* James Kanze:
> On Aug 1, 9:46 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
>> * James Kanze:
>>> On Aug 1, 1:22 am, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
>>>> * James Kanze:
>
>>>>> On Jul 31, 12:34 pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> James Kanze wrote:
>>>>>>> The Wikipedia is fun for a lot of things, but it can
>>>>>>> hardly be considered a source of reliable information.
>
>>>>>> So the urban legend says, yet I have yet to see with my own
>>>>>> eyes unrealiable information there. Sure, there are examples.
>>>>>> I just haven't seen any myself.
>
>>>>> I've run into a number of them. But that's not the point. The
>>>>> point is that there is no guarantee of reliability; unless you
>>>>> already know the answer, you don't know whether what the article
>>>>> says is correct or not.
>
>>>> Sorry friend James, I have to disagree strongly with you there.
>
>>>> There's no such thing as absolute correctness: it's just a
>>>> question of probability of correctness, and Wikipedia compared
>>>> favorably to old Encylopedia Britannica in that respect last
>>>> time it was checked.
>
>>> And that is simply false. (Although in fact, I don't think it
>>> was ever checked.)
>
>> Now, now, listen to Alf, I say.
>
>> <url:http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html>
>
>> "Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as
>> Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world
>> around us, according to a study published this week [December 15, 2005]
>> in the journal Nature."
>
> Did you read the rest of the article?

Yes, and of course I read that when it happened; I just googled up a
version for your convenience.

This version also has a discussion forum, in the spirit of Wikipedia! <g>

Worth skimming, at least, if you haven't.


[snip]

> There's no simple solution; learning any complex subject is
> difficult, and involves real work. And intellectual laziness
> seems to be the in thing these days: everyone just wants to "plug
> in" expert knowledge, and imagines that they can. And the
> Wikipedia (perhaps not intentionally) panders to this attitude.
> (In a way, so does any encyclopedia. But there's something
> about having to physically go to the bookshelf, and lift a heavy
> tome, that suggests that some work is involved. Today, you just
> Google, take the first hit, and consider yourself an expert.)

I think that's an academic problem.

For I have yet to encounter anyone basing their "expert" advice, opinion
or alleged fact on simple googling or Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I've learned much from Wikipedia, but mostly of the
kind "there's much more to know but you won't find it here". E.g. I was
interested in processing RGB colors and found some very interesting
information about that, including the inability of current systems to do
violet correctly. But the experimental basis was just roughly sketched,
and not discussed in any critical way (Wikipedians have as guideline to
not present "original research", and that means criticality also goes
down the drain, throwing out baby with bathwater); the calibration
functions were not explained; and so forth; and experimenting with the
data files, using best interpretation of Wikipedia explanations and
explanation in linked-to articles, produced very awful colors. Still,
its worthwhile, you get the big picture and clear indications of what
the not-discussed parts are (where you need a textbook or research
articles or whatever, perhaps some expert). And so you can with a very
good conscience refer to Wikipedia articles as places to learn more.

Cheers,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?