Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:31:57 UTC No. 16256206

>>16256192
>Redditfag posts a greentext screenshot on actual 4chan

kek

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:41:18 UTC No. 16256219

>>16256192
Yes but only rarely. Wikipedo is a lost cause. Any correct information is just reverted to reflect the current narrative by the 16,000,000 mossad agents policing the faggot nest.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:22:17 UTC No. 16256260

>>16256192
Wikipedia is excellent for physics and maths.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:31:31 UTC No. 16256269

>>16256260
Lol not for explaining them. Physics editors on wikipedo can't even handle basic sentence structure.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:33:39 UTC No. 16256271

>>16256192
>Do scientists use Wikipedia?
I do, mostly for information on topics outside of my expertise, or to edit/create topics under my own expertise.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:15:23 UTC No. 16256298

>>16256271
>or to edit/create topics under my own expertise.
did you write the article on navel gazing?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:21:59 UTC No. 16256305

>>16256298
>did you write the article on navel gazing?
lol, there actually is one. No, I did not. I focus on geology, that's my profession.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:30:50 UTC No. 16256310

>>16256260
LMAO

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:32:05 UTC No. 16256311

>>16256206
Shit bait.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:41:05 UTC No. 16257010

>>16256192
the stupid ones do

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:19:49 UTC No. 16257170

There isn't a single scientist worth his salt that believes any encyclopedia. Just go straight for sources.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:27:31 UTC No. 16257188

>>16256192
Lol the ONLY. And really the ONLY usefull information on wikipedia, is if a article has a revision history since from before 2016.

And even then, the only usefull thing there is, is the cited sources and references.

Now even references are absolute bullshit linking literally online Popscience tabloits.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 23:26:59 UTC No. 16257434

>>16256260
sometimes. they often get into weird arguments about semantics and the net result is often something nearly incomprehensible. one of the best case studies of it is the page for "centrifugal force", which wikipedians have been arguing over for over a decade, and originally did such a bad job of explaining that even IRL expert editors started to confuse it with both the Coriolis force and centripetal force simultaneously, both of which i believe at one point redirected to centrifugal force (or was it everything being redirected to centripetal force?). point being, it was a massive clusterfuck around the semantics of elementary school physics.

another example: the article for tensor initially defines it as an "algebraic object," which hyperlinks to "mathematical object" - the tensor article is one of the only places on Wikipedia that uses the phrase "algebraic object," and people have thus regularly confused it with "algebraic structure," something fundamentally different. it doesn't hint at WHY you MIGHT be able to represent a degree 0 tensor with a scalar and a degree 1 tensor with a vector (it just states in the lede that scalars and vectors are also tensors, how helpful - also not necessarily correct) until deep into the text. the text proceeds first with multidimensional arrays, which is potentially a different definition to the one from linear algebra (multilinear maps; also IIRC not the only linear algebra "tensor" definition) in the lede. there are multiple definitions of "tensor" in different contexts, but rather than catalogue these and (especially) their differences, the article chooses instead to simply assert that they are "the same geometric concept."

some of that is legitimately academics' fault, though - for example "tensor rank" has at least two competing definitions in the literature even with the same definition of "tensor." i believe ML/AI 'researchers' legitimately equate "tensors" to multidimensional arrays, and nothing more.