11 Answers

  1. I really want to answer the question “what is good about Wikipedia?”. However, even without my opinion, everything is OK.�

    As for what it is bad for, I will add an opinion that is not related to the factual part:

    – Wiki is bad because the opinion of the author of the statement about the” curvature ” of the Wiki does not coincide with his own.

    – The wiki is bad because it has more and better written content than the critic knows.

    – A wiki is bad because instead of explaining to (students) students how to write essays (and papers) correctly, they say “this is a bad Wiki”

    – Vicki is bad because it supports the spirit of freedom and it happens that the authorities do not want it, so only troublemakers and “barricadists” need freedom…


    of course, as in any social institution( and wiki, this is already SI), there are objective disadvantages and deformities… about them, they have written or will write… here it is important to understand the ratio of objective disadvantages and the reasons why you don't like the Wiki for the reasons described above…

  2. So I don't blame her, but just avoid her shortcomings and use only her advantages, and I'm glad. A handy tool at times.

    1. There are no references in the article, and at the end of some kind of crooked list of literature on textbooks from the time of Khrushchev? Pass by. Life hack – go to the English-language article, in different languages-different authors and moderators. Wikipedia doesn't just translate the same material into different languages, and that's cool. The English-language Wiki is much better than the Russian one, and excuses about not knowing English do not work. The 21st century is about intellectuals.

    2. A wiki is useful if you need to make a quick opinion on a particular issue, but a little more in-depth than defining a concept through a dictionary.�

    3. Life hack – don't know how to correctly translate a term from Russian to English or vice versa? Just change the language of the Wiki article)

    4. There are cool photos, diagrams, and images in the Wiki that you can't find on other resources. They are created and uploaded by the authors of articles themselves.

    5. They often criticize the Wiki of mathematics, physics, etc., arguing that these articles are written there by ordinary students, which is why they are full of mistakes. I don't know, but we'll take their word for it. There are even more reliable sources for the exact sciences.

  3. Wikipedia is a kind of collection of quotes. This is not an encyclopedia of independent scientific articles, but a collection of various opinions.

    What's good about Wikipedia? There is no need to search for specialized literature on any issue. I opened the article and read it.

    What's wrong with Wikipedia?

    First, it is usually the fruit of collective intelligence. And everyone contributes to the article what they like. Since Wikipedia has moderators, it is logical to expect that they will have a certain influence on the article. In some cases, this will have minimal impact, since the articles are purely scientific, and in others, it will have a serious impact, since the articles are humanitarian.

    Secondly, Wikipedia moderators are no strangers to political views. It so happened that among the moderators of the Russian-speaking segment there was a kind of war of white and scarlet roses. The moderators were guided not by the benefit of ordinary users, but by the fact that they could get as many of their like-minded people as possible into this company. Although, to be fair, this is the case for almost all major Internet projects. There are other nuances.

    Conclusion: You can use Wikipedia, but you need to understand that this is not a scientific compilation, but a compilation of secondary sources that were selected and published by people of certain political worldviews. In other words, if these people had different views, then the article might have been different.


    A day later, I reread my answer and found it somewhat grim. Here is an example of the bright side of Wikipedia. In various discussions, I sometimes use a link to a particular article as an argument. To which I often get answers like “This doesn't count. In Wikipedia, everyone can write what they want.” Yes, anyone can write it. I can say with confidence that what is written can be deleted within two days. In other words, the point is not what can be written there, but that everything is rather tightly moderated. (We will not analyze examples of fake non-essential articles that have been hanging on Wikipedia for years.) I once translated an article about a mountain from an English-language Wiki and published it in Russian. This article was immediately put on deletion, despite the fact that about five links were made to similar articles in other languages. Only thanks to experienced users who combed my article, i.e. brought it to its normal appearance, it was saved. A neutral article about the mountain.�

    And someone else says that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone! Ha-ha-ha!

  4. It's not bad. You just need to double-check what it says. Since it is usually written by people who consider themselves experts in some field of knowledge. But. Not necessarily those. Their opinion may differ from the correct one, defined scientifically. Therefore, if the question is serious enough, then Wikipedia alone is not enough. You should look for the answer in the reference books.

  5. For our state, “Wikipedia-the free Encyclopedia” is bad by definition. But soon, 2 billion rubles will be spent out of our pocket, so that our valiant FSB and other candidates for saints of the Russian Orthodox Church can enjoy the local traditional equivalent. Probably, they will call it “Vovopedia-a skriponosnaya (God-saved patriarchal) encyclopedia”. No offense. And let doctors and teachers, including teachers of 3000+ music schools, live on the rate of 9489 rubles a month (for 18 hours a week). The powers that be in the conservatory are doing fine – freedom is” bad ” by definition, and serfdom is the victorious salvation of the Russian people.

  6. Liberal orientation, the toxicity of the moderator community, and the real inability to add anything that contradicts the “consensus” formed from the will of moderators. But in general, nothing bad. Only subtleties that are prickly for editors, not for most readers. But there are exceptions. Well, for example, no one can write in an article about the Katyn shooting that it was carried out not by the USSR, but by Germany. At least that the debate on this issue does not subside, and that no one has made an objective conclusion that would suit everyone. No-the version about the “Soviet war crime” is considered generally accepted, and this does not suit many people at all, a significant number of readers. But for moderation, everything is obvious. In other words, democracy does not work in the EAP, only administrative consensus, even if it contradicts the truth and is not fair.

  7. When it comes to something like math , as a rule, everything is normal and honest.

    But it is worth digging at least a little politicized issue-that's all, at least take out the saints here. For example, it is very funny to compare articles on the same subject in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia…

  8. Well, it seems that the most ordinary people write this encyclopedia, and intellectuals who blame it are stupid. Because they consider their intellectual level to be average in the hospital.
    Something like that.

  9. Wikipedia isn't exactly bad. Perhaps the word “bad” means that it gives general and superficial knowledge about the subject.

    I'll tell you from my own experience. I'm studying to be a civil engineer. And there you can find only 15-20% of the entire st-va material.

  10. Its essence – the ability to make edits by anyone who wants. True, there is a powerful moderation community that keeps a sharp eye on vandals who write all sorts of shit there.

  11. The only drawbacks that I can find are something like the following: the articles are too generalized, the format is too short, it is not always possible to cover the topic in such a narrow format, some issues require in-depth reflection over many years of study, and a short article does not meet this requirement, and there is also a popularization factor that reduces the quality.

Leave a Reply