Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Its only good at basics and cannot handle complex information well.

Poppycock! Because of MediaWiki's multimedia capabilities it can handle complex information just fine, obviously much better than printed predecessors. What you mean is a Wiki's focus, which can take the form of a generalized or universal encylopedia (e. g. Wikipedia), or a specialized one, or a free-form one (Wikipedia, in practice, again). Wikipedias even negotiate integration of different information streams, e. g. up-to-date news-like information, both in the lemmata (often a huge problem, i. e. "newstickeritis"), in its own news wiki (Wikinews), or the English Wikipedia's newspaper, The Signpost.

And to take care of another utterly bizarre comment: Encylopedias are always, per defintion, also repositories of knowledge.



Don't understand the implications of this:

"And to take care of another utterly bizarre comment: Encylopedias are always, per defintion, also repositories of knowledge."

We should just accept wholescale editing and knowledge production when we personally agree with it? Otherwise its verboten? You are aware of "edit-a-thons"? Are these biased?

Why not just have an AI print all of the currently available information on a topic with minimised (not zero) biases?

If we lived in a utopia where wikipedia could randomly allocate tasks to a diverse group of expert level civilians and then aggregate these takes/edits into a full description of a topic I would agree with wikipedia maximalists. This does not happen and a bunch of bad or naive actors have reduced the quality.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: