Full Version: Why Does Wikipedia Suck on Science? - Wired
Why Does Wikipedia Suck on Science?
Wired News - 13 minutes ago
My boss tells me this post, from my other blog, Epidemix (where I obsess over the margins of public health and medicine), might be of interest here. ...
Wikipedia is, by all measures, one of the great accomplishments of the Internet Age -- right up there with Google, eBay, IMDB and GoogleMaps. But science topics are not its forte.
Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...oes_wikipe.html
Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...oes_wikipe.html
The irony.
Wikipedia likes to claim that science is really where it excels.
Wikipedia likes to claim that science is really where it excels.
QUOTE(norsemoose @ Fri 11th May 2007, 8:32pm) 
Wikipedia likes to claim that science is really where it excels.
Well, the botany articles have exactly the issue he says: they are full of botanical jargon. 'course I think a lot of the articles couldn't be written without it, but....
QUOTE(norsemoose @ Sat 12th May 2007, 1:32am)
Wikipedia likes to claim that science is really where it excels.
It all depends whether the article has been left to the experts or has been "discovered".
Good science popularizers are hard to come by.
The one area I've found reasonable articles as a rule is in military history. And that's not too surprising; it's one area were there is a lot of amateur interest on a high level. There is also enough interest to provide enough policing against cranks, for the most part. I wouldn't trust an article on the causes of the American Civil War, though: too many confederate partisans out there.
The one area I've found reasonable articles as a rule is in military history. And that's not too surprising; it's one area were there is a lot of amateur interest on a high level. There is also enough interest to provide enough policing against cranks, for the most part. I wouldn't trust an article on the causes of the American Civil War, though: too many confederate partisans out there.
Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?
Slashdot - 38 minutes ago
An anonymous reader writes "An editor from Wired writes on his blog that Wikipedia sucks for science stories — not because they are inaccurate, ...
An anonymous reader writes "An editor from Wired writes on his blog that Wikipedia sucks for science stories — not because they are inaccurate, but because of what he calls the 'tragedy of the uncommon': Too many experts writing about subjects in ways that no non-expert can understand. Would this be the dumbing-down of Wikipedia — or would it be a better resource for everyone?" Read more of this ...
Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...158241&from=rss
Article: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/searc...158241&from=rss
Wikipedia is, by all measures, one of the great accomplishments of the Internet Age. But does it suck when it comes to science topics.
http://barewire.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05...suck-on-science
http://barewire.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05...suck-on-science
Does Wikipedia Suck on Science Stories?
Slashdot - 1 hour ago
An anonymous reader writes "An editor from Wired writes on his blog that Wikipedia sucks for science stories — not because they are inaccurate, ...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.