Wikipedia

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 7, 2006.

  1. Kron Maxwell's demon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    339
    In the immortal reply of Thor to a wikipedia-hater:

    "Blasphemer !!! Wiki is God !!!"

    Disclaimer: The Thor referred to in the above post is a sciforums avatar not a mythological god. If it WERE a mythological god, the blasphemer would be struck by a bolt of lightning after being insulted.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    768
    Wikipedia is a shame for those who want to know how the universe/multiverse/nature really works and how much we really know about everything so far.

    Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view so it de facto represents all opinions on a given science topic but if you want to know which opinion is the most accepted by the science community Wikipedia cannot (and will not) give you that. It's a shame.

    In my opinion Britannica is much better than Wikipedia because it's more concise (there are less articles) and also Britannica is better organized and easier to work with.

    With that said, in my opinion Wikipedia is a very flawed research tool, especially for science topics.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Try RationalWiki instead.
     
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    A few of our members have pages dedicated to them there.
     

Share This Page