other things, it was the first encyclopedia to include contributions from many named contributors, and it was the first general encyclopedia to lavish attention on the mechanical arts. Still, the Encyclopédie is famous above all for representing the thought of the Enlightenment. According to Denis Diderot in the article "Encyclopédie", the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think". He wanted to incorporate all of the world's knowledge into the Encyclopédie and hoped that the text could disseminate all this information to the public and future generations.

It sounds very familiar, doesn't it? Is it a coincidence that so many advances were made only a few generations later? I mean steam power, metallurgy, etc. By ~1870, the world was essentially modern as far as scientific thinking goes. That's within one lifetime of the encyclopedia's publication.

The encyclopedians successfully argued and marketed their belief in the potential of reason and unified knowledge to empower human will and thus helped to shape the social issues that the French Revolution would address. Although it is doubtful whether the many artisans, technicians, or laborers whose work and presence and interspersed throughout the Encyclopédie actually read it, the recognition of their work as equal to that of intellectuals, clerics, and rulers prepared the terrain for demands for increased representation. Thus the Encyclopédie served to recognize and galvanize a new power base, ultimately contributing to the destruction of old values and the creation of new ones.

This may be overstated but the fact remains, many people were empowered to make better decisions and to think in a new way, thanks to the disseminated knowledge. The world in 1750 was positively primordial, I think this encyclopedia must have had a huge influence.

So what is the philosophy of Wikipedia? I believe it is to spread knowledge and effect the future in a positive way. Does it do that, will it do that? Time will tell, but there are countries that are not all that different to the world of 1750, and it could have a similar effect today in those countries, I'm thinking of countries like Indonesia, Myanmar, etc.

That said, ZapperZ was careful to limit his admonishing to those who would use Wikipedia as a primary source. But as a secondary source, it is surely good and definitely worth having around, I think. If editing can make it better, edit away.

Thank you.

 

[clope023]

I think wiki can be a very useful source of sources, if that makes sense.

 

[symbolipoint]

Greg and ZapperZ,

What you say is absolutely right. Wikipedia is not suited for deep learning of technical topics. Serious scientific expository articles are properly placed in research journals and in academic institutions, maybe sometimes as technical investigations within businesses.

 

[wukunlin]

For unfamiliar topics, I use wiki to find the keywords and then use those keywords to find proper papers and textbooks.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Important concept to understand

 

[hideelo]

I agree that it's imperfect, but to look up an equation, or something like that it's pretty good. The flip side is, don't take textbooks as gospel either almost all have some typos and unlike Wikipedia, it isn't constantly updated.

 

[atyy]

Can ZapperZ give a reference as to what the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is that he is disagreeing with?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

pagging @ZapperZ

 

[filipv]

IF "the errors in the various entries are only the SYMPTOMS of the flawed philosophy" THEN "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is also based on a "flawed philosophy" since there are as many errors there as in Wikipedia.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree that it's imperfect, but to look up an equation, or something like that it's pretty good. The flip side is, don't take textbooks as gospel either almost all have some typos and unlike Wikipedia, it isn't constantly updated.

Er.. we're NOT talking about "typos" here. There's a difference between the two. The errors in Wikipedia, especially the one that I used as an examples, are the type of errors that AMATEURS would make, or at the very least, an error that would be made when there wasn't a very careful consideration of what is being presented. I haven't come across that same type of error in the textbooks that I had used, and I had used a lot!

I have a higher degree of confidence in the validity of an equation coming out of a textbook than looking up on Wikipedia. Did I just say something crazy here?

Can ZapperZ give a reference as to what the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia is that he is disagreeing with?

IF "the errors in the various entries are only the SYMPTOMS of the flawed philosophy" THEN "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is also based on a "flawed philosophy" since there are as many errors there as in Wikipedia.

Please note that, as I stated, and has been pointed out by several members, I'm criticizing the use of Wikipedia as the PRIMARY source of information. Stay in this form for a while, and you'll find people using it as not only a primary source, but also as a learning material, as if this is a well-thought out textbook! This is what I am criticizing!

There are several points that make up the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia that I find to be flawed, especially when it is used as a PRIMARY SOURCE:

1. When I wrote this several years ago, anyone and everyone could contribute to it and edit it. While this may no longer be completely true now, there is still an element where anyone can write about something, regardless of that person's credentials. The whole idea of the "cult of the amateur" scares me, where the opinion of someone is taken in with equal weight, regardless of whether that person has the knowledge or expertise to voice such an opinion. I want to know who is writing this thing that I'm trying to learn from. And yes, in that sense, I also would NOT use Encyclopedia Britannica as a source to learn something.

2. When we have a discussion about a book that covers a particular topic, we often get a debate or discussion on whether such-and-such a book is better than the other. I've often criticize members who recommend Feynman's Lecture Series books to someone who is just starting out in physics, because pedagogically, it isn't a very good book for beginners! I can also say that I like Griffith's E&M text, while someone else will disagree with me for various reasons. Yet, textbooks on the SAME subject area covers roughly the SAME set of topics. What makes one textbook different, or better than the other? It is the way the material is presented! Textbook writers, or anyone trying to TEACH someone else about something, must not only know the material, but must also put in a lot of effort in trying to present the material in the simplest, clearest, and best method to be understood! This is what makes one textbook or one source better than the other. You just don't spew the information out like a vomit.

This consideration is what is seriously missing in Wikipedia articles. I've lost count of how many entries that I've read which felt jumbled, disjointed, and some time even contradictory. This is especially true when more than one cooks had dipped his/her hands into the pot. It is not presented in a thoughtful, systematic manner for learn from, and again, we are talking about people who are using this as a primary source of information! They, of all people, need more than others a source that is well-organized and clear. So even if there are no errors in a particular topic, there's a lot to be desired on how that topic is presented. This lack oversight on how the quality of the presentation is something I consider to be a major flaw.

3. The idea that one can study a subject matter using Wikipedia is scary. Knowledge isn't just a series of disjointed and disconnected pieces of information. Rather, it is a series of connected information where they are interrelated to each other. "Encyclopedia", by definition, is nothing more than a collection of information. It is fine if you simply want to look up something, but if you don't know what you are dealing with, this will be a piece of information dangling in mid air, without any anchor to anything else. This is not knowledge. It is a piece of useless and irrelevant information that you can't use, other than to impress someone at a party.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Please note that, as I stated, and has been pointed out by several members, I'm criticizing the use of Wikipedia as the PRIMARY source of information. Stay in this form for a while, and you'll find people using it as not only a primary source, but also as a learning material, as if this is a well-thought out textbook! This is what I am criticizing!

There are several points that make up the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia that I find to be flawed, especially when it is used as a PRIMARY SOURCE:

Define PRIMARY SOURCE.

And please give a reference that says the WHOLE PHILOSOPHY of Wikipedia is to be used as a PRIMARY SOURCE according to that definition.

 

[ZapperZ]

Define PRIMARY SOURCE.

I am not a biologist. I want to look up what a particular virus is and what it can do. I don't have other sources. I go to Wikipedia to learn about this virus. I'm using Wikipedia as a primary source.

And please give a reference that says the WHOLE PHILOSOPHY of Wikipedia is to be used as a PRIMARY SOURCE according to that definition.

No, I never implied that being used as a primary source was the intention of Wikipedia. What I argued is because of the flawed philosophy of Wikipedia, it should never be used as a primary source! There's a difference!

Are we going to go down this path of splitting hairs again that you normally go into? If it is, then I'm done!

Zz.

 

[atyy]

I am not a biologist. I want to look up what a particular virus is and what it can do. I don't have other sources. I go to Wikipedia to learn about this virus. I'm using Wikipedia as a primary source.

So primary source means "sole source"? Is there anything you would recommend as a PRIMARY SOURCE in this sense? Presumably it must be flawless.

 

[ZapperZ]

So primary source means "sole source"? Is there anything you would recommend as a PRIMARY SOURCE in this sense? Presumably it must be flawless.

Again, you are WAAAAY off in this. Where did I insist that a source must be "flawless"?

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Again, you are WAAAAY off in this. Where did I insist that a source must be "flawless"?

Can you give an example of a primary source you recommend and explain in what way it differs from Wikipedia?

 

[ZapperZ]

Can you give an example of a primary source you recommend and explain in what way it differs from Wikipedia?

Only if you reply to my question on where I wrote that such sources must be "flawless". This has been nothing but a one-way street, you convoluting what I said and asking me to defend it.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Only if you reply to my question on where I wrote that such sources must be "flawless". This has been nothing but a one-way street, you convoluting what I said and asking me to defend it.

You used the errors as a symptom of the flawed "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia. So if there were no errors, there would be no symptoms and you would have no evidence.

 

[ZapperZ]

You used the errors as a symptom of the flawed "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of Wikipedia. So if there were no errors, there would be no symptoms and you would have no evidence.

Then you don't know how to read. Nowhere in the THREE points that I described as the flaw in the philosophy of Wikipedia involves a discussion about errors!

There is no point in continuing this, because what I wrote is not what you understood. It is why you mangled what I wrote. So why would you bother to listen to anything that I have to say?

Over and out!

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Then you don't know how to read. Nowhere in the THREE points that I described as the flaw in the philosophy of Wikipedia involves a discussion about errors!

There is no point in continuing this, because what I wrote is not what you understood. It is why you mangled what I wrote. So why would you bother to listen to anything that I have to say?

Over and out!

So your mention of errors is irrelevant to your objection to Wikipedia as a primary source? In other words, the first part of your essay is not related to the second part of your essay?

You still have not given any example of a primary source you recommend - in the sense of sole source. So at present your objection to Wikipedia as a primary source is empty, since it is not clear that any source should be a primary source.

 

[Hornbein]

Have you ever tried any other online encyclopedia?

I have, to find a minimum of information and a maximum of advertising. Wikipedia was far superior.

So...what alternative do you suggest? The Library of Congress is too far away for me.

 

[ZapperZ]

So your mention of errors is irrelevant to your objection to Wikipedia as a primary source? In other words, the first part of your essay is not related to the second part of your essay?

Sorry, but you've just shown more evidence of your inability to comprehend what you read.

In my "first part" of the essay, I wrote this:

Now, you can tell me “But ZapperZ, why can’t you correct these errors, and provide a service to the community?” You will then have missed my point entirely. My problem isn’t with these errors. My problem is the WHOLE PHILOSOPHY of Wikipedia. I find that to be the fundamental flaw, that no one of any authority is being given the ability to write and edit stuff. The errors in the various entries are only the SYMPTOMS of the flawed philosophy.

So now I bet you want me to explain what are the "flawed philosophy", even though I've spent time and effort writing it all down already. The errors are one of the SYMPTOMS!

You still have not given any example of a primary source you recommend - in the sense of sole source. So at present your objection to Wikipedia as a primary source is empty, since it is not clear that any source should be a primary source.

At this point, I don't care to answer this, because anyone reading this would have already known that I would consider as a more viable primary source than Wikipedia. If you consider this objection as empty, then it is fine with me, because any attempt at explaining it will be mangled as the others.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

Sorry, but you've just shown more evidence of your inability to comprehend what you read.

In my "first part" of the essay, I wrote this:
So now I bet you want me to explain what are the "flawed philosophy", even though I've spent time and effort writing it all down already. The errors are one of the SYMPTOMS!
At this point, I don't care to answer this, because anyone reading this would have already known that I would consider as a more viable primary source than Wikipedia. If you consider this objection as empty, then it is fine with me, because any attempt at explaining it will be mangled as the others.

Zz.

"More viable"? So there are degrees of viability? Just as there are degrees of "only"?

 

[micromass]

I don't know what's so controversial about ZapperZ's opinion, it's common sense really. Yes, I use wikipedia now and then, and I find it useful. But it is clear not to use it as a primary source for math or for physics.

So what do I mean with this? Let's say you wanted to know some linear algebra. Or you encountered the word vector space somewhere. What some people do, is just go to wikipedia and read the article of a vector space. I do not recommend this at all. What you will get out of this is some basic intuition of what it is about. This is good. But you won't know much actual and deep stuff about vector spaces.
On the other hand, what I recommend you do is pick up a good book on vector spaces such as Treil's "Linear algebra done wrong". There you get a structured approach to vector spaces.

If somebody comes to me and says "I've read the book of Treil and done the problems" vs "I've read various wikipedia articles on linear algebra", I would say that the former understands the material, why the latter does not

I hope nobody in this thread thinks he should learn the material only by using wikipedia (which IS what some people think).

 

[ZapperZ]

"More viable"? So there are degrees of viability? Just as there are degrees of "only"?

Sticking to the subject, you accused my "two" essays at not having to do with each other. I responded by pointing out why you simply didn't pay attention. Are you STILL under that false impression?

And no, I have no desire to answer you anymore. I'm just doing cleaning up of the previously-created mess.

Zz.

 

[micromass]

"More viable"? So there are degrees of viability?

Yes, obviously there are degrees of viability.

 

[ZapperZ]

Have you ever tried any other online encyclopedia?

I have, to find a minimum of information and a maximum of advertising. Wikipedia was far superior.

So...what alternative do you suggest? The Library of Congress is too far away for me.

What were you intending to do? If you simply want to look up out of curiosity, then knock yourself out. Just don't expect a guarantee on the validity of what you read, and this applies to both Wikipedia and the online encyclopedia.

However, if you intend to learn physics, then there is no short cut!

BTW, say you want to learn something about the "Photoelectric Effect", and you look at the corresponding Wikipedia entry. If you are not me, and you know nothing about it, and this is your first time trying to figure out what it is, how accurate do you think the information that you get? Now, keep in mind that, as with the example I gave in the Insight article, this is not some obscure topic in physics. In fact, I would say that this is a very common topic that I'm sure a lot of people have used Wikipedia for.

So, I'm not trying to put a trap or something on you, and I'm being honest here. We can try something easily among us friends. Everyone read that page, and tell me if you find something either wrong, or not quite right. Remember, my main objections to Wikipedia is not simply that it has errors, but also in how it presents the material, the latter of which I associate with its philosophy.

Zz.

 

[micromass]

Everyone read that page, and tell me if you find something either wrong, or not quite right.

OK, so I (quickly) read the page and while I acknowledge that I did not understand much, I did not find anything wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

OK, so I (quickly) read the page and while I acknowledge that I did not understand much, I did not find anything wrong.

That's fine, micro. I honestly don't expect anyone, or a lot of people who are not experts in the photoemission phenomenon to find anything wrong with it.

BTW, let me also try something here, and this has nothing to do with errors. When you read this (I know you did it rather quickly), did you understand it?

Three-step model
In the X-ray regime, the photoelectric effect in crystalline material is often decomposed into three steps:[14]:50–51

1. Inner photoelectric effect (see photodiode below[clarification needed]). The hole left behind can give rise to Auger effect, which is visible even when the electron does not leave the material. In molecular solids phonons are excited in this step and may be visible as lines in the final electron energy. The inner photoeffect has to be dipole allowed.[clarification needed] The transition rules for atoms translate via the tight-binding model onto the crystal.[clarification needed] They are similar in geometry to plasma oscillations in that they have to be transversal.
2. Ballistic transport[clarification needed] of half of the electrons to the surface. Some electrons are scattered.
3. Electrons escape from the material at the surface.

In the three-step model, an electron can take multiple paths through these three steps. All paths can interfere in the sense of the path integral formulation. For surface states and molecules the three-step model does still make some sense as even most atoms have multiple electrons which can scatter the one electron leaving.

In other words, did you understand this 3-step model, especially Process #1?

Zz.

 

[micromass]

That's fine, micro. I honestly don't expect anyone, or a lot of people who are not experts in the photoemission phenomenon to find anything wrong with it.

BTW, let me also try something here, and this has nothing to do with errors. When you read this (I know you did it rather quickly), did you understand it?
In other words, did you understand this 3-step model, especially Process #1?

Zz.

I don't think I understood anything of what they said.

 

[brainpushups]

Some valid points have been made both as to wikipedia's flaws and to its usefulness. I think the bottom line is that, if you want to learn something in detail, you should probably be using multiple "primary" sources. Different authors can explain things in ways that different readers can find preference for. As a quick reference for something you are already familiar with, wikipedia can a nice resource.

 

[atyy]

Yes, obviously there are degrees of viability.

If you read ZapperZ's definition of primary, it means only source. As far as I know, there is no such thing. So if there are degrees of viability, then why not consider Wikipedia a primary source with some non-zero viability.

On what grounds is ZapperZ arguing that it hs d zero viability?

Apparently, not on the basis of errors, only on the basis of authority?

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't think I understood anything of what they said.

And you know what, that is the problem, because as a professional working in photoemission and making photocathodes, *I* can't figure out what Process 1 is in that description either!

I know the Spicer 3-step process like the back of my hand. The entire description of the 3-step process in the Wikipedia entry is not only flawed (yes, there are amateur errors in there), but it is also awfully presented. This is one of my major issue with Wikipedia articles, which I had stated many times.

Zz.

 

[micromass]

If you read ZapperZ's definition of primary, it means only source. As far as I know, there is no such thing.

Many people use wikipedia as only source.

So if there are degrees of viability, then why not consider Wikipedia a primary source with some non-zero viability.

As a pedagogical tool, it has zero viability. It is simply awful. It should only be used if you already know what it is talking about.

 

[atyy]

Many people use wikipedia as only source.

But should anything be used as an only source? If there is no such thing, why single out Wikipedia, especially when he faults Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" but cannot even provide an example that Wikipedia recommends that it used as an only source.

As a pedagogical tool, it has zero viability. It is simply awful. It should only be used if you already know what it is talking about.

Why?

 

[atyy]

Sticking to the subject, you accused my "two" essays at not having to do with each other. I responded by pointing out why you simply didn't pay attention. Are you STILL under that false impression?

And no, I have no desire to answer you anymore. I'm just doing cleaning up of the previously-created mess.

Ultimately, you have only asserted that authority is necessary to be something non-existent - a recommended sole source.

 

[micromass]

But should anything be used as an only source?

Sure, why not? If I want to learn linear algebra, then relying only on the book by Treil will not give lead me astray. Many colleges (including mine) only give one source for the material. I have learned many topics using only one book as source and nothing else.

Why?

Because I have seen many discussions on these forums where people argue with me. Some of these people use wikipedia as only source for their learning and they have very glaring misconceptions which they would not have if they read a standard book on the topic.

 

[atyy]

Sure, why not? If I want to learn linear algebra, then relying only on the book by Treil will not give lead me astray. Many colleges (including mine) only give one source for the material. I have learned many topics using only one book as source and nothing else.

But now I would be using you as a "sole source" for that :)

I think relying on sole sources in general is problematic. Even the wonderful Feynman lectures had mistakes - and no, I'm not talking about the the potentially controversial parts on quantum mechanics - there was an error in Feynman's treatment of Gauss's law, which Feynman clearly understood deeply, but was careless in that presentation.

Secondly, ZapperZ is not arguing that Wikipedia not be used as a sole source because of its errors. He is concerned with authority. But in general, and certainly in maths and science, it is logic and evidence that one should be concerned with, not authority. So I cannot agree with his attack on Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" and the misleading insinuation that Wikipedia suggests that it be used as a sole source.

Because I have seen many discussions on these forums where people argue with me. Some of these people use wikipedia as only source for their learning and they have very glaring misconceptions which they would not have if they read a standard book on the topic.

But then is the problem Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" or is it these people's own personal philosophy that is problematic?

 

[micromass]

Secondly, ZapperZ is not arguing that Wikipedia not be used as a sole source because of its errors. He is concerned with authority.

No, he isn't (well he is, but that is not his main argument). You are clearly not reading him carefully enough. He is concerned with errors, sure. But he is also concerned with a nonpedagogical approach to the material. An exposition in a book would identify certain inner-relationship, special cases, examples, etc. Wikipedia does not provide this. The material in wikipedia is often hard to understand even for the expert. And it is certainly not structured in such a way that it gives a beginner a good handle on the material.

 

[atyy]

Here is a description of the basic mistake in the earlier editions of the Feynman lectures:

This second error was pointed out to Feynman by a number of readers, including Beulah Elizabeth Cox, a student at The College of William and Mary, who had relied on Feynman’s erroneous passage in an exam. To Ms. Cox, Feynman wrote in 1975,[1] “Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’s law. You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities. You also read the book correctly and understood it. I made a mistake, so the book is wrong. I probably was thinking of a grounded conducting sphere, or else of the fact that moving the charges around in different places inside does not affect things on the outside. I am not sure how I did it, but I goofed. And you goofed, too, for believing me.”

http://www.feynmanlectures.info/flp_errata.html

 

[micromass]

But then is the problem Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" or is it these people's own personal philosophy that is problematic?

Yes, the problem is with the people who think that they should rely on wikipedia only. This is exactly what Zz means with "don't use wikipedia as primary resource".

 

[atyy]

No, he isn't (well he is, but that is not his main argument). You are clearly not reading him carefully enough. He is concerned with errors, sure. But he is also concerned with a nonpedagogical approach to the material. An exposition in a book would identify certain inner-relationship, special cases, examples, etc. Wikipedia does not provide this. The material in wikipedia is often hard to understand even for the expert. And it is certainly not structured in such a way that it gives a beginner a good handle on the material.

Yes, the problem is with the people who think that they should rely on wikipedia only. This is exactly what Zz means with "don't use wikipedia as primary resource".

He is attacking Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY", so he is assigning the blame for the misuse of Wikipedia to Wikipedia, not to the erroneous philosophy or those misusing it. It would be like attacking the "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY" of the Feynman lectures, because some student learned something wrong from it.

 

[micromass]

He is attacking Wikipedia's "WHOLE PHILOSOPHY"

No, he isn't. He is saying that wikipedia shouldn't be used as primary resource, and that wikipedia's whole philosophy is responsible for this. This means that wikipedia's whole philosophy implies that wikipedia is not a good resource for learning (and neither would encyclopedia britannica, and neither would the Feynman lectures (but for a different reason)). Wikipedia's whole philosophy does make it a good resource for somebody already knowing the material, or somebody reading through a textbook and wanting to get another view on things.

 

[atyy]

No, he isn't. He is saying that wikipedia shouldn't be used as primary resource, and that wikipedia's whole philosophy is responsible for this. This means that wikipedia's whole philosophy implies that wikipedia is not a good resource for learning (and neither would encyclopedia britannica, and neither would the Feynman lectures (but for a different reason)). Wikipedia's whole philosophy does make it a good resource for somebody already knowing the material, or somebody reading through a textbook and wanting to get another view on things.

Well, I disagree. The Feynman lectures are a superb resource for learning, in spite of their errors.

(I also don't agree with you reading of ZapperZ's essay. But then that comes down to an exercise in English literature.)

 

[micromass]

Well, I disagree. The Feynman lectures are a superb resource for learning, in spite of their errors.

There are many good reasons why the Feynman lectures should not be used as an introductory physics book. One of the reasons to convince you should be that the original Feynman lectures at caltech were a failure. There are other reasons too.

The Feynman lectures ARE a superb resource, but you should be careful in how to use them. For example, you get a standard book like Halliday and Resnick (for intro physics), Kleppner (for mechanics), Purcell (for E&M), etc. You read a chapter in these books, do the problems, etc. Then you can check Feynman to see what he has to say about it. This way, you are using Feynman as a secondary resource. This is an amazing way to learn physics. But only relying on Feynman would be rather disastrous.

The same thing holds for wikipedia really. You get a standard book. You read a chapter, do the problems, etc. Then you can use wikipedia to check what they have to say about it. I do not have a problem with this approach since I do things this way myself. But then you are using wikipedia as an auxiliary resource, you would primarily be relying on the book. Relying primarily on wikipedia is a bad idea.

 

[atyy]

There are many good reasons why the Feynman lectures should not be used as an introductory physics book. One of the reasons to convince you should be that the original Feynman lectures at caltech were a failure. There are other reasons too.

The Feynman lectures ARE a superb resource, but you should be careful in how to use them. For example, you get a standard book like Halliday and Resnick (for intro physics), Kleppner (for mechanics), Purcell (for E&M), etc. You read a chapter in these books, do the problems, etc. Then you can check Feynman to see what he has to say about it. This way, you are using Feynman as a secondary resource. This is an amazing way to learn physics. But only relying on Feynman would be rather disastrous.

The same thing holds for wikipedia really. You get a standard book. You read a chapter, do the problems, etc. Then you can use wikipedia to check what they have to say about it. I do not have a problem with this approach since I do things this way myself. But then you are using wikipedia as an auxiliary resource, you would primarily be relying on the book. Relying primarily on wikipedia is a bad idea.

If one has a primary source, there cannot be secondary sources. A primary source according to ZapperZ means there are no other sources.

 

[micromass]

If one has a primary source, there cannot be secondary sources. A primary source according to ZapperZ means there are no other sources.

He doesn't mean this. You have misunderstood him. He gave you an example of a primary source. You incorrectly deduced that primary source means only source.

 

[mathwonk]

From reading the first part of Zapper's article, he seems to me to be saying that one should not depend on wikipedia, if one really wants to understand something and be confident about it. Even though I do consult wikipedia at times for a quick version of something, I tend to agree, and think his warning is an important one for learners.

As an example of mine, I once edited the article on wiki for the Riemann - Roch theorem, especially for curves, and some generalizations. I am not an expert, since I have done no research on this subject, but its use figured in my research almost every day for some 40 years, and I have studied it in primary sources and authoritative texts by experts such as: Riemann (the original preliminary source), Roch (the second and final original source), Weyl, Siegel, Gunning, Mumford, Walker, Fulton, Hartshorne (I also audited his course about 1967), Arbarello, Cornalba, P.A. Griffiths, Hormander, Springer, Seidenberg, J. Harris, Miranda, Mayer, Mattuck, Atiyah, Chern, Hirzebruch, Kodaira, Serre, Zariski (I also heard him lecture on it in about 1966), Van der Waerden, Lang, Macdonald, Chevalley, Beauvile, Kempf,... I also spent part of one summer writing a set of notes on the theorem and posted them on my website.
(I have not however studied perhaps the most significant work generalizing this theorem in the last 60 years, the work of Grothendieck, exposed by Borel and Serre in 1958.)

After all these years of studying secondary sources, following courses, teaching and using the result in my research, and writing it up, I only felt I really understood the theorem when an English language version of Riemann’s collected works became available in the last decade, and I studied the original articles closely, after being chosen by Math Reviews as the official reviewer.

With this insight, I edited the wiki article for the classical case of curves, making a few changes to correct misconceptions that persist among people who have not actually read Riemann’s own account, and a few attempts to render the text more concrete and down to earth. Then I retired from the fray, only to see someone come in almost immediately and remove some of the correct statements I had made, and replace them again with the usual misconceptions and needlessly abstract formulations. What appears there now, much later, is a brief, clear but unmotivated and unsubstantiated standard summary such as one might read in any elementary text or undergraduate thesis, but without proofs. So I definitely would not consult wikipedia for an authoritative account of subjects I already know enough about to write articles on them myself.

On the other hand, when I wanted to know some formulas for volumes of spheres in higher dimensions for a geometry class I was teaching, I found an excellent, clear and comprehensive statement in wikipedia, which I then checked myself by giving proofs of my own devising.

It seems that the wiki articles I have read on subjects that I understand best, are written by students or energetic amateurs who give an account of versions of the material they have read up in standard books. On topics I am not so competent in, I cannot judge whether they are written by experts, but it seldom seems the case when I am able to judge.

So I find wikipedia useful in areas where I am deficient, which is most, to provide brief statements of facts, (not always accurate), but a bit below par in the few areas where I am much more informed than average. Thus I would suggest using it as a sort of Schaums outline series, a source for quick and ready summaries of information, but in cases where one aspires to become expert oneself, I agree one should certainly read instead sources whose authors are known specialists and experts, if not the original source by the discoverer, i.e. primary sources. The danger may be that since one cannot become a scholar by depending on wiki, its overly widespread use may thus lead to a decline in scholarship. Perhaps this is what concerns ZapperZ.

By the way, if you want a good account of the classical Riemann Roch theorem, I recommend the one in the book of Griffiths and Harris, as closest in spirit to the original.

 

[jerromyjon]

a source for quick and ready summaries of information

That's what I use Wikipedia for, when I can't or won't read an entire book or article to find something small that I want to learn or share. It is usually direct and to the point, and once you then know the basic terms or concepts you can google for other sources for confirmation or elaboration.