# Wikipedia

## Primary tabs

Type of Math Object:
Definition
Major Section:
Reference
Groups audience:

## Mathematics Subject Classification

### Wikipedia is full of junk

I don't read wikipedia since it is full of junk [http://english.agonia.net/index.php/personals/197056/index.html] and very biased.
It is under youngsters' control and has a bad reputation in the academic world: [http://english.agonia.net/index.php/essay/197055/index.html]. Many youngsters don't have enough background.

Concerning Wikipedia, it is really a junk, and
every time I get involved in improving some article, I have to "fight" with incompetence of the wiki-editors, which in most cases do not understand what they edit, but just search in the internet to find some lie, and then insert it directly without checking the facts.

Somebody was falsely accused in wikipedia of having killed Kennedy! I heard that in USA news on TV.

Wikipedia slanders people, include undocumented stuff, includes lies and insults people.

Mario

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

> I don't read wikipedia since it is full of junk

Your decision has been noted. Have a nice day!

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk: I agree

> I don't read wikipedia since it is full of junk

I agree. Wikipedia is totally full of junk. All those articles about gay porn stars, new species of Pokemon, obsolete computers, integers, small asteroids, are all a total waste of Web bandwidth. I wish someone would dismantle Wikipedia, they would be doing us all a big favor. April fool!

### dismantling wikipedia

Actually, that isn't such a bad idea, if it could be
put back together again.

### "Wikipedia" article... is really pretty lousy...

world editable. I have to go to sleep. But someone should
try to fix this soon...

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

Sentences do exist, which qualify who's saying them.

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk = nOSENSE Wikepedia is enormou...

VANDALISM, POWER ABUSERS AND INTEREST GROUPS COULD AGAIN DESTROY OUR CIVILIZATION OR CHANGE OUR HUMAN NATURE, Please be careful!

Studies do exist which qualify Wikipedia as important source of information for the masses and "experts" alike.

Entries [almost 2 million] which qualifies Wikipedia over Encarta, et. al. based on Verifiable and scholarly sources.

Some mistakes ought to be corrected but these do not compare to the immense and profound good that Wikipedia has provided and is providing in these recent and few years to many people around the world.

Cooperation is good, "Big Brother" is an "expert" too, and encyclopedic knowledge has improved since Wikipedia started pulling people into the common edition effort. As software development is better thanks to the GNU and its GPL documentation. Business and knowledge sharing have improved with the .org domain over the Internet. Non-profit is all positive and necessary in purpose but it seems in actions, it is who has the money who decides were to inject dollars and his/her power to "real purposes" and again claim expertise in doing so. In this case Wikepedia has been created differently and is away to test and rest what has been assumed to be as a well thought out system of facts or documented verifiable information or the interpretation of these sources by the so called experts. Math is not about subjective impressions but there you are we have subjective probability.

Democracy is not hypocrisy, but then again is not perfect either and you will find e.g., that yes, President Kennedy, was actual killed and we have for certain reports and good ideas who did it and how this could have been done it. The fact seems to be that there is at least one person who did this and it is still not crystal clear if he did it at all. We have a controversy and we are living with it for all this time, but each time, as more discoveries are made, we are examining the evidences more and more, and one day we will find a closure with more certainty and with fewer doubts about it as now.
Wikipedia will be vandalized as it has been the case with this entry but as in this instance, it took few hours to be edited back to a more reliable content. So there will be people who will abused it no matter what but there are contributor who at the same time are working to improve it, I would said several thousand of them around the world. On the other hand also it is the fact that our media whatever the case is not completely wrong but, can it be trusted?

Now go to Wikipedia and learn and edit BOLDLY what you know, and add content or modify some other contents in whichever you has experience on, become a contributor rather than a self-proclaim master chef of the truth what ever you think it is. Time is of essence to support our humble and already weaken humanism, Wikipedia is a way to make an effort in a period of time-shared-info-space in which "expertise" and "the experts" are failing in bringing a better world for all of us, more important for near future generations. Work to improve systems that as yet can be improved before is too late. Many are writing and saying that is already too late but I am not a fatalist I remain optimist, I believe in the power of will and freedom of choice for every human being and I most likely detest the Skinnerian pigeons out there crying for more determinism in their proto-souls. Veritas longa est .. my fellow human being, .JMK.

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk = citing wikipedia looks unpro...

that's the problem, you can not edit wikipedia since
the wikipedians belive they detain the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
thy don't allow you to have a different idea from theirs'.

wikipedia is aplace where the big brother can SLANDER any body,
that's right.
see how MUSLIM scientists and artists are discredited,
and other third world countries researchers are boycotted.

yes, wikipedia is very important for those who want to
MANIPULATE THE WORLD ...

the only thing wikipedia is good for is boycotting
others.

Zo

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk - undocumented wikipedians

This is the truth, man,
like it or not!

A wikipedian does a search on the web, copies some lies
without checking them... and then as a stubburn
sticks to them!

Indeed, have a such nice day!!

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

I thought that was an April 1 joke.

I think wikipedia is pretty much reliable, the articles about math are more complete then those from planetmath(sorry, guys). I subjectively estimate this: springer( + most professional -incomplete, -harder to access using google)9, wikipedia(+pretty much informative, -minor errors,-editing)9, planetmath(-incomplete, -several errors, +easy editing, + addition of proofs enhancing the encyclopedia style)8, mathworld.wolfram(-incomplete, - confusing)6

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

>> I think wikipedia is pretty much reliable, the articles about math
>> are more complete then those from planetmath(sorry, guys)

I don't know about reliable, but more complete yes. Although there is a tendency for Wiki to be miopic on math.

For example, orthogonal group gives you only the coordinate definition and this only for anisotropic bilinear forms. Etc. Indeed, most of Wiki's math entries on Lie groups, algebras etc. are coordinate driven -- so matrices instead of linear transformations, and even though an arbitrary field is allowed in the definition not many treat the differences in the fields, save the real numbers.

In PlanetMath you can find many different perspectives of the same concept, for example, orthogonal again. You can have it with matrices forms, etc. And if there are gaps, it is easy to add to without distrubing the existent ediface. In Wiki world it is hard to keep to separate and related treatments alive. Easier to search for stuff but ultimately less content.

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk = citing wikipedia looks unpro...

Zorba,

I think your opinion would be received more credibly
if your post, was, umm... a bit more professional?

(And yes, a few of my own entries do cite Wikipedia.)

// Steve

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

I thought that was an April 1 joke.

My posting certainly was, polarbear. I completely trust Wikipedia for topics I'm just curious about and which are not life-critical, like the need for a quick estimate. But when I need to be absolutely certain of a specific quantity, I turn to the OEIS or compute it myself.

### Re: Wikipedia is full of junk

I hope I'm not flogging a dead horse here, but I just came across this string of posts and found some of them to be very upsetting.

The statements that I found most upsetting are in the post to which I am replying:

"It (Wikipedia) is under youngsters' control and has a bad reputation in the academic world....Many youngsters don't have enough background."

I am always upset when people say something to the effect of, "This person is too young to do anything." This is how the previous statements read to me. I began contributing articles to PM when I was about 22 or 23, which is possibly a "youngster" by some people's standards. I feel that the entries that I contributed even then were helpful and professional. I feel that nobody's work should be dismissed simply because of the person's age. Some of the most important contributions to mathematics were made by mathematicians while they were still young.

I definitely concede the point that Wikipedia has entries with statements that are misleading and/or untruthful, but this does not logically mean that the entire system can be dismissed. I very rarely read articles on Wikipedia, but of the very few articles that I have read, I found all of them to be informative and helpful, and I am glad that such a resource is available.

My favorite post in this string of Wikipedia posts is the one made by CodePlowed. If you have not read it yet, I highly advise that you do so, especially the first sentence and the long paragraphs:

http://planetmath.org/?op=getmsg&id=14372

I wish that more people had an attitude similar to that of CodePlowed's.

Finally, I would like to comment on PrimeFan's entry on Wikipedia which started this whole string of posts. I feel that an entry like this has a place on PM. The majority of the entry discusses Wikipedia in relation to mathematics. More importantly, the entry seems quite neutral. No claims are made about the accuracy or inaccuacy of the articles on Wikipedia. I am also glad that PrimeFan made the entry world editable. I sincerely hope, though, that no one abuses this and tries to add his or her opinion about Wikipedia to the entry. I am glad that PrimeFan has contributed this entry and has written it in a professional manner. Thank you, PrimeFan.

Have an excellent day everyone.

Warren

### Re: Wikipedia

Thanks for those nice comments, Warren. Wikipedia can be very useful in various fields. For mathematics it is perhaps as complete an encyclopedia (if not more so) than Mathworld. But by necessity it can not go beyond "the popularizer" and "the lexicographer." rm50's proof regarding Euler's lucky 41 was rightly recognized by Lisa as an excellent example of the kind of thing that is very much at home here and which would be nice for Wikipedia to cite.

### Euler's lucky 41 (was Wikipedia)

> rm50's proof regarding Euler's lucky 41 was rightly recognized by Lisa as an excellent example of the kind of thing that is very much at home here and which would be nice for Wikipedia to cite.

It took me a little while to find what PrimeFan was talking about here. In case other people want to be able to access these things more easily, I am providing links in this post.

The proof referred to is the entry:

http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=9195