Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource? I read wikipedia science articles a lot and sometimes wonder if things are correct. I assume things that are referenced to academic papers are going to have a good chance of being correct, but it's not uncommon for half the article to be unsourced. Sometimes i'll check the Talk page of an article to see if people are complaining about stuff in the article, and while I've seen it happen a few times it doesn't seem that common, so I assume most articles are decent. Do you have any examples of science articles on Wikipedia that are blatantly wrong? Not just because you have a hunch they're wrong, but you actually know some statement is verifiably incorrect.While the Out of Africa theory is often debated on /sci/, the Talk page on wikipedia is basically empty, which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humansThe Climate Change article though has almost 100 pages of people arguing against the content of the article, with lots of comments like this one for example. So I assume there is likely problems with the article content, or important information isn't being includedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change/Archive_93#Intellectually_dishonest_presentation_of_the_subject_of_climate_change
unfunny retard
>>16168979>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress_Classificationno i am
>>16168962>science resourceYoure wading through militarized propaganda cliques, none of that is "science".>which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.Actual scientists get kicked, even out of Harvard...where the fuck have you been the last 10 years?!I do research in both of those fields, I wouldnt even look for research in those fields on wikipedia (lmao...no....). I work with direct papers and peers, youre not allowed in except through me.
>>16168962>Out of AfricaEvolutionary Biology (Hybridizations/Symbosis).>Climate ChangeGeoPhysics or GeoEngineering?Heh...
Wikipedia is completely ideologically captured. Even its co-founded denounces it now, and Jimbo himself sounds so blackpilled about it (serving purely as a mascot nowadays) he might as well join in formally denouncing it.
It's good, don't listen to schizos. Just like with anything, you should check the sources and not believe everything at face value, but you are already doing that. I would be skeptical of recent information and debates, anything political, but for general science resource? It's safe. No one cares about the correct distance between Mercury and the Sun except the nerds that want to have it right.
>>16168962wikipedia is great as a general science source yes, the kind of people who disagree with it are the same ones triggered by out of africa theory (by the way noone in modern science disputes it, it's just retards here)
>>16169002by the way this person is a schizophrenic off his meds that goes for 100s of replies talking to himselfcheck the archive for his name
>>16169021>Evolutionary Biology (Hybridizations/Symbosis).You dont have a PhD in ANYTHING....DO YOU?!?>>16169019>you should check the sourcesHes not interested in reading research papers in fields he has zero technical training in....THIS IS WHY YOU CANT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND PROPAGANDA.YOURE A FUCKING SLAVE BECAUSE YOURE TOO STUPID TO NOT BE.
>>16169020>some guy on the internet tells you so its okayLook, its wikipedia in action.
>>16169020>the kind of people who disagree with it are the same ones triggered by out of africa theoryYoure not a Geneticist, neither Evolutionary Biologist.The ones that ree about it got fired from tenure....youre a LARPing jackass.>>16169021>>16169019Same for these retards.IDEOLOGICALLY CAPTURED SOULS.GET THE FUCK OUT, "CULTURAL-SCIENTISTS".
>>16169019Burn in hell, DEI nigger.
>Cultural ScientistSomeone that confuses authority and power with the truth or competency.Stop being transparent.
>>16169042that is not how wikipedia works, it's a community run website with standards for citations and sourcesdilate
>>16169019>MercuryI entered a town called that in my Caves of Qud game this evening.I need 100% (or median equivalent) rigor, STAT! (STAT means bong hit time. I have problem but Im meaning well.)
>>16168962>Do you have any examples of science articles on Wikipedia that are blatantly wrong? Not just because you have a hunch they're wrong, but you actually know some statement is verifiably incorrect.Yes.Everything on corona or climate change.
>>16168962>While the Out of Africa theory is often debated on /sci/, the Talk page on wikipedia is basically empty, which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the article.Bait:>Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4Shovelling stuff into archives is the time tested method, and people like OP fall for it, every single time.
>>16169006The political sections are, and some of politically contentious science topis, but that's only like 1% of the content. I mostly read space stuff and ancient history stuff. There's very few, if any, politically charged articles in there
>>16169172>the two most politically sensitive topics
>>16169085>>Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4I didn't even notice that. Gee, now i feel like a dirty wikipedia admin. 4 is a few, but very contentious topics tend to have dozens. Still, looks like a few people are arguing there
>>16169180space and ancient history ? If I read an article about galaxies, or an article about dinosaurs, there's pretty much zero political comments or anything people might get offended by.
>>16168962Wikipedia is okay as a *guide*, but it should be the *beginning* of your research on a topic, not the end. Follow citations in a Wikipedia article to the original papers, and then follow those papers to papers citing or cited by them, branch out and get a fuller picture of whatever topic is discussed.You have to remember - Wiki articles are written to be cliff notes summaries of topics, and the people writing these summaries are volunteers and rarely experts.
>>16169206thisdon't let it be the end of your research but don't dismiss it either
>>16169195anon is probably a christian and is upset about the world being older than 6000 years
>>16169186About 20 years ago I was a Wiki writer. Not an editor, I wrote entire articles, just to see half were raided by deletionists. Stuffing archives is an old trick but there are other tricks to sanitize articles too. I am not sure how they do it but it essentially resets the history and the comments. I guess "memoryhole" is a better term.The whole site is a train wreck in progress and I have given up on it. I am not impressed that AI are trained on the finest curated politically correct sources such as Reddit and, indeed, Wikipedia. People say they don't understand why AI can hallucinate. Personally I suspect it reflects on the mental illnesses of the regulars at both of those places. I'd like to see a comparison with AI trained on 4chan plus X after Musk took over.
>>16169195>>16169292Space and ancient history are the two most politically significant topics from a certain point of view.
>>16169295The whole site is nothing more than a propaganda battleground. We had iranian frauds going around changing every single article regarding history to try and pass off 'iran' as being older than china and india.There have been edit wars over Tibet related articles as far back as early 2000s being directed by the chinese intelligence.Now Ukrainian and CIA-State front groups are all over any articles related to Ukraine.
>>16169295Wikipedia has uploaded full archives or their site for many years How could it be faked
>>16169397There are two methods here. First is essentially the equivalent of sliding. The second would be modifying the archived records. Who is the third party archiving wikipedia?
>>16169397>Wikipedia has uploaded full archives or their site for many yearsThat is what they tell you.
>>16168962read stuff you don't know about => wow, so informative!read stuff you are an expert in => an idiot wrote this
>>16169795This.Take for example, any articles on 'Anti-Semitism', or 'Rothschild Dynasty, Section: Anti-Semetic Trope'. You can read any article about the War in Ukraine. Assuming you haven't been living under a rock for the last three to five years, you would understand that it's incredibly easy to falsify the true picture.
>>16169449I think Sanger is just criticizing the fact that there's a fair few biased editors. But I don't think that means he's criticizing the content of the entire website. Like if I look up a page about the element Zirconium there's no political statements or really anything that can be taken as biased. I don't think Sanger was complaining about that stuffWhat I do think Sanger was complaining about was instances like when Elon Musk was publishing the "Twitter Files" about FBI agents working at twitter and soforth. The information was culturally relevant, especially for conservatives, and involved notable people and one of the main biased political wikipedia editors tried to delete the page less than 30 minutes after it was createdhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_InvestigationAnd then after it wasn't deleted the article itself was incredibly biased and the Talk page was fully of totally biased people, same old people you see on basically every contentious political page
>>16169795>read stuff you don't know about => wow, so informative!well, not really. That's why I'm asking about it
>>16170197>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_InvestigationI remember back when the 4chan article was on that list.
>>16170975I was a small part of that edit war. They took down moot's personal page so many times, it wasn't until he was featured in the Washington Post that they stopped trying to get rid of it. They still have him listed under a fake name.
>>16169059kek
>>16168962Wikipedia says race is a social construct, which doesn't make any sense. I've seen citations for sources that contradicted what was being stated on Wikipedia, but it was easy to correct myself.The main reason Wikipedia sucks is because it doesn't explain things in a good amount of detail for many subjects like math. You cannot always keep clicking on what you don't know until you build up the pre-requisite knowledge to understand the Wikipedia page you want to. That would be incredible if it could do that. I bet it can be done.
>>16168962Fine for anything that is (not even remotely) political. Avoid for anything else. For math it's excellent. I don't know about physics but I would assume pretty good.
>>16172611>For math it's excellent.When it comes to saying things that are true it is, but the communication is terrible, like you cannot click on a mathematical symbol if you don't know what it means and have it teach you. You have to find a course on math to take, and eventually get to the place where you can learn what the symbol means. And before GPT-4, some of the symbols were impossible to search for.
>>16172608>The main reason Wikipedia sucks is because it doesn't explain things in a good amount of detail for many subjects like mathfor now.... it's an ever-expanding and improving process.The more I use and enhance it (I'm a geologist, so I maintain several geology sections), the more I like it. I'm even a donor.
>>16172662
>>16168962No. Oh god, no. Hell, no.-t. currently an Extended Confirmed user (there's only like 50,000 or so, a very small group in the grand scheme of things).
>>16173059hehe, little by little, people build nice things!:)
>>16172608Rome wasn't built in one day.Name one website that achieves what wikipedia is trying to achieve but better ? there is none. I suspect people who complain about it all the time are people who get all their information from twitter posts and never bother to check anything. Wikipedia is a convenient summary that can lead you to other places and give you a quick overview of the subject you're looking into
>>16174510>what wikipedia is trying to achieveAh yes, the one true Scotsman.
>>16174587coward, you're quick to criticize other people's work yet even quicker to avoid confrontationHow about you respond without trying to preemptively accusing me of commiting fallacies
>>16174611NTA but the examples posted in this thread alone completely devastate any case for using wikipedia for *anything*, let alone science. Even consulting ones own psychadelic visions would be more accurate.
>>16174619let's take the first one then, about the "out of Africa" theory. I'm not particularly familiar with it, but what are the verifiably wrong statements in it and what other encyclopedia handles the subject better ?
>>16168962Why has the number of Wikipedia articles in English been stuck at ~6mil since 2010?
>>16174438Nice, you realize that what he created is editable, yes?Thank you Steven! We're all in this together!
>>16174510>Wikipedia is a convenient summary that can lead you to other places and give you a quick overview of the subject you're looking into
>>16168962Only retards like Jewehr from this website dispute the Out of Africa. None of them even try to debunk the genetic and archaeological evidence.
>>16175845>archaeological"Paleoanthropology" is the term you're looking for. Archaeology is the study of human culture and civilization. Everything else you posted is wrong too
>>16176537>"the study of human history andprehistorythrough theexcavationof sites and the analysis ofartifactsand other physical remains" [Google]Archaeology was exactly the term I was looking for, Jewehr. Bomblos Cave, as well as many other african sites, is older than anything from the Aurignacian in Europe. There is no need to seek self-humiliation by summoning Paleoanthropology, Primatology, Evolutionary Anthropology, or its minor areas.>Everything else you posted is wrong tooElaborate.
>>16175141You try edit anything of that. It will be reverted in milliseconds. Many of these guys use bots to protect their writings.
>>16176568>bonobos cave
>>16175845my issue isn't out of africa it's the timelineto be blatantly honest, it's far too conservativehumans have been around much longer than we think
>>16168962Yes, I generally don't trust wikipedia but the mathematics and science articles are by in large accurate.
>>16168962>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?not for politics and history.
>>16174510Name an encyclopedia written, edited, and censored by state actors. Your claim is retarded.
>>16178378If you have ever pledged the allegiance to the flag...you are a self admitted agent of the State.Are you now, or have you ever been, a "patriot", Mr. Anonymous?
>>16178374>science
>>16168962Why did you fuck with the layout and turn every device into a mobile device?
>>16169172every section is a political section
>>16179294
>>16168962I guess so. So many wiki articles are so incomprehensible, only the people who wrote them could truly understand them.
wikipedia is as legit as cnn, npr, the washington post and the new york times, its all the same bucket of goyslop
>>16168962for math and science sure, for political and historical events that are modern there could be certain biases.
>>16182079found the bus stop masturbator
>>16168962For general shit maybe, for specific information not at all or rather its a hit or miss you might encounter some really well written article and then get into total shit second later.Like if you want to be an expert in something, forget it.
It's not so good math, jerks off logicians and set theorists too hard
>>16185875yep, thats a propaganda outlet
>>16168962The Doppler effect article is heavily censored and doesn't include any discussion of what happens if the source is traveling at an angle to the receiver or vice versa. Hint: what's the Doppler shift of a source passing a receiver at 90 degrees (instead of 0 or 180)? The answer may surprise you. Also, Wikipedia's article on special relativity claims that it's been "experimentally verified".
>>16185875lol. Wikipedia is just another cult trying to distort reality.
>>16169186Could include these since it's relevant.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humanshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans/Dormant_since_2009https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans/Archive_1
>>16187146gee, i wonder who could've been behind all that pilpul
They reverted my edit to the Corinth canal article about Lee Iacoca sourcing the leather for LeBaron interiors from that region
>>16169449He says the whole mainstream media is completely fake and gayhttps://x.com/elonmusk/status/1793531055716401222
Wikipedia doesn't even have a page about Dr. Twum, thats how shit and unscientific the site is. All they've got is a page about her older sister, who is a politician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifty_Twum-Ampofo
>>16168962Wikipedia is a site made by midwits for midwits
>>16190394>She had her BSc. in Biology from the University of Cape Coast in 1997.[8] She further had her MBA in Strategic Management in 2018.[9] She also had her BSc from the University of Ghana.[10]>Ampofo was a Science tutor at Akosombo International School before becoming a Member of Parliament.[11] She was also the Head of Science Department and Head of Examinations at the Volta River Authority.Seems like she was a scientist before she became a MP
>>16191712>twum has an older sister who is an even stronger scientist >but the older, more impressive twum remains shrouded in mystery deep in the jungles of ghana kino
>>16168962>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?yes>giant wall of text for the rest of the postfuck off
>>16185875If you actually go to the archive of that page, the pictures won't even show because the jpg file has been completely removed from the website database
>>16168962they've started to censor the "early life"-section for certain articles. (they aren't available in eglish but when you change language to hebrew then you can read it all)it is very demoralizing
>>16192830the fact that it took them this long to stop making wikipedia into jew identification tool just shows how incredibly stupid the jews running wikipedia are
>>16193235you can still use the page edit history to ID jews on the pages that have been censored
>>16169006
You must check those links in wiki, if they really say what they say.
>>16168962>which I assume means almost nobody disputes the claims made in the articleNo that just means that all conflicting points of view have been deleted by the wikipedia faggots
>>16168962Why is wikipedia so incredibly fake and gay?
>>16196489because its a propaganda outlet thinly disguised as an online encyclopedia
>>16192752Creepy
>>16198313
>>16168962>>16168996Nope.
>>16185875>>16187152It really disgusting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wxkNxVIJEM
wikipedia is a bucket of vomit, its pure propaganda
>>16200108Its a part of the jews' white genocide program
>>16199291>YT ragebaitlol lmao evenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YasukeNowhere does it say he was a samurai.
>>16168962>Is wikipedia OK as a general science resource?Yes, I learned that there are 53 genders for humans.
>>16200999no yet, but they'll eventually edit it to whatever lie they feel they can get away with
>>16201876You must've seen that a while ago, they currently list 92
>>16200999>April 2024, a new feature film spec script titled Black Samurai written by Blitz Bazawule was acquired by Warner Bros. for Bazawule to direct.Gonna cast Arab or Indian>On 15 May 2024, Ubisoft announced that a fictionalized Yasuke would be a primary character in the upcoming video game Assassin's Creed Shadows>woman dev and few troonWish prefer Taka
>>16168962It's extremely biassed towards the left, as they've conquered the entire site. It's okay, I think. But concerning topics such as transsexuality, homosexuality, race, IQ, etc., the sources are utter jokes, like statements taken from various diversity departments as scientific authorities. Seriously, look at the sources! It's either the same three, four, or five people or statements from diversity committees, committees of scientific ethics, and so forth.
>>16203659what good is an encyclopedia that can't be trusted and has to be double checked? why not just skip the encyclopedia and go straight to the independent research?
