Does this mean that you can now implement a computational model of a black hole in Perl? At which level of depth can you explain the Riemann hypothesis and M theory? In how many ways does the article on Direct Realism fly in the face of everything that makes sense in Wikipedia?
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @Saigarich
I reckon I could do the model of a black hole, no problem with this information from my wikipedia-prime: Programming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Programming%26Web_Apps … Cosmology&Astrophysics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Cosmology%26Astrophysics … Geometry&Analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Geometry%26Analysis …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
M-Theory and RH are very specialized topics; reading wikipedia articles won't make you an expert, but even there I got surprisingly far; Quantum Mechanics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Quantum_Mechanics … Algebra&NumberTheory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Algebra%26Number_Theory … Geometry&Analysis (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zarzuelazen/Books/Reality_Theory:_Geometry%26Analysis …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Normally knowledge is presented in a very compartmentalized and abstract form. But magic starts to happen when two things occur: (1) When you see how all the concepts are connected, (2) When you see the motivations behind the concepts - how they're applied to problem solving
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's these 2 things that the wikipedia data-set can give you. Not *depth* of knowledge, but unprecedented *breadth* of knowledge - how concepts *connect together* into a big picture, and how they're *applied* to solving practical problems
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zarzuelazen @Plinz
Considering providing links to sources is one of the cornerstones of wiki, when I look for in depth knowledge I treat it more as a navigation tool, rather than knowledge repository. Though summaries on the topic are extremely useful and often sufficient.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Saigarich @zarzuelazen
YMMV, but in my experience, Wikipedia is often not helpful for learning complex formal knowledge, because each field uses their own formalisms, which are presupposed and not referenced in the article. Wikipedia is often written by and for people that don't remember not knowing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Saigarich
Yes, the pure math articles can be particularly hard to understand if read in isolation. That's why it's so important to connect together multiple concepts - reading about many related ideas to put things into context.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
One problem I found (which is really the main reason that making this compilation took me 2 years) is that unless you're an expert in a given field yourself, you really don't know what the central ideas and methods in that field are. Wikipedia didn't really help convey that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, there were wiki-books and lists of concepts on wikipedia, but none of them were really that good. Lots missing. I had to go to text-books and primers by experts to really learn how to organize concepts correctly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It seems to me that this connecting tissue should be a vital part of an encyclopedia, which Wikipedia is missing.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.