>anon you said you have read a lot of great books in your life and spend hours reading daily>can you share your books with us? >le me : yes here it's (picrel) >everything you will ever need to know for free!
Lol
>>25508511I unironically had this conversation. I asked a guy if he ever read non fiction and he said no, he doesn't trust them because they're just written by one guy, and if he ever wants to learn something he'll just use Wikipedia.
>>25509836was he stem and worked in tech
>>25508511I don't believe people actually read full wikipedia articles regularly
>>25509881I've probably read 20+ wikipedia articles full length, the quality of information isn't great, but the breadth and organization of information is virtually unmatched, if you know how to read it skeptically and properly it's an unparalleled resource though it is declining some.
>>25509830I learned all about karl Marx using this simple free tool. The gist of all his books. Lemme guess, you need more?
>>25509911the more links/tabs you open the higher your iq
>>25509911It was an unparalleled source of information in 2011, but like most of the internet it's now a bastardized shell of its past heights. Unlike more permanent works, you can't easily go find its better, older version, either.
>>25508511>meet in the middle and just get my ebooks from the wiki
>>25509881I read articles almost every day.I keep a Pages document where I record every Wiki article I've read sorted by topic. It is now several pages long.>>25509911Agreed. I use it to get a basic gestalt on a topic then go look for books if it interests me and I want to know more.
>>25508511You can tell people here don't read beyond the wiki's plot summary because no one ever discuss points that aren't in it nor able to give specific details from the the work's style or substance.
>>25511787Berry Interesting. I almost do the same thing but autistically. I type the topic names in to my colornote. I've got a video game style achievement thing going. I run a timer while I'm reading and clock hours spent studying in wikipedia. So far I'm at 196 hours and gave up. When I reach 200 it will be a personal milestone. I'll assume my IQ increase by points and unlock new skills/stats etc. I ran out of interesting topics but this list seems Berry interesting. I have to check out some of these.
>>25511787But it's all history. I love reading economics and science topics too. Last one was "emulsions" And surface tension lol.Wikipedia is whack
Bump
>>25512874Perhaps it would be more time efficient for you if you scored by number of articles read rather than time spent, or perhaps sections read.
>>25508511Wikipedia mogs books
>>25508511Wikipedia is good if you use it to find books to read. When you have read extensively about a topic, for example, you will notice its Wikipedia articles convey vague, poor, misleading, or even wrong information most of the time, despite citing the best sources.
>>25512877Although history is my main interest I've read a couple of articles on science and economics.
>>25513189Examples?
>>25513259Shakespeare's Tempest, for one. You will read the Wikipedia's English article on the play, and there won't be a single mention of its folkloric sources, despite the fact that The Comedy of Beautiful Sidea — a German play widely recognized as a reworking of fairytales — is cited several times due its similarities. Basically: any unexperienced reader interested in the origin of Shakespeare's work will look at the Wikipedia article, read everthing, and still lack fundamental information (if solely through Wikipedia, not the sources).
