Comments on: 100,000th Knol Published and No One Cares But Google http://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/ Surfing the web and hopefully learning something new every day Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:38:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jtyost2http://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-289 jtyost2 Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:32:14 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-289 No, I am not claiming to be a "expert", I am claiming to be somewhat knowledgeable of the subject and the ability to recognize the accurate information from the wrong stuff. Both because of my degree and due to my experience in that particular field. I've also been a part-time web developer for over a year and a half at this point. Also don't we typically consider experts in fields due purely to their degree in the area and sometimes on the time working in the field?<br><br>Also the vast majority of Wikipedia is taken from what would be considered qualified sources. I helped edit Wikipedia articles about art and art history, and where I took my information from was the BBC typically. No, I am not claiming to be a “expert”, I am claiming to be somewhat knowledgeable of the subject and the ability to recognize the accurate information from the wrong stuff. Both because of my degree and due to my experience in that particular field. I've also been a part-time web developer for over a year and a half at this point. Also don't we typically consider experts in fields due purely to their degree in the area and sometimes on the time working in the field?

Also the vast majority of Wikipedia is taken from what would be considered qualified sources. I helped edit Wikipedia articles about art and art history, and where I took my information from was the BBC typically.

]]> By: jtyost2http://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-357 jtyost2 Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:32:14 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-357 No, I am not claiming to be a "expert", I am claiming to be somewhat knowledgeable of the subject and the ability to recognize the accurate information from the wrong stuff. Both because of my degree and due to my experience in that particular field. I've also been a part-time web developer for over a year and a half at this point. Also don't we typically consider experts in fields due purely to their degree in the area and sometimes on the time working in the field?<br><br>Also the vast majority of Wikipedia is taken from what would be considered qualified sources. I helped edit Wikipedia articles about art and art history, and where I took my information from was the BBC typically. No, I am not claiming to be a “expert”, I am claiming to be somewhat knowledgeable of the subject and the ability to recognize the accurate information from the wrong stuff. Both because of my degree and due to my experience in that particular field. I've also been a part-time web developer for over a year and a half at this point. Also don't we typically consider experts in fields due purely to their degree in the area and sometimes on the time working in the field?

Also the vast majority of Wikipedia is taken from what would be considered qualified sources. I helped edit Wikipedia articles about art and art history, and where I took my information from was the BBC typically.

]]> By: Johnhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-290 John Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:45:20 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-290 "However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area."<br><br>So are you claiming yourself to be an expert in Computer science, purely due to your degree in that area? “However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area.”

So are you claiming yourself to be an expert in Computer science, purely due to your degree in that area?

]]> By: Johnhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-356 John Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:45:20 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-356 "However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area."<br><br>So are you claiming yourself to be an expert in Computer science, purely due to your degree in that area? “However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area.”

So are you claiming yourself to be an expert in Computer science, purely due to your degree in that area?

]]> By: jtyost2http://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-291 jtyost2 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:12:26 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-291 Well thanks for the comment. My response is first that I myself don't have as you put an ear for mathematics so I can't make a statement one way or the other on the "pleasure" in reading the articles on Mathematics. I do know that I don't want to receive pleasure from an encyclopedia, but rather information.<br><br>Do you get as much pleasure from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica sections on Mathematics?<br><br>Also, I did not say that one could not use Britannica or other resources. I probably should have stated that I want people to gather from a multitude of sources. However in not all cases is that possible. Where Wikipedia shines is a starting point for research, simply due to the breadth and depth of articles. Whereas Britticina or other research materials are typically slowed by the inability to search and slowness inherent in a print medium. Wikipedia there is a fairly low bar at which an article must meet to stay.<br><br>How many other encyclopedias have articles about lightsaber fighting or your local tv stations? There is a lot of value in that.<br><br>Also I still have yet to see a professor who spends their lifetime research and specializing in a field of mathematics proclaim that someone is THE expert in a field. Who is THE expert in your field of mathematics that can publish something that no one finds fault with? At least when I go to Wikipedia I realize what I am getting - something written by most likely average people and not always experts.<br><br>However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area. Well thanks for the comment. My response is first that I myself don't have as you put an ear for mathematics so I can't make a statement one way or the other on the “pleasure” in reading the articles on Mathematics. I do know that I don't want to receive pleasure from an encyclopedia, but rather information.

Do you get as much pleasure from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica sections on Mathematics?

Also, I did not say that one could not use Britannica or other resources. I probably should have stated that I want people to gather from a multitude of sources. However in not all cases is that possible. Where Wikipedia shines is a starting point for research, simply due to the breadth and depth of articles. Whereas Britticina or other research materials are typically slowed by the inability to search and slowness inherent in a print medium. Wikipedia there is a fairly low bar at which an article must meet to stay.

How many other encyclopedias have articles about lightsaber fighting or your local tv stations? There is a lot of value in that.

Also I still have yet to see a professor who spends their lifetime research and specializing in a field of mathematics proclaim that someone is THE expert in a field. Who is THE expert in your field of mathematics that can publish something that no one finds fault with? At least when I go to Wikipedia I realize what I am getting – something written by most likely average people and not always experts.

However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area.

]]> By: jtyost2http://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-355 jtyost2 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:12:26 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-355 Well thanks for the comment. My response is first that I myself don't have as you put an ear for mathematics so I can't make a statement one way or the other on the "pleasure" in reading the articles on Mathematics. I do know that I don't want to receive pleasure from an encyclopedia, but rather information.<br><br>Do you get as much pleasure from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica sections on Mathematics?<br><br>Also, I did not say that one could not use Britannica or other resources. I probably should have stated that I want people to gather from a multitude of sources. However in not all cases is that possible. Where Wikipedia shines is a starting point for research, simply due to the breadth and depth of articles. Whereas Britticina or other research materials are typically slowed by the inability to search and slowness inherent in a print medium. Wikipedia there is a fairly low bar at which an article must meet to stay.<br><br>How many other encyclopedias have articles about lightsaber fighting or your local tv stations? There is a lot of value in that.<br><br>Also I still have yet to see a professor who spends their lifetime research and specializing in a field of mathematics proclaim that someone is THE expert in a field. Who is THE expert in your field of mathematics that can publish something that no one finds fault with? At least when I go to Wikipedia I realize what I am getting - something written by most likely average people and not always experts.<br><br>However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area. Well thanks for the comment. My response is first that I myself don't have as you put an ear for mathematics so I can't make a statement one way or the other on the “pleasure” in reading the articles on Mathematics. I do know that I don't want to receive pleasure from an encyclopedia, but rather information.

Do you get as much pleasure from reading the Encyclopedia Britannica sections on Mathematics?

Also, I did not say that one could not use Britannica or other resources. I probably should have stated that I want people to gather from a multitude of sources. However in not all cases is that possible. Where Wikipedia shines is a starting point for research, simply due to the breadth and depth of articles. Whereas Britticina or other research materials are typically slowed by the inability to search and slowness inherent in a print medium. Wikipedia there is a fairly low bar at which an article must meet to stay.

How many other encyclopedias have articles about lightsaber fighting or your local tv stations? There is a lot of value in that.

Also I still have yet to see a professor who spends their lifetime research and specializing in a field of mathematics proclaim that someone is THE expert in a field. Who is THE expert in your field of mathematics that can publish something that no one finds fault with? At least when I go to Wikipedia I realize what I am getting – something written by most likely average people and not always experts.

However I will also say as a Computer Science Major, I find their articles in the areas of CS, complete, through and highly accurate. I have yet to find a mistake in Wikipedia, in that particular area.

]]> By: 100000th Knol Published and No One Cares But Google | Yostivanich.com | Fatima Pardhanhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-296 100000th Knol Published and No One Cares But Google | Yostivanich.com | Fatima Pardhan Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:07:39 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-296 [...] here:  100000th Knol Published and No One Cares But Google | Yostivanich.com Share and [...] [...] here:  100000th Knol Published and No One Cares But Google | Yostivanich.com Share and [...]

]]> By: wlodhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-292 wlod Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:05:00 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-292 Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).<br><br>Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.<br><br>Regards,<br><br> Wlod Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).

Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.

Regards,

Wlod

]]> By: wlodhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-293 wlod Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:04:57 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-293 Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).<br><br>Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.<br><br>Regards,<br><br> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).

Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.

Regards,

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

]]> By: wlodhttp://www.yostivanich.com/2009/02/08/100000th-knol-published-and-no-one-cares-but-google/comment-page-1/#comment-354 wlod Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:04:57 +0000 http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=486#comment-354 Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).<br><br>Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.<br><br>Regards,<br><br> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski Over 99% of wikipedia articles on mathematics provide no pleasure from reading them, and their value is very limited. Worse than that, majority of them is written without any ear for mathematics, and then they can be even harmful in a sense, when they uglify mathematics. On the other hand, the monographs written by the top mathematicians are beautiful. It's so silly to think that an article written by some three dozens of mathematically deaf coauthors can write anything even remotely as good as a single true specialist would (say one from the top forty of a given branch of mathematics).

Justin, I cannot help noting that here and there you applied drastically unsound arguments, to put it mildly.

Regards,

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski

]]>