Does reading a lot of Wikipedia give people a wrong idea how science works?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When I was discussing my paper about applying information theory to the Croatian river names on Internet forums, many people told me stuff like "Fuck off with those p-values, go to Alternativa." (Alternativa being a subforum of forum.hr dedicated to things like astrology). That is obviously an absurd thing to say, as p-values are a foundation of the modern scientific method. But why do people on Internet forums say things like that?
I think that is because they have read a lot of tertiary sources (Wikipedia, etymological dictionaries...) and little or no primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia and other tertiary sources of information almost never discuss p-values. So no wonder discussions about p-values sound alien to them. It is very unfortunate.
I was wondering what you thought about that.

I don’t think it’s Wikipedia, and I don’t think it has anything to do with secondary or tertiary sources. It’s your ego - you can’t bear to be questioned and any suggestion that you might be wrong or that you’re going about things arse upwards is anathema to you.

It’s not your critics that have a skewed view of science. The problem is a lot closer to home.

Boru