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

[The Valkyrie]

I blame the Scots!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

See?

Boru

See what?

See how well your reply supports my previous points.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

How can you use Wikipedia but can't use Google?

[Ravenshire]

Anyone who takes Wiki as a solid source is being mentally lazy. You have to take each article on its merits regarding accuracy and detail.

Thant is the common view of Wiki, and there is some truth to it.

But...

...a review of 110 studies published in 2014 concluded “Wikipedia is generally a reliable source of information” across almost all domains studied.

Source

From what I've read on the subject, Wiki's main failings are in areas of esoterica, subjects that few people concern themselves with, providing few editors, and pop culture, where "accurate information" is constantly changing and editor opinions drive more edits (and edit wars) than actual facts. In general, if you go looking for astronomical data on nearby stars, flight characteristics of a boing 767, or the nutritional information of the top five crops produced in India, you'll get information at least as good as Britannica. But, if you go looking for the mating rituals of Klingons (or the Kardashians, equally alien and repulsive) or information about semi-professional bowlers in Bend, Oregon, your results are gonna be much more suspect.

[FlatAssembler]

See what?

See how well your reply supports my previous points.

Boru

No, I don't see it. Do you agree with me that somebody who says "Fuck off with those p-values, go to Alternativa with them!" both has a mistaken picture of how modern science works and is being a jerk? If not, have you watched the Veritasium's video about why most published research is wrong (explaining how modern science revolves around p-values and what are the upsides and downsides of that)?

[GrandizerII]

Good thing about the sciences, it doesn't give a single flying fuck whether or not some, or all the dingleberries ideas about it are wrong. It's going to work regardless.

You make it sound like science is like its own entity or something that operates independently of human beings.

[GrandizerII]

See how well your reply supports my previous points.

Boru

No, I don't see it. Do you agree with me that somebody who says "Fuck off with those p-values, go to Alternativa with them!" both has a mistaken picture of how modern science works and is being a jerk? If not, have you watched the Veritasium's video about why most published research is wrong (explaining how modern science revolves around p-values and what are the upsides and downsides of that)?

What's the context? I feel like there was a lot of things going on in the exchange between you and them that eventually led to this kind of response.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anyone who takes Wiki as a solid source is being mentally lazy. You have to take each article on its merits regarding accuracy and detail.

Thant is the common view of Wiki, and there is some truth to it.

But...

...a review of 110 studies published in 2014 concluded “Wikipedia is generally a reliable source of information” across almost all domains studied.

Source

From what I've read on the subject, Wiki's main failings are in areas of esoterica, subjects that few people concern themselves with, providing few editors, and pop culture, where "accurate information" is constantly changing and editor opinions drive more edits (and edit wars) than actual facts. In general, if you go looking for astronomical data on nearby stars, flight characteristics of a boing 767, or the nutritional information of the top five crops produced in India, you'll get information at least as good as Britannica. But, if you go looking for the mating rituals of Klingons (or the Kardashians, equally alien and repulsive) or information about semi-professional bowlers in Bend, Oregon, your results are gonna be much more suspect.

Yeah, in the fields I know in-depth, it's a questionable source. Like GS said upthread, look at the sources. They can -- repeat, can -- be good sources.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

See how well your reply supports my previous points.

Boru

No, I don't see it. Do you agree with me that somebody who says "Fuck off with those p-values, go to Alternativa with them!" both has a mistaken picture of how modern science works and is being a jerk? If not, have you watched the Veritasium's video about why most published research is wrong (explaining how modern science revolves around p-values and what are the upsides and downsides of that)?

My point isn’t with other people saying it, but with your reaction.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Boring. Fuck your p values, I wanna hear some more war crime denials.