Comments on: Why Does Wikipedia Suck on Science? http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/ a blog about predictive medicine and the future of healthcare Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:14:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: ZDNet Healthcare mobile edition http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-3/#comment-4569 ZDNet Healthcare mobile edition Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:17:15 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-4569 [...] been to circle the wagons. The coming launch of Medpedia is an attempt to draw people away from Wikipedia, and by extension any site lacking authority. The question is whether it will work. Is the issue [...] [...] been to circle the wagons. The coming launch of Medpedia is an attempt to draw people away from Wikipedia, and by extension any site lacking authority. The question is whether it will work. Is the issue [...]

]]> By: Lorima http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-3/#comment-2605 Lorima Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:17:59 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-2605 Whew, thanks to all who objected to the proposal to make Wikipedia less technical and less deep. Everytime I read a science article in Time or Newsweek I shudder at the oversimplifications, questionable generalizations, and downright erroneous information therein. I like a chatty style, but there are some subjects that can't be adequately explained in simple everyday language.. If people are interested in these topics, they're just going to have to do the work and acquire the background and vocabulary necessary to the subject. There are plenty of oversimplified popular science resources for those who want them - please let Wikipedia be as excellent and thorough as it can be. Sorry if there are typos, I can't read this as I'm typing it. Whew, thanks to all who objected to the proposal to make Wikipedia less technical and less deep. Everytime I read a science article in Time or Newsweek I shudder at the oversimplifications, questionable generalizations, and downright erroneous information therein. I like a chatty style, but there are some subjects that can’t be adequately explained in simple everyday language.. If people are interested in these topics, they’re just going to have to do the work and acquire the background and vocabulary necessary to the subject. There are plenty of oversimplified popular science resources for those who want them – please let Wikipedia be as excellent and thorough as it can be.

Sorry if there are typos, I can’t read this as I’m typing it.

]]> By: herman http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-3/#comment-604 herman Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:46:23 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-604 is politics a science?what are the approaches to the study of politics?David easton's view of the political system[1965] is politics a science?what are the approaches to the study of politics?David easton’s view of the political system[1965]

]]> By: ryisse http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-546 ryisse Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:54:17 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-546 Hi, I got here through a Google 5th-page hit for 'tensors "for dummies"', so I'm late for this discussion :) When searching for information on tensors, I found the existing four Wikipedia entries on the subject to be well thought-out and clearly written on each of their four different levels. In every field there is some need to reflect the complexity of what is presently known so that we know what there is left to discover; the layered structure does great at its job of communication while preserving the marvellous intricacy and slight aura of challenge of the field or subject. I enjoy some Wikipedia entries because they push me to learn what I didn't know I didn't know. The variety of comments here show two mutually exclusive attitudes towards difficult things: 1. Run, to another resource you can more easily understand, 2. Stand still at the article that originally shocked you, and weep and protest that it is beyond your understanding, and demand that it be changed. Clearly I prefer 1. because I get the knowledge I need (that caters to my level) in a much shorter time. In the pursuit of knowledge, Wikipedia might have grand aims to cater to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people but that (utilitarian) philosophy has never been successful anywhere in practice. As with all "repositories" of knowledge, use/leave at your discretion. Hi,
I got here through a Google 5th-page hit for ‘tensors “for dummies”‘, so I’m late for this discussion :) When searching for information on tensors, I found the existing four Wikipedia entries on the subject to be well thought-out and clearly written on each of their four different levels. In every field there is some need to reflect the complexity of what is presently known so that we know what there is left to discover; the layered structure does great at its job of communication while preserving the marvellous intricacy and slight aura of challenge of the field or subject.

I enjoy some Wikipedia entries because they push me to learn what I didn’t know I didn’t know. The variety of comments here show two mutually exclusive attitudes towards difficult things: 1. Run, to another resource you can more easily understand, 2. Stand still at the article that originally shocked you, and weep and protest that it is beyond your understanding, and demand that it be changed. Clearly I prefer 1. because I get the knowledge I need (that caters to my level) in a much shorter time.

In the pursuit of knowledge, Wikipedia might have grand aims to cater to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people but that (utilitarian) philosophy has never been successful anywhere in practice. As with all “repositories” of knowledge, use/leave at your discretion.

]]> By: Jeezy http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-448 Jeezy Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:00:22 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-448 I love wikipedia when it comes to science srouces. Anybody with the most basic scienc eknowledge can understand what you can't seem to understand. I think some science classes are in order. I love wikipedia when it comes to science srouces. Anybody with the most basic scienc eknowledge can understand what you can’t seem to understand. I think some science classes are in order.

]]> By: Das Fehlen von Ãœbersetzerqualitäten « Senfsessel http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-380 Das Fehlen von Ãœbersetzerqualitäten « Senfsessel Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:21 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-380 [...] diesem Epidemixartikel wird auf den Fluch der Fachsprache eingegangen: The Harvard Business School commonly calls this [...] [...] diesem Epidemixartikel wird auf den Fluch der Fachsprache eingegangen: The Harvard Business School commonly calls this [...]

]]> By: Donna Gooch http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-354 Donna Gooch Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:25:56 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-354 This one makes sence "One's first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything - and one's last is to come to terms with everything." This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything – and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”

]]> By: lunslgvfgc http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-210 lunslgvfgc Tue, 29 May 2007 02:26:10 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-210 Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! qzdhcjyqbaqj Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! qzdhcjyqbaqj

]]> By: Extenuating Circumstances – Bad Science Reporting: DNA, The Times http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-204 Extenuating Circumstances – Bad Science Reporting: DNA, The Times Sun, 27 May 2007 14:59:55 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-204 [...] article in Wikipedia on the genetic code (that coincidentally also perfectly illustrates the expert problem), and here’s a Human Genome Project factsheet on [...] [...] article in Wikipedia on the genetic code (that coincidentally also perfectly illustrates the expert problem), and here’s a Human Genome Project factsheet on [...]

]]> By: ernest http://thedecisiontree.com/blog/2007/05/why-does-wikipedia-suck-on-science/comment-page-2/#comment-172 ernest Fri, 18 May 2007 12:09:07 +0000 http://epidemix.org/blog/?p=72#comment-172 Science Articles on Wiki might be pedantic but they are far from sucking. As an undergraduate computer science-major i frequently use it as a resource which, in the field of CSCI, has thus far been infallible. Animations generally clarify extremely abstract material. This is also the case for many biology articles. To Meme: Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations about anything is an ass. Science Articles on Wiki might be pedantic but they are far from sucking. As an undergraduate computer science-major i frequently use it as a resource which, in the field of CSCI, has thus far been infallible. Animations generally clarify extremely abstract material. This is also the case for many biology articles.

To Meme: Anyone who makes sweeping generalizations about anything is an ass.

]]>