My Epiphany

[grandmaster-huon]

They say that encyclopedias are for learning.
But I realized that you don't go to an encyclopedia in order to learn, you go to school to learn, and school has education that is far more comprehensive than an encyclopedia ever will be.

That is what I am doing now at community college, gathering up credits so that I can ascend to the higher plane of knowledge acquisition that is state university.

[Bbb23sucks]

They say that encyclopedias are for learning.
But I realized that you don't go to an encyclopedia in order to learn, you go to school to learn, and school has education that is far more comprehensive than an encyclopedia ever will be.

That is what I am doing now at community college, gathering up credits so that I can ascend to the higher plane of knowledge acquisition that is state university.

Well there are reasons other learning materials exist. We aren't against the concept of encyclopedias (or even freely editable ones), we are against the information. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a freely editable online encyclopedia and I would say that most users here would agree with me.

[DexterPointy]

They say that encyclopedias are for learning.
But I realized that you don't go to an encyclopedia in order to learn, you go to school to learn, and school has education that is far more comprehensive than an encyclopedia ever will be.

That is what I am doing now at community college, gathering up credits so that I can ascend to the higher plane of knowledge acquisition that is state university.

Well there are reasons other learning materials exist. We aren't against the concept of encyclopedias (or even freely editable ones), we are against the information. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a freely editable online encyclopedia and I would say that most users here would agree with me.

Wikipedia, and other Encyclopedias, is (nearly always) good for getting basic facts. But that's not the same as learning, though some of the obvious factual information does go into learning. When it comes to learning, then I'd go with books, lectures, etc. presented by competent authors and speakers.

I might however be very unhappy about a "freely editable online encyclopedia", depending on what "freely" is meant to encompass.
A: I'm very happy if "freely editable" means free of monetary cost.
B: I'm very unhappy if "freely editable" means that an idiot, regardless of competency and expertise, is able to edit.
Clearly, when it comes to Wikipedia, then B is the case.

Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if articles were written as a collaborative effort by people who actually had a degree in, or within the vicinity of, the topic in question.

[Bbb23sucks]

Wikipedia, and other Encyclopedias, is (nearly always) good for getting basic facts. But that's not the same as learning, though some of the obvious factual information does go into learning. When it comes to learning, then I'd go with books, lectures, etc. presented by competent authors and speakers.

I might however be very unhappy about a "freely editable online encyclopedia", depending on what "freely" is meant to encompass.
A: I'm very happy if "freely editable" means free of monetary cost.
B: I'm very unhappy if "freely editable" means that an idiot, regardless of competency and expertise, is able to edit.
Clearly, when it comes to Wikipedia, then B is the case.

Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if articles were written as a collaborative effort by people who actually had a degree in, or within the vicinity of, the topic in question.

I agree. By "freely editable", I meant that all content should be freely accessible and freely licensed. And that any competent person should be able to suggest or make improvements.

[grandmaster-huon]

They say that encyclopedias are for learning.
But I realized that you don't go to an encyclopedia in order to learn, you go to school to learn, and school has education that is far more comprehensive than an encyclopedia ever will be.

That is what I am doing now at community college, gathering up credits so that I can ascend to the higher plane of knowledge acquisition that is state university.

Well there are reasons other learning materials exist. We aren't against the concept of encyclopedias (or even freely editable ones), we are against the information. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a freely editable online encyclopedia and I would say that most users here would agree with me.

Wikipedia, and other Encyclopedias, is (nearly always) good for getting basic facts. But that's not the same as learning, though some of the obvious factual information does go into learning. When it comes to learning, then I'd go with books, lectures, etc. presented by competent authors and speakers.

I might however be very unhappy about a "freely editable online encyclopedia", depending on what "freely" is meant to encompass.
A: I'm very happy if "freely editable" means free of monetary cost.
B: I'm very unhappy if "freely editable" means that an idiot, regardless of competency and expertise, is able to edit.
Clearly, when it comes to Wikipedia, then B is the case.

Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if articles were written as a collaborative effort by people who actually had a degree in, or within the vicinity of, the topic in question.

Imagine a Wikipedia without IP editors and easy account creation, making it much more difficult to make low-effort disruptive editing or problematic throw-away sock accounts.

[MARYIHA]

Try having a doctorate in your field, and some teenager in his parent's basement with too much time on his hands edit warring you over shit that's 100% wrong, but you get called a sockpuppet because he spends the rest of his onwiki time sucking admin dicks.

[Tim22]

They say that encyclopedias are for learning.
But I realized that you don't go to an encyclopedia in order to learn, you go to school to learn, and school has education that is far more comprehensive than an encyclopedia ever will be.

That is what I am doing now at community college, gathering up credits so that I can ascend to the higher plane of knowledge acquisition that is state university.

Well there are reasons other learning materials exist. We aren't against the concept of encyclopedias (or even freely editable ones), we are against the information. There is nothing wrong with the idea of a freely editable online encyclopedia and I would say that most users here would agree with me.

Wikipedia, and other Encyclopedias, is (nearly always) good for getting basic facts. But that's not the same as learning, though some of the obvious factual information does go into learning. When it comes to learning, then I'd go with books, lectures, etc. presented by competent authors and speakers.

I might however be very unhappy about a "freely editable online encyclopedia", depending on what "freely" is meant to encompass.
A: I'm very happy if "freely editable" means free of monetary cost.
B: I'm very unhappy if "freely editable" means that an idiot, regardless of competency and expertise, is able to edit.
Clearly, when it comes to Wikipedia, then B is the case.

Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if articles were written as a collaborative effort by people who actually had a degree in, or within the vicinity of, the topic in question.

Citizendium?

[Bbb23sucks]

Citizendium?

Wikipedia needs a way for people to register as experts and provide their real credentials.
Wikipedia needs a way for those credentials to be respected and not run roughshod over by a bunch of masturbating teenagers from their parent's basements.
Wikipedia needs to fire most of Arbcom and the rest of their current staff who won't respect someone's privacy if they provide real credentials that have a name on it. I experienced this firsthand when Beeblebrox started making troll accounts to harass my personal email at my institution.

Citizendium is still utter shite.

[journo]

Imagine what Wikipedia would look like if articles were written as a collaborative effort by people who actually had a degree in the topic in question.

Wikipedia needs a way for people to register as experts and provide their real credentials.
Wikipedia needs a way for those credentials to be respected

If you're both calling for more influence from published academic, self-identified experts, I don't think that would really improve WIkipedia much, if at all

For this reason:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.0020124

Additionally, academic credential supremacy is unfair to critics of bullshit academic schools that have few challenging their nonsense in academia. Bullshit but mainstream and sanctioned 'expert schools' like: psychiatry, Christian bioethics, fat studies, fed funded 'counter-extremism' academia, clinical psychology, gender studies, and economics. Having orthodoxy define heterodox schools would further prevent the influence of the billions of free thinkers outside the tiny cult of academia having any further positive influence on academia.

[Bbb23sucks]

If you're both calling for more influence from published academic, self-identified experts, I don't think that would really improve WIkipedia much, if at all

For this reason:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... ed.0020124

Additionally, academic credential supremacy is unfair to critics of bullshit academic schools that have few challenging their nonsense in academia. Bullshit but mainstream and sanctioned 'expert schools' like: psychiatry, Christian bioethics, fat studies, fed funded 'counter-extremism' academia, clinical psychology, gender studies, and economics. Having orthodoxy define heterodox schools would further prevent the influence of the billions of free thinkers outside the tiny cult of academia having any further positive influence on academia.

I agree. Also, that user (MARYIHA, not DexterPointy) is a sockpuppet of a banned troll.