Wikipedia & Google: Free Schooling?

[raolduke]

Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?

 

[raolduke]

The only problem that I can see with that is the lack of social interaction - the whole experience.. Another problem that arises in my mind is credibility.

 

[neurocomp2003]

credibility would be the big issue, but other than that yes free schooling..only problem is as a student (1) you have to like reading (2) you don't require hands on.

 

[siddharth]

Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?

Here's a very informative article by Chris Hillman on this issue.

Some Warnings About the Wikipedia
...

Many critics of the Wikipedia, including some who like myself have extensive experience working within the Wikipedia community, both by writing articles and by internal discussions of problems and policies, have noted that

* Wikipedia typically offers a plausible appearing (but often badly organized, error-ridden, and imbalanced) article on almost any topic, including quite technical topics in relativistic physics,
* Wikipedia articles increasingly tend to dominate Google search results in favor of more authoritative and reliable academic websites (such as the ones listed elsewhere in this website).
...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/HTML/wrong.html

 

[raolduke]

I know this is one of the problems to it but there is a lot of truth to the information posted. There would be a way to make it more powerful but its just because there isn't enough people who are informed posting, maybe because they don't care.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know this is one of the problems to it but there is a lot of truth to the information posted.

But how would you know this when you are LEARNING something new? You have no way to discriminate between what is legitimate and what is crap. I mean, just look at the stuff some people try to pass off as physics on PF alone. They probably "learned" their physics off the web too, no less.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

But how would you know this when you are LEARNING something new? You have no way to discriminate between what is legitimate and what is crap.

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

Nope. I've seen crackpot websites that made TONS of citations. But they bardardized what was written in there. People think that just because they can make references to something somehow legitimizes whatever it is they're pushing. After all, look at those websites on creationism that CITES the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a basis to argue that evolution isn't possible!

Just because they can make such references and citations does not mean they are spewing something valid.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

Nope. I've seen crackpot websites that made TONS of citations. But they bardardized what was written in there. People think that just because they can make references to something somehow legitimizes whatever it is they're pushing. After all, look at those websites on creationism that CITES the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a basis to argue that evolution isn't possible!

Just because they can make such references and citations does not mean they are spewing something valid.

Zz.

Then read the citations and judge for yourself.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then read the citations and judge for yourself.

Then why bother reading such articles in the FIRST place? Isn't it a lot more direct to simply pick up a legitimate text? Remember, your original argument was simply to just see if an article actually have citations. Now you want the person reading it to actually (i) get the citations and (ii) read them.

And how many of such references can be understood by people whose only access is wikipedia and google? Anyone who has done any considerable amount of research work and literature search can easily understand that this CAN be an involved process, where going into one paper can easily lead to another paper and another and another. Besides, physics papers are NOT meant to be pedagogically clear. They are not meant to be used as teaching tools. It certainly isn't to be used for 'schooling', whether it is free or not!

Zz.

 

[mathwonk]

well i just tried an experiment, googling "tensor products". Indeed the first two hits were for wikipedia, so i read the first article.

It was a little clunky to me, apparently written by someone who knows a lot about using them, and probably uses them in research, but is not a mathematician, and not an algebraist for sure.

The beginning of the article was a formula in coordinates, of essentially no interest to me, for understanding tensors. then later the abstract definition was given but incorrectly, as the author did not grasp that a certain set of vectors (called I there) did not in fact form a subspace, but only the generators for one.

the article was somewhat helpful, and clearly by an expert of something, but not really of tensors and not of mathematics.

then i skipped down to the third hit from google, the following link

http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/tensors3.htmlfrom cambridge university it seems. this was much better, not only error free, but more elementary, better written, and more helpful at actually understanding what tensors are and why they are defined as they are, and what problems they are designed to handle.

in fact this may be the best article i have seen on them.

i cannot see how a new learner however would know to ignore the wikipedia article in favor of this one, unless of course he adopted the apparently obvious rule advocated here, namely that cambridge university is a better source of knowledge than wikipedia U.

but fools will always eschew good advice. what can be done?

 

[Manchot]

Mathwonk, you inadvertently brought up another good point. The Wikipedia editors are all writing for different audiences. Some people, for example, might only be interested in the result of a derivation. Others might want to see that derivation in gory detail. Some might want to learn the mathematics behind tensors, while others only want to know how to use them.

 

[Quaoar]

Then why bother reading such articles in the FIRST place? Isn't it a lot more direct to simply pick up a legitimate text? Remember, your original argument was simply to just see if an article actually have citations. Now you want the person reading it to actually (i) get the citations and (ii) read them.

And how many of such references can be understood by people whose only access is wikipedia and google? Anyone who has done any considerable amount of research work and literature search can easily understand that this CAN be an involved process, where going into one paper can easily lead to another paper and another and another. Besides, physics papers are NOT meant to be pedagogically clear. They are not meant to be used as teaching tools. It certainly isn't to be used for 'schooling', whether it is free or not!

Zz.

You're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia. While some citations are scientific papers (specifically in some of the more advanced topics), most are usually links to other websites where people try to explain the topic to those who are unfamiliar with it. For the sciences, these links often belong to professors of high reputation.

Wikipedia gets your foot in the door. Assume I'm a naive middle school student and I want to know what "light" is. Wikipedia allows me to build a basic framework for my understanding, and through the citations, allows me to probe deeper if I wish.

It is totally mindless to suggest that it cannot be used for learning because it has some inaccuracies, period. Wikipedia has two advantages over books: The contents are available on-demand from any computer terminal, and it's free. Let's assume that the accuracy rate is terrible: 50%. I would rather kids learn from material that's 50% correct over not learning anything at all.

 

[ZapperZ]

You're clearly not familiar with Wikipedia. While some citations are scientific papers (specifically in some of the more advanced topics), most are usually links to other websites where people try to explain the topic to those who are unfamiliar with it. For the sciences, these links often belong to professors of high reputation.

Wikipedia gets your foot in the door. Assume I'm a naive middle school student and I want to know what "light" is. Wikipedia allows me to build a basic framework for my understanding, and through the citations, allows me to probe deeper if I wish.

It is totally mindless to suggest that it cannot be used for learning because it has some inaccuracies, period. Wikipedia has two advantages over books: The contents are available on-demand from any computer terminal, and it's free. Let's assume that the accuracy rate is terrible: 50%. I would rather kids learn from material that's 50% correct over not learning anything at all.

But books are written with a clear pedagogical character in mind. That is what makes, for example, Griffith's E&M better than, let's say, Ritz-Milford-Christy. Both of them cover essentially the SAME material, but Griffith approaches it in a clear and transparent manner. People who write such books spend almost as much effort figuring out HOW to present the material, not just spew it out and let the readers pick out what they need. That is what Wikipedia does, regardless of the accuracy of the content (which, to me, is still suspect).

I've looked at MANY pages that people on the 'net have referred to, and many of them are NOT suitable to be used for 'schooling', which is what the OP asked in the first place. You get the superficial idea of what it is, but you certainly cannot equate it to the SAME level as what you would get reading a proper textbook. There's just no comparison here. There's no effort at all, if any, put into the consideration on whether the presentation of the material is pedagogically sound. And this is of no fault of Wikipedia because, by definition, it is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia", and NOT a learning material. It is when people confuse it as such is when it is being used for what it isn't meant to be. Getting the superficial idea is NOT the same as learning the subject matter. It is not even close! Wikipedia gives the former, NOT the latter. If your argument is that people can go elsewhere afterwards, then THAT'S my whole point - you do not get the full lesson from Wikipedia! Go back to the OP and see what is being asked!

And one certainly cannot blindly accept the validity of an Wikipedia entry just because it has citations!

Zz.

 

[Ki Man]

Not everything on wikipedia is by people who know what they are talking about. Since anyone can edit it, someone can just dash in things that they heard or think is true here and there or delete things that they disagree with. Accuracy is not guranteed.

example: let's say I'm an eighth grader who just looked up the wikipedia article on 'anti-gravity.' I disagree with the first statement on the article that says "It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an equal and opposite force as a helicopter does," so I go through and edit it to say that it repels gravity and I go even further to say that a star made of Anti-matter would make anti-gravity. Credible? I doubt it

 

[Quaoar]

But books are written with a clear pedagogical character in mind. That is what makes, for example, Griffith's E&M better than, let's say, Ritz-Milford-Christy. Both of them cover essentially the SAME material, but Griffith approaches it in a clear and transparent manner. People who write such books spend almost as much effort figuring out HOW to present the material, not just spew it out and let the readers pick out what they need. That is what Wikipedia does, regardless of the accuracy of the content (which, to me, is still suspect).

I've looked at MANY pages that people on the 'net have referred to, and many of them are NOT suitable to be used for 'schooling', which is what the OP asked in the first place. You get the superficial idea of what it is, but you certainly cannot equate it to the SAME level as what you would get reading a proper textbook. There's just no comparison here. There's no effort at all, if any, put into the consideration on whether the presentation of the material is pedagogically sound. And this is of no fault of Wikipedia because, by definition, it is supposed to be an "online encyclopedia", and NOT a learning material. It is when people confuse it as such is when it is being used for what it isn't meant to be. Getting the superficial idea is NOT the same as learning the subject matter. It is not even close! Wikipedia gives the former, NOT the latter. If your argument is that people can go elsewhere afterwards, then THAT'S my whole point - you do not get the full lesson from Wikipedia! Go back to the OP and see what is being asked!

Does anyone here think that wikipedia and google are some sort of free schooling?

Perhaps you should read the original post. Does it say anything about Wikipedia and Google being your ONLY resource? No.

Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all? I'm not claiming that Wikipedia rivals any professionally written book, I'm claiming it has clear advantages over them, namely, it is freely available and accessible anywhere. Where is a middle schooler going to get the money for Griffiths? Especially one that belongs to a lower-income family? Are you going to carry Griffiths everywhere you go, along with the rest of your library?

 

[Quaoar]

Not everything on wikipedia is by people who know what they are talking about. Since anyone can edit it, someone can just dash in things that they heard or think is true here and there or delete things that they disagree with. Accuracy is not guranteed.

example: let's say I'm an eighth grader who just looked up the wikipedia article on 'anti-gravity.' I disagree with the first statement on the article that says "It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an equal and opposite force as a helicopter does," so I go through and edit it to say that it repels gravity and I go even further to say that a star made of Anti-matter would make anti-gravity. Credible? I doubt it

I dare you to try the edits you've described and see how long it takes for them to be reverted. I bet you it will be shorter than you think.

 

[cristo]

Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?

No; not if it's wrong, and not for someone who is new to a field and learning. When I was at school a teacher gave me this spelling of the word tomorrow: "tommorrow". So, I thought, the teacher's right, so I'll listen to her. A while later it was pointed out to me that she was incorrect, however I had got into the habit of spelling it incorrectly, and i messed up the spelling of that word for a long time afterwards.

Ok, maybe that's a bad example, but my point it that if you're learning from a source that may be incorrect, it could be disastrous to your learning, not to mention being a rather large waste of time!

 

[Quaoar]

No; not if it's wrong, and not for someone who is new to a field and learning. When I was at school a teacher gave me this spelling of the word tomorrow: "tommorrow". So, I thought, the teacher's right, so I'll listen to her. A while later it was pointed out to me that she was incorrect, however I had got into the habit of spelling it incorrectly, and i messed up the spelling of that word for a long time afterwards.

Ok, maybe that's a bad example, but my point it that if you're learning from a source that may be incorrect, it could be disastrous to your learning, not to mention being a rather large waste of time!

Question: How would you have spelled the word had your teacher not told you?

 

[cristo]

Question: How would you have spelled the word had your teacher not told you?

I'd probably have looked it up in the dictionary, but since my teacher was there, I asked her-- you do presume that a teacher knows the answer to your questions, especially at a young age, and if they don't, then would look up the answer themselves.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you presume that wiki is correct, then you will be in for a big suprise-- but not just in a trivial spelling of a word (like in my example). The parts of wiki that are wrong will tend not to be simple articles, but will be the more advanced articles (since there aren't as many capable of writing/checking them!) Therefore, a layperson reading these may think "yea, that makes sense", when it's really incorrect.

[As an aside, I'm sure there's been a recent thread on this subject]

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps you should read the original post. Does it say anything about Wikipedia and Google being your ONLY resource? No.

Read the title of this thread.

Isn't a superficial idea better than no idea at all?

No, it isn't, especially when the person reading it isn't AWARE that all he/she is getting is at the superficial level. I've seen WAY too many people use wikipedia like a bible, AND even using it for college term papers and homework, so much so that many schools now have banned from using it as a reference!

I'm not claiming that Wikipedia rivals any professionally written book, I'm claiming it has clear advantages over them, namely, it is freely available and accessible anywhere. Where is a middle schooler going to get the money for Griffiths? Especially one that belongs to a lower-income family? Are you going to carry Griffiths everywhere you go, along with the rest of your library?

Why not? I certainly moved with my books! And if earlier generations can certainly do that, why is the present-day generation THAT WIMPY? Have we simply settled for mediocrity instead of first-rate information? Do we simply not care anymore about the QUALITY of information that we get? Do we only need information in the form of sound-bites for people who can't sit down and properly digest the information they are getting?

I'm sorry, I don't buy this, and I certainly would not care to lower such standards just so we can give things out for "free". Furthermore, this is NOT a thread on the "merits" of Wikipedia. We have had several of those already, and you're welcome to join those and resurrect them from the dead. The OP had a very specific question regarding "schooling" using stuff that one finds on the internet. Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

I'd probably have looked it up in the dictionary, but since my teacher was there, I asked her-- you do presume that a teacher knows the answer to your questions, especially at a young age, and if they don't, then would look up the answer themselves.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you presume that wiki is correct, then you will be in for a big suprise-- but not just in a trivial spelling of a word (like in my example). The parts of wiki that are wrong will tend not to be simple articles, but will be the more advanced articles (since there aren't as many capable of writing/checking them!) Therefore, a layperson reading these may think "yea, that makes sense", when it's really incorrect.

[As an aside, I'm sure there's been a recent thread on this subject]

There has been a recent thread on the subject, but I didn't really actively participate.

My point is that there are many on this forum who seem to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general and like to make blanket comments to prove a point. There's no disputing: The Internet isn't the most authoritative resource out there. However, it's *a* resource, and its one that's free and easy to access.

 

[ZapperZ]

There has been a recent thread on the subject, but I didn't really actively participate.

My point is that there are many on this forum who seem to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general and like to make blanket comments to prove a point. There's no disputing: The Internet isn't the most authoritative resource out there. However, it's *a* resource, and its one that's free and easy to access.

No one is disputing that. It is a resource of a lot of crap. Free crap.

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

Read the title of this thread.



No, it isn't, especially when the person reading it isn't AWARE that all he/she is getting is at the superficial level. I've seen WAY too many people use wikipedia like a bible, AND even using it for college term papers and homework, so much so that many schools now have banned from using it as a reference!



Why not? I certainly moved with my books! And if earlier generations can certainly do that, why is the present-day generation THAT WIMPY? Have we simply settled for mediocrity instead of first-rate information? Do we simply not care anymore about the QUALITY of information that we get? Do we only need information in the form of sound-bites for people who can't sit down and properly digest the information they are getting?

I'm sorry, I don't buy this, and I certainly would not care to lower such standards just so we can give things out for "free". Furthermore, this is NOT a thread on the "merits" of Wikipedia. We have had several of those already, and you're welcome to join those and resurrect them from the dead. The OP had a very specific question regarding "schooling" using stuff that one finds on the internet. Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong.

Zz.

The title is "Wikipedia and Google?" Tell me what I'm missing here.

"Your original contention that one can distinguish between valid and garbage information simply based on the availability of citation is STILL clearly wrong."

That was absolutely not my contention, you read a single sentence and extrapolated my contention without any evidence. I followed up with saying that one needs to read the cited work to gauge credibility. Clearly you are letting your animosity towards Wikipedia get in the way of your judgment.

You seem to be a master at reading into things I didn't say and ignoring things I did say, so I'm done with this conversation. No use arguing with those who refuse to listen.

 

[cristo]

My point is that there are many on this forum who seem to be completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia in general and like to make blanket comments to prove a point.

Huh? I use wikipedia, but only for things that aren't important. It's got an article about pretty much everything you could possibly want. However, wiki is not where I would go to learn technical subjects, since I know that there's a high probabilty that there will be mistakes. I use books or lecture notes freely available on university websites.

So, I've not made a blanket comment to make a point, but I have simply stated (what is more or less) a fact: wiki should not be used as a source of schooling.

 

[Quaoar]

Huh? I use wikipedia, but only for things that aren't important. It's got an article about pretty much everything you could possibly want. However, wiki is not where I would go to learn technical subjects, since I know that there's a high probabilty that there will be mistakes. I use books or lecture notes freely available on university websites.

So, I've not made a blanket comment to make a point, but I have simply stated (what is more or less) a fact: wiki should not be used as a source of schooling.

And I disagree, I think it can be used as a source of schooling if other options are not readily available. Besides, the consensus seems to be that its pretty accurate for broad low-level topics, which is where I think it is the most useful.

 

[ZapperZ]

That was absolutely not my contention, you read a single sentence and extrapolated my contention without any evidence. I followed up with saying that one needs to read the cited work to gauge credibility. Clearly you are letting your animosity towards Wikipedia get in the way of your judgment.

In message #7, you quote JUST this part of my post:

But how would you know this when you are LEARNING something new? You have no way to discriminate between what is legitimate and what is crap.

And this is ALL that you answered:

Yes you do, it's called a citation. If an article is not properly cited, you shouldn't believe what is written there.

That's it! You answered my question simply by using the fact that an article must have citations. Period.

Only later on when I challenged the rational of that kind of a response did you then say that one ALSO has to read the citations, to which I then addressed the fallacy of such a thing, considering that in many cases, those citations cite other published papers and even textbooks! Why not go directly there in the first place?

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

Why not go directly there in the first place?

Because you were ignoring the fact that there could even be citations. I didn't feel it necessary to explain that they have to be good citations, that should have been obvious from the word "proper".

 

[ZapperZ]

Because you were ignoring the fact that there could even be citations. I didn't feel it necessary to explain that they have to be good citations, that should have been obvious from the word "proper".

"properly cited" doesn't say anything about the article itself. There are plenty of crackpot websites that "properly cited" many physics papers. You somehow seem to ONLY think that I can't read and "ignoring the fact that" it is what you WROTE that does not correspond to what you mean!

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

"properly cited" doesn't say anything about the article itself. There are plenty of crackpot websites that "properly cited" many physics papers. You somehow seem to ONLY think that I can't read and "ignoring the fact that" it is what you WROTE that does not correspond to what you mean!

Zz.

Sure it does, if you read the citations, which you SHOULD do. You seem to think I meant "proper" as in the article writer successfully linked to another page. I mean proper as in the citation is relevant and supports the argument of the article.

What I wrote is exactly what I mean. You're too stubborn to understand that you simply misinterpreted what I wrote.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sure it does, if you read the citations, which you SHOULD do. You seem to think I meant "proper" as in the article writer successfully linked to another page. I mean proper as in the citation is relevant and supports the argument of the article.

What I wrote is exactly what I mean. You're too stubborn to understand that you simply misinterpreted what I wrote.

Oy vey. And all the others that also questioned your insistence of using Wikipedia in the way you "intended" are also "stubborn" and didn't interpret you correctly? As I recall, the discussion here is MORE than just "properly cited". For some odd reason, you ignored the OP original premise.

Besides, would you like to, for example, check the Wikipedia page on "Photoemission Spectroscopy" and tell me if that page would qualify as having "properly cited" citations?

Again, I can easily show you many crackpot webpages that used "relevant citations" to support their argument. Just go to Crank Dot Net if you don't believe me. You want these people who, by your own arguments, do not have access to such journals and texts, to do their own research on things they can't get access to. Yet, you argued to let them have even wrong and superficial information, which means that they don't have to care about those "citations". So on the one hand, it is OK for them to have such superficial and wrong info. But on the other hand, you insist that they have to check the validity of that info by digging into those citations. What happened to the virtues of having even 50% wrong info that you were selling just a few minutes ago?

Zz.

 

[Quaoar]

Oy vey. And all the others that also questioned your insistence of using Wikipedia in the way you "intended" are also "stubborn" and didn't interpret you correctly? As I recall, the discussion here is MORE than just "properly cited". For some odd reason, you ignored the OP original premise.

Besides, would you like to, for example, check the Wikipedia page on "Photoemission Spectroscopy" and tell me if that page would qualify as having "properly cited" citations?

Again, I can easily show you many crackpot webpages that used "relevant citations" to support their argument. Just go to Crank Dot Net if you don't believe me. You want these people who, by your own arguments, do not have access to such journals and texts, to do their own research on things they can't get access to. Yet, you argued to let them have even wrong and superficial information, which means that they don't have to care about those "citations". So on the one hand, it is OK for them to have such superficial and wrong info. But on the other hand, you insist that they have to check the validity of that info by digging into those citations. What happened to the virtues of having even 50% wrong info that you were selling just a few minutes ago?

Zz.

Oy vey yourself. Go back and read what I read, I'm through arguing.

 

[ZapperZ]

Oy vey yourself. Go back and read what I read, I'm through arguing.

When have I heard that one before?

And oh, oh, here's a good one! Check out Wikipedia's "Particle Accelerator" page. It is "properly cited", I'm sure! So can someone go through ALL of those citations and find for me, oh, let's make it easy, 2 glaring errors?

Zz.

 

[kdinser]

If I know absolutely nothing about a topic, I go to wiki to learn the vocabulary. Then, depending on how much I need to know and how important my understanding is, I'll look for other websites using the vocabulary that I was able to get from wiki sites. As anyone with any web experience will tell you, knowing the vocabulary is the most important thing when it comes to good searching practices.

Bottom line to me is, wiki is useful for a lay person to get the very most basic under standing about a subject, and I wouldn't trust it at all for anything past first year or 1.5 year college. Even then, I would look for other collaboration before I used it as a source.

 

[ZapperZ]

If I know absolutely nothing about a topic, I go to wiki to learn the vocabulary. Then, depending on how much I need to know and how important my understanding is, I'll look for other websites using the vocabulary that I was able to get from wiki sites. As anyone with any web experience will tell you, knowing the vocabulary is the most important thing when it comes to good searching practices.

Bottom line to me is, wiki is useful for a lay person to get the very most basic under standing about a subject, and I wouldn't trust it at all for anything past first year or 1.5 year college. Even then, I would look for other collaboration before I used it as a source.

I think for most "professionals" who do use Wikipedia, I think they do what you are doing here, which is simply as a quick source to look up the references.

But it is interesting that you mentioned about "vocabulary". This is because the Particle Accelerator page that I mentioned made one glaring, but understandable mistake in terms of vocabulary. They took the word "linac" literally and used it in ways in which people in the accelerator community do not. For example, while we would certainly categorize SLAC as a "linear accelerator", we do not call SLAC a "linac", even when linac means "linear accelerator". A "linac" is the name reserved for the structure that actually does the accelerating. The whole SLAC beamline does not do this. Rather SLAC has several of these "linac" structures along the beamline. These are the structures that will do the accelerating. The rest of SLAC beamline is really nothing more than drift tubes.

So here, if you had used that Wikipedia page, you would have gotten a wrong "vocabulary", because that article was probably written by someone who isn't working in accelerator physics and did not realize how such a word was used.

Zz.

Edit: P.S. Because of this thread, I went back and look at 3 Wikipedia webpages that I am familiar with (Photoemission Spectroscopy, Particle Accelerator, and High Tc Superconductors) and they ALL still have enough mistakes to make someone get gloriously wrong info. Nothing has changed in at least a year, even when someone did correct the error I pointed out on here about that one silly thing in the Particle Accelerator page.

 

[Quaoar]

Funny that you have enough time to track all these "glaring" errors, but not enough time to fix them. Of course, that would make Wikipedia more correct, and weaken your argument when you rail against it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Funny that you have enough time to track all these "glaring" errors, but not enough time to fix them. Of course, that would make Wikipedia more correct, and weaken your argument when you rail against it.

It isn't my job. By it's nature, nothing that I correct will stay.

And no, I didn't go out SEEKING these things. These 3 pages were brought to MY attention one way or the other. The worst part was the Accelerator Physics page. I had high school students visiting our facilities a couple of years ago, and they thought they should "read up" on what they will be seeing by looking it up on Wikipedia. BIG MISTAKE! When they started asking really weird questions that had rather strange "connection", I asked them where they found all of these things. Bingo!

That's when I looked up the page and was horrified how these things get passed down. I could spend A CAREER doing nothing but correcting these pages. I can correct these and there will be TONS more just like it. Still don't believe me? I just did a quick look for the very first time on the tunneling spectroscopy page. Anyone who depends on that page for the definition of "normalized tunneling" deserves everything that's coming.

If people who STILL think Wikipedia is a valid reference, then there's nothing the rest of us can do to save them from themselves!

BTW, rather than making an effort in trying to bad-mouth me, why don't you answer my question if such pages qualify to you as having "proper citations"? But then again, you keep saying you're through with this. Didn't last long just like that last time, did it?

How come you are not doing this as an experiment? I presume you are not an expert in accelerator physics. So look at the particle accelerator page, follow the citations, and tell me if you can find the errors on that page. 2 would be sufficient (there's more than that). If you can do that, then you have proven your point that someone who doesn't know anything about it CAN, in fact, distinguish between which are facts and which are garbage if that person follows through with reading all the necessary citations given on a Wikipedia page. Go on. Take the challenge.

Zz.

 

[tronter]

I agree with ZapperZ. Wikipedia is not a good source to learn a subject. Moreover, even most online lecture notes and books are very mediocre. Learn a subject properly, by going through a good textbook on the subject. They have been peer reviewed, so textbooks are legitimate sources of information.

 

[mathwonk]

it is not true that all online texts are mediocre. those of james milne are excellent.

 

[Quaoar]

It isn't my job. By it's nature, nothing that I correct will stay.

And no, I didn't go out SEEKING these things. These 3 pages were brought to MY attention one way or the other. The worst part was the Accelerator Physics page. I had high school students visiting our facilities a couple of years ago, and they thought they should "read up" on what they will be seeing by looking it up on Wikipedia. BIG MISTAKE! When they started asking really weird questions that had rather strange "connection", I asked them where they found all of these things. Bingo!

That's when I looked up the page and was horrified how these things get passed down. I could spend A CAREER doing nothing but correcting these pages. I can correct these and there will be TONS more just like it. Still don't believe me? I just did a quick look for the very first time on the tunneling spectroscopy page. Anyone who depends on that page for the definition of "normalized tunneling" deserves everything that's coming.

If people who STILL think Wikipedia is a valid reference, then there's nothing the rest of us can do to save them from themselves!

BTW, rather than making an effort in trying to bad-mouth me, why don't you answer my question if such pages qualify to you as having "proper citations"? But then again, you keep saying you're through with this. Didn't last long just like that last time, did it?

How come you are not doing this as an experiment? I presume you are not an expert in accelerator physics. So look at the particle accelerator page, follow the citations, and tell me if you can find the errors on that page. 2 would be sufficient (there's more than that). If you can do that, then you have proven your point that someone who doesn't know anything about it CAN, in fact, distinguish between which are facts and which are garbage if that person follows through with reading all the necessary citations given on a Wikipedia page. Go on. Take the challenge.

Zz.

Actually isn't it funny how we fight to have the last word? You're no better than I am. No matter what I say, you have to answer. I guess that's how you have 8500 posts!

And to answer your question, none of the articles you've provided have proper citations (Namely, they provide some external links and links to other Wikipedia articles, but individual sentences are never cited). All I see is confirmation bias from you, which I hope doesn't extend to your professional life.

And lastly, put up or shutup. You've now incidentally visited 4 Wikipedia articles with errors, most of which sound like they could be corrected with the removal of a sentence, which you could do anonymously and would take 5 seconds of your time. How about you go ahead and improve the articles that bother you?

 

[Thrice]

Initiates claim wikipedia fails at esoteric subject. News at 11.

Eh. Collaborative authoring is here to stay. I've also seen sections on wikipedia that would probably still be wrong if I had spent those 10 min at PF instead.

I sometimes wonder if you guys object to errors, or to the idea of a common.

 

[gravenewworld]

It is sad that NO ONE uses libraries anymore. Your reference librarian>> google/wiki.

Recently, I was a judge for a local science fair competition for grades 4-8. One of the requirements for the competition was that the students were required to keep a log book of their experimental procedures and have the references cited for all the research they did. 95% of the students either A.) referenced wikipedia or B.) referenced some other strange website they found on the internet.

As someone who worked in the reference section in the library for their entire undergraduate career, this is absolutely atrocious. 80% of the information on the internet is pure garbage. I bet there are tons of students in high school and college who have no idea what things like pubmed, scifinder, lexus nexus, etc. are. What is really disturbing is the fact that when I worked in reference there were seniors in college who had no idea how the LC system worked in the library. SENIORS FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! So many freshman come in having no idea how to even find a book on the shelf in the library.

Some tips for finding credible information on the internet:-There better be no advertisements. If you see one advertisement, you should question the source immediately.

-The author should list their name/email/and last update on the webpage.

-.com website=terrible source for info. .ORG used to be good, but those websites have gone down the tube for reliability. Stick mostly to websites that end in .gov, .mil, or .edu

-if you are going to use google, at least start out using google scholar
-GO SEE YOUR REFERENCE LIBRARIAN. THEY CAN FIND INFO ON JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. I used to laugh at the fact that universities offered degrees in "library science", but goddamn reference librarians know a TON. You definitely need a degree to sort through the mind blowing amount of information that is out there. There is a reason why your university pays in excess of $80-100,000 per year for certain journals and databases! USE THEM!

I know I sound like an information nazi and you will always see me questioning people's sources of information on these boards, but that is simply because of the fact that I worked in reference for so long as a student.

 

[Ki Man]

Actually isn't it funny how we fight to have the last word? You're no better than I am. No matter what I say, you have to answer. I guess that's how you have 8500 posts!

no... that's from using his experience as a prof. to help people with physics and their research goals for the last few years...

fighting for the last word? you've "left" this thread 3 times... all he's done is reply

it is not true that all online texts are mediocre. those of james milne are excellent.

I agree that not all are mediocre but finding a credible one and verifying its crediblity may take a bit of searching because usually the good stuff is burried under mountains of useless resources. I'd say a good 98% of the internet is nothing but a waste of bandwith.

If I know absolutely nothing about a topic, I go to wiki to learn the vocabulary. Then, depending on how much I need to know and how important my understanding is, I'll look for other websites using the vocabulary that I was able to get from wiki sites.

I use wiki for stuff like learning the basics of soccer. When it comes to something more technical like learning what a quasar is or what the colors of quarks are, I would just take a quick glance at wiki but then try to find a more reliable source elsewhere, mainly this forum.



I think I have learned more physics from looking over threads and posting my 'humble' opinion on things here over the last few months than I learned through taking a full year of 8th grade physical science. yay PF!



A wiki article is usually just a flake of snow on the tip of the iceburg. Real texts are much more reliable and all it takes is a library card and means of transportation.

One of the problems I think we have today is an addiction to speed. Satisfying for mediocrity is alright as long as it takes as little time and effort as possible

 

[Quaoar]

you've "left" this thread 3 times... all he's done is reply

2 times. Let's just say I get frustrated with stubbornness.

 

[mathwonk]

i have done the searching for you. my threads here recommend good books.

 

[tronter]

I guess online books and course notes would be okay then. But, in my opinion, nothing beats studying from an actual book. The screen hurts your eyes.

 

[mathwonk]

i also recommend hard copy books. whatever you want. i also prefer them. used copies are often available at abebooks.com

 

[ZapperZ]

Actually isn't it funny how we fight to have the last word? You're no better than I am. No matter what I say, you have to answer. I guess that's how you have 8500 posts!

... and I never to be "better" than you. However, I do tend to go with my word when I say that I would do something.

And to answer your question, none of the articles you've provided have proper citations (Namely, they provide some external links and links to other Wikipedia articles, but individual sentences are never cited). All I see is confirmation bias from you, which I hope doesn't extend to your professional life.

And how do you expect high school kids, people off the street, and someone who is just learning the subject matter to KNOW that these do not have "proper citations"? Which leads me to believe that you are looking for actual citations to journal papers. But doesn't this defeat that whole purpose of having FREELY available articles for the poor masses that you are so championing?

And unless I missed it, you NEVER BOTHERED to actually provide an example of a page that has one! I at least tried to illustrate several examples of what I am trying to convey. In other words, I don't just make empty accusations about Wikipedia without any supporting evidence.

And lastly, put up or shutup. You've now incidentally visited 4 Wikipedia articles with errors, most of which sound like they could be corrected with the removal of a sentence, which you could do anonymously and would take 5 seconds of your time. How about you go ahead and improve the articles that bother you?

Who said I've visited only 4? I said that these are the 4 that I've tracked over the years because I decided to pay attention to how they have evolved. I've seen WAY more than that because inevitably, people on here would somehow use an entry there as a source. I've certainly seen WAY more than 4, thankyouverymuch!

And no, I'm not correcting those. The issue isn't JUST those 4 articles. The issue is the inherent flaw in the whole concept of Wikpedia. I'm involved with the wiki project done by the condensed matter division of the APS. THIS, I would spend my time for, not Wikipedia. There are more effective means to disseminating information and knowledge on the web.

Zz.

 

[raolduke]

Doesn't the same rule of interpretation apply to wikipedia similar to how you interpret a book? The nice thing about wikipedia, and the rest of the web but wikipedia especially, they offer references that you can view instantly.. Of course it’s all based on personal interpretation and whether or not you chose to believe in the information in question but online sources of information offer instant citation.

 

[ZapperZ]

Doesn't the same rule of interpretation apply to wikipedia similar to how you interpret a book? The nice thing about wikipedia, and the rest of the web but wikipedia especially, they offer references that you can view instantly.. Of course it’s all based on personal interpretation and whether or not you chose to believe in the information in question but online sources of information offer instant citation.

It depends on what book you buy and under what circumstances. One would think that if it is a required school text, then there's a very strong likelyhood that this is a well-tested material and is pedagogically sound. If you buy a book about, let's say, quantum field theory and it is written by Steven Weinberg, there's a very good chance that you are not reading crackpottery. However, if you buy Deepak Chopra book on quantum field theory, then you're up the creek!

It all boils down to examining the SOURCE of the info you are getting. It isn't about Wikipedia, it isn't about buying textbooks, it isn't about looking at journals. It is about the QUALITY of the source! With everyone getting their news and info from the web, people seem to somehow no longer care where their info comes from. Even dubious sources get passed on.

You will note that all the 3 Wikipedia articles that I've mentioned have "references" that you can also view instantly. Again, I asked for a simple experiment whereby you look at those articles, and the corresponding references, and see if you (i) learn anything and (ii) can figure out if there are mistakes in those articles. If you don't, then I have proven that someone who does not know about the material cannot tell if he/she actually got a correct and accurate information out of such a thing. You'll never get that type of error in a text on particle accelerators.

So if those kinds of errors can occur, how are you able to trust the rest of what you read? Again, this brings us back to the source and the quality of the source. In physics especially, one can do so much better in seeking other sources to teach oneself about various subjects.

Zz.