Split (1)

train · 6.74k rows

subreddit stringclasses 11 values	text stringlengths 246 28.5k
science	I do too, I have been following the increase in its use for about 10 ears now, it is truly amazing to see someone so sick with C.diff restored to a healthy gut state. I love telling my students about it just to see the look on their faces! Yes it is icky, but it can be life saving. I have tried to get a student to research it for their independent research project but so far not takers. I did get one to do quorum sensing in bacteria though, which is particularly interesting.
science	it definitely could have. eat your normal diet or a overall healthy diet and give it time, your gut microbiome will replenish itself. alternatively, you could try to "starve out" the burp-creating microbes which may be flourishing in your gut right now (antibiotics likely killed off many microbes) by adapting a diet like the keto diet, which typically will shift your gut microbiome. but if I were you, I'd just eat healthy foods and give it time, maybe try to avoid gas producing foods for a while like dairy
science	This is the biggest thing IMO. By best friend's parents started smoking again when we did because they had access to it again. Their friends had stopped selling years before and finding new dealers was a huge pain. On top of that everytime I walk into the dispensary I hear some older person telling someone how amazing it is that they can walk into a store and buy it without having to deal with finding and working with a shady dealer.
science	That's not true at all. Sure, you can look at it and eyeball that it probably is cannabis. Will you know what strain you are buying? Is it a sativa, an indica, a hybrid, or a CBD specific strain? Do you know what the THC percentage is? Do you know who grew it? If you've never been to a dispensary, that is all information you can get and more. This is assuming you are buying something that is still in plant form and not a type of edible, oil, dab, prerolled cig, or any of dozens of other cannabis products that have been processed.
science	Hybridoma's are only really useful for monoclonal antibodies. Most immune responses are polyclonal in nature, which is why you need to sub-clone if you want to isolate the monoclonal. Monoclonals are VERY useful in research, which is why they are so desirable. The ability to drill down to single epitope expression is very valuable when trying to research biological processes. In this case though, you WANT a polyclonal response for a number of reasons. First and foremost being it reduces the chance for the development of resistance. With a monoclonal, there is a single epitope being targeted. If the virus mutates the protein/component responsible for that epitope, then binding of the antibody is dramatically impacted. If there is a second, third, or fourth epitope on the virus also targeted it because statistically less and less likely that this mutated virus survives. Second off, it increases the applicability of the treatment across the population. Natural variation in the population means that not all epitopes found in the polyclonal will be present across ALL members of the population (which is evident by the authors saying most strains). Some members of the population might only have one or two epitopes present and these one or two would be different from member to member. As such, a polyclonal response provides a lot of value but also means that hybridoma is much less likely than usual.
science	The other replies to this are somewhat technically correct but don't actually answer your question properly. Hybridomas are unnecessary at this point to produce monoclonal antibodies since we can now do single B cell sorting and cloning of the CDR regions of the antibodies we want. There are much better mammalian protein production systems out there currently than hybridoma technology. To go towards your question of why the antibodies aren't produced as therapeutics currently. The answer is simply that ARTs currently do a very good job of controlling viremia and progression of the disease, so antibodies cannot compete on the same price point for that function. Neither monoclonals nor ARTs have shown any efficacy against viral reservoirs, which are the holy grail for curing HIV at this point, however that's not to say that future therapies won't use a combination of the two. The most beneficial use of anti-HIV monoclonals at this point would be to generate sterilizing immunity in patients with a high likelyhood of acquiring the disease. However monoclonals are expensive to generate and require cold chains for deployment, so it's unfeasible currently to passively transfuse every single susceptible person.
science	They have. People don't even need hybridomas at this point--these antibodies are sequenced and you can now crank them out in all sorts of piecemeal products and frankenstein antibodies as you wish. If you want rare antibodies, you look at someone who is exposed to the virus or antigen of interest. Make the antigen attached to a fluorescent reporter. Take blood from said patient, purify the blood for B cells, and co-incubate them with your fluorescent antigen. Grab all the fluorescent B cells, sequence them, boom. You can now make that antibody as much as you want.
science	The basis of your argument though is that our government is despotic. If it was despotic, why would they even allow this much data to go through main media channels and cover it up the result? There would be no benefit. In fact if they are despotic then we may never have even received signals and it's all made up. If it is not despotic, then what reason would the government have to hide it? To avoid hysteria? Hysteria about radio signals that have traveled so far that if they were sent by an intelligent source would be long dead by now? Nah, they haven't told us cause they don't know if it is intelligent or not. This is not the first time we received signals like this. Last time a supernova was to blame.
science	I tried it for 3 days once (without being fat-adapted). The first 1,5 days were very easy and nice, then I started getting progressively more restless and tense. No headaches, dizziness or irritability and my focus was even too sharp, but I couldn’t sleep at all. It seems great for emergency situations when you need to stay sharp and alert for extended periods of time, but I think my body did perceive it as an emergency and felt stressed, it was a sort of high-strung energy. However, I haven’t tried fasting on keto, I think it would be different.
science	Ive experienced the same. Ive done several 7 day fasts and felt like I could run a marathon every night. I started doing heavy cardio when I would typically eat dinner and Id be able to fall fast asleep. 5 hours later my eyes would pop open and I was wide awake. Come to think of it every morning person Ive ever known seemed youthful, healthy and thin. I bet they all had a healthy relationships with food and without knowing it were frequently intermittently fasting.
science	I recently went through a very hard economic time during which I'd eat only once every other day. First week or so was incredibly bad, I'd be hungry all the time even after eating a meal. Next three months of doing this weren't actually bad at all, I'd get hungry specially before bed but I'd wake up feeling just fine. I'm now eating once a day and having occasional snacks because I just don't feel like I need to eat three or even two meals a day. I have to admit though. Other than walking for an hour daily. I live a very sedentary life, work from home, I'm 5'7 and weigh 152 pounds (That's been my average since I was 23, I'm 30 now). But I do drink a lot of soda so I can see how those sugars are keeping my calories up there. I'm not saying this is healthy and I'm not advocating for it. But in my experience it hasn't been bad at all. I can't say I feel better than when I had a regular diet, but I don't feel worse either
science	I can see how "common sense" would lead you to believe that but hudreds of hours worth of research has lead me to disagree. Your body acts like a battery storing energy in the form of fat and theres nothing unhealthy about utilizing that resource and giving your digestive system a break. In fact, one man lived for over a year without eating and he was much healthier for it. People have cured their diabetes with extended fasts, stabilized their blood pressure, the list goes on for days. Its ok to disagree even if you havnt read the first book or medical journal. Were taught to eat three times a day and most tired, unhealthy, medicated people would look at extended fasting as bananas but knowing what I do now I think it's the other way around. One meal a day, extended fast twice a year and I havnt been more healthy and energetic since adolescence. Dyor
science	I did a similar thing at some point. I had some economic troubles, but rather than alternating days I just went with 1 footlong subway sandwich a day (about 4000KJ which is half the daily req). I know it sounds weird that I'm eating takeout during economic troubles but I literally had no time or space to prep and store food etc. so this really want the best way for me to get food with meat and a bunch of vegetables. In that sense I was doing the 'one meal a day' style intermittent fasting, and yeah after the first day or so you get significantly less hungry and you're fine with one meal a day and then maybe drinking a lot of water. It worked quite well for me, but I couldn't do it long term. That said, I was always getting some carbs so I never went into keto flu or anything like that. Doing a water only fast would only work for me if I did it for multiple weeks. Not spending 2-3 days of keto flu for 4-5 days of fast.
science	Yeah. You're not doing any good to your body when depriving it of all the resources it needs (vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats etc). You're only doing harm to it. You don't see other animals similar to us going for such long fasts, that is because it's suicide. Also ketamine (not sure what it's called) is highly acidic and demineralises the skeleton. Just because a study shows it is effective in rats doesn't mean it applies to us. Rats have much shorter life spans so you can more easily see the changes. They are still different and how they react is different to us.
science	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment >Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[6] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. This ought not, however, to be taken as an indication that capacity to work, study and learn will not be affected by starvation or intensive dieting. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.[citation needed] And this is with 1550 calories per day (but keep in mind these people had little body fat to begin with), about the caloric restriction used in mice and primate models that show the lifespan increase. Alternatively, if you have fat, and simply don't eat anything at all, you can lose your weight without these side effects. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/
science	I've tried fasting once out of pure necessity - had an extremely busy day and couldn't grab a bite until 8 pm. Felt very exhausted and out of breath during the whole day. I suppose it's entirely different person to person, but I personally feel very energy-starved if I haven't had a proper meal in the morning and noon. Edit: not sure if skipping meals counts as actual "fasting". I'm not at all familiar with what fasting is all about, it could be completely different to what I imagine it.
science	So type 1 diabetic here, fasting would undoubtfully lead to hunger, when i get that feeling my blood sugar lowers and seems like it goes into conservation mode. Having lower A1Cs (3 month count of your blood glucose levels averaged out) would seem to have a similiar benefit, so if you cant fast like me, would it be out of bounds to assume having a lower A1C would also be beneficial to kickstarting a similiar response?
science	The difficulty with human studies is that you can't lock humans in a cage for their entire natural lifespans and ensure they are complying with your diet regiment. From what I've read, they are mostly surveys, and interestingly, a meta-study was done which showed people, even anonymously, heavily over-counted exercise and heavily discounted how much they had eaten, and while that's not directly related to fasting, I'd assume people would over-estimate how "good" they were in general.
science	Semiautomatic rifles may have a high average number of deaths and injuries per shooting than handguns. However, according to the FBI 18.997 times as many people were killed by handguns than rifles of any kind in 2016. Also 4.289 times as many people were killed by knives than rifles of any kind that year. So, while rifles may be used in instances with high fatality rates and press coverage, they are generally not the weapon of choice for violent crime. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls So, here are my questions: How many lives potential could be saved by a semiautomatic rifle ban? What other options do we have that could save more lives? Please keep the discussion civil and logical : )
science	Then why are you posting? From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban >In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[30] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[31] >In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." [32] So either there is no correlation between these laws and the rate of violence or there is insufficient data. Hardly a" tired" discussion. Or are you just tired of people questioning your biases?
science	Yeah. The question isn't whether they have dropped during the ban, but have they dropped at a _higher_ rate during the ban. From what I have studied, this is a pretty nuanced topic. And like many complex topics, most people like to over simplify it. Conversations usually end up something like this: "You're wrong, more guns means less crime!" "No! You're wrong! If we ban assault weapons we'll have less mass shootings" And I'm sitting here saying "the data we have doesnt indicate either of those things. Maybe we should use that science to make informed decisions" But hey, it's not like there is a whole field dedicated to this sort of thing (_cough_ criminology _cough_)
science	> How many lives potential could be saved by a semiautomatic rifle ban? Just using the numbers from the OP, 1.75 people per “active shooter” event. Probably closer to 1.5 people per shooting because there are still going to be some rifles out there. But over time as rifles became more rare they’d be used less and the number of lives saved per shooting would go up. Even if it was as low as 1 person per shooting, if I’m that person, or the relative or friend of that one person, that’s worth it to me.
science	One thing we Americans seem to forget, as it doesn't make our news often, is the mass stabbings that occur at a similar rate as our mass shootings in other parts of the world, and are very rare here. Another one occurred in China yesterday after the assailant drove his SUV into a crowd. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/9ff826/nine_killed_46_injured_as_man_goes_on_stabbing/?utm_source=reddit-android So, does the chosen weapon really make a significant difference in the number of victims? How do we prevent such tragedies from occurring?
science	I mean, just think of the earth and the magnificent conflux of very unlikely circumstances that led to humanity. Think about the fact that the earth has been around for billions of years, and humanity has only existed for a few thousand of those billions. Less than 1% of earth's timeline. Now consider that potentially "viable" planets are millions to billions of light years away. Even if there has been sentient/sapient life elsewhere in the universe, the likelihood that we would be able to observe it would be incredibly low, and even the likelihood that it would exist in the right time frame to be observed by us is also extremely low. And even if Any other life form was observing earth, it would likely be observing earth as it was long ago, likely long before humans existed. Even the closest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. Long way of saying, I agree.
science	Anything outside of our galaxy is ridiculously far away even for an advanced civilization. Limits our reach for answers about the greater universe. To me, it’s obvious the earth has a huge list of characteristics needed for life to have reached this point, it’s astounding we are here. I’d be incredibly surprised if we ever found evidence of civilization anywhere in our galaxy. Not that I don’t have faith in the future.
science	Now this is interesting. When I look at wider faces, I always think back to my animal behavior class where we learned that predatory animals have eyes forward facing, in front of the face, to allow them to have better depth perception when hunting. This is in contrast to prey animals that tend to have their eyes on the side of their face, allowing them a better range of vision to see if there is a predator coming toward them. I wonder if humans are instinctively doing some kind of mental math to distinguish predator v. prey here. But then, how does that relate to behavior? Are these people products of a lifetime of stereotyping or do that have evolutionary predator-prey histories which drove their facial structure? Hmm, very interesting indeed.
science	Afaik broad faces (at least in men) have been linked to both high testosterone and lower percieved trustworthiness before. In the articles that I've read those two werr implied to have somewhat of a causal link, so we trust people with higher testosterone less. So I don't think you're prey theory makes sense since the broad face is just a hormonal thing. I'm no expert though and haven't read the actual studies just atricles so I might be wrong.
science	I thought it was strange how they tried to focus this study on politicians. I can see the point but a politician is just a person, so any one person could judge whether another person is corrupt or likely to be deceitful. Going off what you said about predator-prey traits in humans it leads me to wonder how people in general can identify someone who is corrupt in a study but that person can still successfully deceive enough people to get elected to a public office. My guess is that enough people in the public don't have a predatory instinct. Also the people taking the study itself are in a certain group, they themselves have proactively looked for this study to make a little extra money. The study participants themselves may not be a good example of a an average member of the public.
science	Well yes could give you an edge in hunting but the much more simple explanation is that people with high testosterone simply are less trustworthy in some situations. Simply because they tend to be more aggresive and risk taking. I don't think we differentiate between predator and prey like that, if we do then it would probably be in favour of the predator because we identify with them. Pets for example tend to be predators.
science	I'm honestly not comfortable with that assumption that high levels of testosterone make a person less trustworthy. That would imply that men, on the whole, are less trustworthy than women, simply because they have more testosterone. Just because it correlates with face width does not imply causation, and as we know, testosterone levels are somewhat malleable with exercise, social status, etc. And how does that correlate with racial differences. Do Asian people with wider faces, on average, have more testosterone? I don't think so.
science	Well overall, if you look at violent crime, the prison population, serial killers etc. you'll find womeb severly underrepresented. So yes I would say men as a whole are less trustworthy in that regard and testosterone likely plays a role in it. I don't really get the point about the asians, I don't think they have wider faces but even if they had you could just adjust what you consider wide. Also the changes to testosterone brought by exercise etc. are temporary. If meassured under the same conditions (eg. fastet, no exercise 2 days prior) the test will most likely be relatively accurate.
science	Testosterone is directly linked to willingness to engage in risky behavior. Violating the trust of people is a risky behavior, so testosterone levels have a direct correlation here. It's not saying testosterone makes you an asshole, but a guy who might consider cheating in some way and decide it's too risky will be more likely to cheat if given a higher testosterone level. The same with violent crime. I did all kinds of risky, illegal, assholish things when I was a teen and in my early twenties, that I can't imagine deciding to do now as a 46 year old
science	Fans and tv on pretty much all the time for me personally, distraction is the only relief I get. Have you tried the “snapping your fingers” against the base of your skull trick yet? Found it on YouTube awhile ago and the relatively brief relief it offers was mindblowing...the drone rushes back in pretty quickly but the moment of “oh, this is what it’s like when my ears aren’t ringing” is pretty amazing.
science	I am unsure of the brand but it was generally 200mg per day, and around a week to start seeing results. It may not get rid of your symptoms entirely but in my case it drastically improved the tinnitus as long as I took it, and strangely it’s remained gone since then. I had a minor case from loud music damaging my hearing to be fair, but my mother had a serious case and it helped her significantly.
science	Tinnitus masking has been shown to work in research, the pitch doesn't matter though. The reason is most tinnitus is caused by a change in hearing and lack of sound stimulation in the brain. Without the stimulation the neurons in the auditory cortex fire randomly and you perceive that as tinnitus. Re-introduce more sound and you give those neurons something to do. Many people find hearing aids help their tinnitus. Hearing aids often have optional tinnitus maskers build right in. Source: I'm an Audiologist
science	Interesting. I do grind my teeth - my wife has had to nudge me awake a few times because she’s worried I’ll break something. I’ll look into this, thanks. Although since my wife pointed it out I have made a conscious effort not to clamp my jaw (which I seemed to do a lot without realising, but I’ve also suffered general anxiety among other things for years and years, which I think is probably why I do it), but it hasn’t made any difference to the tinnitus. Definitely worth a second look methinks.
science	If you press behind your jaw, just under your ears you will probably feel pain, because you probably have TMJ inflammation. This inflammation is likely exacerbating your tinnitus. Also, if you go to an ear doctor you can ask him to flush out your inner ear wax. Sometimes that stuff can harden and clog up your ears. Getting it out feels like picking a booger you didn't know was there for years.
science	I find it interesting that people use statistics like this to imply that such policies are good. In any professional environment, would you allow somebody's relative to look at the facts objectively and decide what is best for society as a whole? No, they'd be classed as emotionally compromised and more likely to act in a manner of appeasement rather than in a logical and balanced manner. This conclusion is merely demonstrating the same thing but applied to policy instead of say, being on a jury or being an employer. Very interesting that such bias seems to manifest only if the daughter is firstborn, though! Perhaps this implies a man can be more objective towards gender equity if his firstborn is the same gender as him, which is much less of a paradigm-shifting experience I'd think (you're sort of having another "you", whereas a daughter is entirely "other").
science	Why the assumption that someone’s original paradigm would be more objective than the new one they moved to after a “paradigm-shifting experience”? People’s concern for their own welfare is basic to the way they live their lives; meanwhile, you often hear people say that even though they already loved their spouse, siblings, etc, having a child was what gave them a gut-level realization of valuing another person’s welfare at the same instinctive level as their own. Since nobody starts out without personal interests, having a child of the opposite sex might be the most effective way to balance out the ones you have already.
science	So there is no difference at all between the experiences of a female and the experiences of a male? That seems dubious. Of course there are going to be certain things about raising a child that is subject to a completely different set of societal expectations and bilogical developments than the father, that are confusing and new. Raising a boy, a father has experienced first hand the stages of development and many of the cultural expectations that his son will experience. This makes men have an easier time understanding boys and a more difficult time understanding girls *IN GENERAL*. Nothing controversial here. He's not saying that the female child is an alien. Not what he said at all, but you have one ot those hair trigger offense guns that just blasts first and asks questions later.
science	That's not true. In an idealised vacuum it is. But in reality where the past achievements (or lack of achievement) of relatable role models has an impact on the outcome, regardless how equal the opportunity. I like to use an less inflammatory example than gender. Sports. Certain countries excel at certain sports (in before casual racism), well beyond the statistical expectations based on population etc. This is solely down to the cultural role models which lead to children aspiring to match their heroes. Be is something like Belgium at football or Iran in weight lifting etc. Tiny countries with a strong history of singular sporting success continue to produce world stars in that field. Despite the fact other countries have similar football academies or weight lifting coaches. This is also true of wider society.
science	Equity and equality mean different things in this space. Please don't attack the messenger, I find this line of argument ridiculous, but here's a simplified summary: Equity and equality are two strategies we can use in an effort to produce fairness. Equity is giving everyone what they need to be successful. Equality is treating everyone the same. Equality aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help [https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/](https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/)
science	> That's not true. Are you telling them what matters to them? > Tiny countries with a strong history of singular sporting success continue to produce world stars in that field. So, people in Belgium don't much care for weight lifting. Why do we need to balance out the outcomes so that in the future, every country has an equal amount of people involved in each sport? To me, that makes no sense at all. And to accomplish it would require you force people to compete in events in which they have no interest, while also forcing them to do things they don't want to do. It's not enough, in your opinion, that they can choose to become a weight lifter instead of a soccer player.
science	By giving a desired outcome to someone who may not be as skilled/deserving of a position, you’re not giving it to someone who is more skilled/deserving, regardless of gender or race. Let’s say I want to be an NFL quarterback. I demand my equal outcome. I get the job. Which means someone else who has been working their whole life towards it and would be really good at it gets left off because I said I want to do it and I deserve it because equality
science	>Also known as "anyone can enter the sprint but you all get different starting lines." More like "some run faster than others so we'll shoot them in the knee to make it fair" Life is not fair; some people are more beautiful, more intelligent, had better parents, happened to be born in a richer country. You can't close these gaps; you can try to lift up people as much as possible but if someone was neglected as a child for 15 years, you can't make it up. And harming those who were better off for the sake of fairness is not going to create a better world.
science	I don't really understand how your sports example supports the equal outcomes. You say Iran is excellent in weight lifting because they have a strong history of success in that sport. I don't follow weight lifting but I'm assuming then that other countries don't have as much success in weight lifting despite having world class coaches & facilities. So are you saying there should be equal outcomes in weightlifting then? Like what would that mean, the Olympic committee preordaining which country gets the gold medal in weightlifting (and it wouldn't be Iran since they already have so many medals in it) despite how much training and passion the Iranian athlete has devoted to weightlifing?
science	Can't you see that person is arguing minorities, in reality, do not have equal opportunity because of systemic problems? Any policies appearing to give them a boost, what would be equity in your eyes, is really mending problems that prevent minorities from having equal opportunity. A good example is affirmative action. It looks like companies are pushed to hire minorities solely for being minorities, not because of perceived merit that makes them better employees than their competitors. But there have been studies showing that on resumes where only the name is changed to either sound of European or African origin, people tend to pick the white sounding names over the black. Affirmative action works against employer's negative bias against hiring blacks, effectively giving them equal opportunity in getting jobs. Nobody is arguing equal outcome is what we should base social programs around; it's that equal opportunity isn't always truly equal. here's an article I found in a quick google search regarding the study I referred to: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs
science	I am not saying there should be equal outcomes in sport. I am using sport as an example of how simply providing equal opportunities can and does lead so unequal outcomes. In the case of sexual equality, we do need to appreciate that past outcome (men being the boss) will have an impact on the future outcome, even if we make it just as easy for a woman to be the boss, simply because both men and women are used to seeing that as something a man does. The past is important.
science	People who end up benefiting from affirmative action are middle / upper class minority kids. It doesn't actually help people it purports to help (disadvantaged) and it discriminates against poor white kids, making their life doubly hard. And it also doesn't solve the problem. The dropout rate for minority kids is much higher because they're placed in college programs they're not ready for. I bet similar thing happen in work environment. You can't fix inequality of outcome, best thing you can do is enable next generation better opportunities.
science	I don't see how affirmative action mostly helping the middle class is a bad thing. They'd be perfectly capable of fulfilling the jobs they apply for, but would be less likely to obtain because they're a minority. Your point that affirmative action doesn't help poor white kids is something I've never thought about before, and it sounds important. Of course they deserve just as much help, but I'm not sure how much it takes away from affirmative action being overall effective.
science	If you take that perspective then it's a bit debatable, though, since the underlying goal isn't "to be read" but "to spread information" (hence why it's under a license that allows mirrors.) In that respect, Reddit and StackOverflow posts that rely on Wikipedia as a source aren't exploiting Wikipedia, they're using Wikipedia the way it is meant to be used. To the extent that Wikipedia as a whole "wants" something, that would be the sort of thing they want - to be used as a useful source of information. (And if you step back and look at it from the position of the Wikimedia board of trustees, which is the only real group with a vested interest in this aside from Wikipedia editors themselves... that sort of usage, as long as it's credited, reinforces Wikipedia's reputation and makes it easier for them to raise the money they need to keep the project going, even if not everyone is visiting Wikipedia directly.)
science	From a business standpoint, you'd maximize profit centers and minimize cost centers. Since the entire website other than the donation nag is a cost driver, you'd have an incentive to drive down pageviews to decrease server cost. Optimally, you'd want to find a balance between driving down pageviews and maintaining incoming donations. From a following the website's mission standpoint, they'd probably want more people to read pages, since that's likely to generate useful additions, corrections, and citations that would improve the page or related pages that get surfed. Or just feel good about watching the pageviews go up because that means more information is getting shared.
science	> Without donations I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wouldn't be possible. Actually not true at all. The Wikimedia Foundation and Fandom (previously called Wikia or Wikicities) are both controlled by Jimmy Wales. He used donations for Wikipedia hosting servers and the software technology to create the more niche commercialized sites, and in many cases content submitted to Wikipedia articles are repopulated over to make the spinoff Wikia site pages, too. Fandom owns pretty much every popular wikia site, like Wowwiki and Uncylopedia which generate significant ad revenue. Enough that they have been able to acquire other companies like Screen Junkies from Defy Media. Ya'll should stop donating to Wikipedia. It's nonprofit status has been used to fund a commercial enterprise.
science	this is obviously anecdotal but because of reddit traffic driving me to Wikipedia I have donated more often than I normally would have. I see those banner ads asking for donations, take a second to acknowledge that they are cataloging all human knowledge to such a degree that it's almost as if we have assembled our own God, go holy fuck, and throw them fifty bucks out of pure wonder. I had donated previously, but the frequency that I visit is most definitely correlated to the frequency of my donations.
science	Have you read one of their notices? It is a guilt trip. “Hey there. Yeah, you sir. Surfing the net. Could you just spare a dollar sir? No? Well you know if everyone seeing this page right now donated one dollar we could wrap up the fundraiser in 1 hour, so please reconsider?” What I’d rather hear is the emo shit ripped out and a simple: “Hey, we cost $10m to run. Our Execs are making $130k/yr, very small for nonprofit work. The rest of our expenses are infrastructure costs making sure we’re around and able to handle capacity. Chip in whatever you can, and we’ll keep the lights on, but the day we run out of donations we’re going to have to close shop - we’d rather do that than run ads.” So, the way they present it makes me curious. How much do they pull in a year? How much are the people at the top skimming off? Aren’t the editors/moderators all volunteer?
science	Yes, but with the internet there is so much more information available. Something in the past we would half-ass we can now be sure of instantly. Even in conversation, if you can’t think of a specific event or a fact about a specific thing, you can just look it up on Wikipedia. And sure a lot of people use Google, but on every google search the first answer is on Wikipedia.
science	Think back even 10 years. You could be talking about any number of things you were not familiar with: Cancer, bridge construction, Vietnam war, astrophysics, NBA records, whatever. Someone could tell you something and because you didn't know any better, you might believe it and spread that false information. Now, we literally have an encyclopedia of just about anything you can possibly imagine right in our pockets. False information can be shut down instantly. That's impressive. I've since learned from Wikipedia that some shit even my teachers taught me in school was wrong.
science	Current income is approx $90M, spending 70$M. See [2 charts here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Expenses). In 2005, even if a little in jest, [Jimmy Wales said](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed): >So, we're doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it's really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about US$5,000, and that's essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … The donations support the entire Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is only a part. They have many other projects (although including structural undertakings that can indirectly benefit wikipedia) that don't seem to take off all that much - especially from the point of view of laymen readership. A large part of the spending increases are salaries to support these projects. As far as I can tell, their financials don\`t split cost by project so we can't tell how much Wikipedia alone costs. I don't donate.
science	Actually, someone else argues $5 per Month first. I made the argument to be more realistic for $5/year and not per month. Someone jumped in and suggested $5/mo is reasonable. Why is that reasonable for for the average user? With hundred of millions of unique visitors per month, you’re arguing that users should be paying $100 billion per year If someone says that average penis size is 14 inches in China and I say it’s more likely it to be 5-6 inches, why would believe the 14 inch chain and ask me to proce my estimate? Like, what is even reasonable to believe that $5/mo is the average use for a Wikipedia user?
science	> False information can be shut down instantly. Totally true for a lot of topics, but there are still tons of data voids (specific topics where no good content is avaliable) where false information can still masquerade as truth. Edit: just going to add a [reference](https://datasociety.net/output/data-voids-where-missing-data-can-easily-be-exploited/) here to an interesting paper from data and society and a interesting passage from this reference > Consider searching for “Harrold-Oklaunion.” Both Bing and Google promise you tens of thousands of results, but the front page of each is pretty barren. Most of it is algorithmically generated content by services like Accuweather.com, City-Data.com, Yellowpages.com, and Acrevalue.com. These are services that produce a unique page for every town in the country. There’s a smattering of links to Wikipedia entries, news stories, and court records. But all told, the results associated with this small Texas town of roughly 500 people are limited. Most likely, few people search for this town. Over the month of February 2018, there were so few queries run on Bing for this search term we could only find a very small number, likely from us. Given both limited data and limited searches, it would not be hard to radically alter the results. By creating new content with the town’s name and engaging in a small amount of search engine optimization, someone could with relative ease get search engines to return their website on the front page of results.
science	There are things to improve even on Wikipedia. The power struggles that happen behind the scenes between editors can seem completely puzzling to outsiders. A dedicated and established editor can hold a niche article hostage just because of their stature and knowledge of the bureaucracy. Wikipedia has a rule for everything and this editor can always claim (for example) that certain edits are "in bad faith". Some fun to be had reading through the cases settled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.
science	Yeah it's actually pretty interesting to look over the internal politics of Wikipedia. I'd say that Wikipedia's objectivity is just as substantial of an accomplishment as its vast amount of information. The editor wars are probably its biggest threat, and the framework set in place to give established editors more power(as they are ideally the ones who have proven themselves to their peers) unfortunately doesn't seem to be perfect in preventing these types of situations. I just hope that no ill-meaning or self-serving groups or individuals find a way to take advantage of these flaws in the system.
science	So we’re all in agreement that Wikipedia is the greatest innovation in the proliferation of knowledge since either the printing press or public circulating library? The printing press did wonders. Instead of commissioning a master penman to copy a book you want, you could purchase it. Still not, cheap, but a literate person could have a small library of relevant books he needed. The public circulating library gave access to a wide variety of books. You could read whatever you need, including printed encyclopedias. Wikipedia makes access as close as your nearest computer or smartphone.
science	Not for profits rely on generating a surplus in order to upgrade their equipment and have a slush fund for when bad things happen. A flood in your building cause of a cracked water pipe might cause damage not covered by insurance. Someone might accidentally delete a copy of a file someone needs and it has to be forensically recovered. They may need to hire specifically skilled contractors to investigate cloud computing algorithms that fail but uncover interesting promising data for the future. Nobody plans a perfect watertight budget for years in advance, there is always an “overrun” budget or what people call slush funds. Does buying every executive an iPad improve their efficiency by 20%? I do management in a university and our IT budget is split into break/fix maintence, projects, research and “other”. The “other” is like 10-20% of the budget and gets drained constantly. Think of donations as needing to be 10-20% more than they need in order to have them survive. If wikipedia needs to grow, it can’t grow with a static forecasted budget.
science	In this case it's good that it's not a democracy. If it were, with enough people, they could validate the anti-vax movement, despite all evidence showing that Vaccinations are good and cause no problems. To be clear, from the source it says they are a site that promotes concensus. They reach a consensus following their Five Pillars. 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 2. It must have a neutral voice. 3. It must be free to use and distribute. 4. Editors must be civil with each other. 5. There are guidelines, but no harsh rules since it's a work in progress and mistakes can/do happen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
science	It’s a massive free open source encyclopedia that has never charged anyone a dime for access. I would say it’s hands down but he greatest thing on the internet and probably the greatest thing at spreading information ever. I read Wikipedia basically every single day, usually multiple pages. I’ve learned so much because of that site, just yesterday I learned about the Japanese Paleolithic and a tribe native to the kurill islands called the Ainu I never knew existed, and I just randomly happened upon those topics after googling something completely unrelated.
science	>I just hope that no ill-meaning or self-serving groups or individuals find a way to take advantage of these flaws in the system. I keep getting surprised by how uninvolved the various interest groups are when it comes to Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes. It takes years to build a name for each editor so it's a lot of effort (or you need to find and hire existing editors), but the PR value is there. The way the rules work allow for a group of editors to effectively shut out unwanted sources and even unwanted editors, while at the same time allowing their own.
science	I donated to them a few years ago (whenever their donation banner first went balls-to-the-wall on the "gradual tiny line -> full page sob story" strategy), and while I was happy to send a bit of cash towards a good cause, I was later quite upset to learn that they apparently already have [buttloads of cash.](https://i.imgur.com/kfzxIlD.png) I understand that they have all sorts of other projects under their umbrella, but the tone and increasing urgency / final full-page coverage of the plea banner gave me the strong impression (although it was probably quite carefully worded to not specifically say) that they were genuinely desperate and struggling to survive because the hosting fees for such a large and frequently-used ad-free database of information were simply too much to bear. [They do good things,](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) and I'm sure my money wasn't wasted... but I still feel conned, somehow, even if it was for a good cause. But at least I can feel perfectly comfortable just shamelessly ignoring that banner without a second thought every year now, though, so I suppose that that in and of itself has made the donation worth it (despite my still bearing a grudge.) Edit: Made butts white.
science	I think Wikipedia is an amazing and essential resource, but Joe Schmo working a 8-5 (1 hour mandatory lunch) who is barely making ends meet can't really help. I've donated to wiki several times and due to tax laws couldn't even write it off. Most of us are barely scraping by, we don't have the resources to help wiki. I have to keep my rent paid and my car loan paid first.
science	>The power struggles that happen behind the scenes between editors can seem completely puzzling to outsiders. A dedicated and established editor can hold a niché article hostage just because of their stature and knowledge of the bureaucracy. Wikipedia has a rule for everything and this editor can always claim (for example) that certain edits are "in bad faith". This is a good thing. It keeps articles factually correct and up to date
science	Pillar 5: they will make mistakes. I think they do that when you're a brand new user; from my last exploration of their system, they have to review your edit before it goes public. Obviously, sources matter, depending on the subject. Also, depending on the subject, it may take time before someone can come around to fixing it or letting it be published. When Chris Benoit (profession US wrestler) commited suicide, his Wiki was changed the same day it occurred--though it didn't become public knowledge until 3 days later. I think that part was passed on the investigators, but I don't know how far it got them. It's also to prevent the website from changing every other hour--imagine what a nightmare that would be. I don't want Wikipedia to become a meme of a website or to become encyclopediadramatica (though I enjoy the latter for the lulz).
science	Unless I'm forgetting something or something has changed, people don't own pages. You can protect pages such that new users or non "moderators" (called sysops) can't edit them, though. That's only done for preventing edit wars or for certain high value pages (like the main page and heavily used templates). The exception being your user page, although I don't recall there being any protections against others editing it, but simply that it's uncouth to edit.
science	>'m sure my money wasn't wasted... but I still feel conned, somehow, even if it was for a good cause. But at least I can feel perfectly comfortable just shamelessly ignoring that banner without a second thought every year now, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong. So even though Wiki does great things, you're upset that they use banner ads (you can X out of) and that you're donation wasn't essential to the point your money kept the lights on, even though you acknowledge they do amazing things. If I'm understanding your words correctly...thats a really weird way to look at it. Also, wtf is that graph???? There is absolutely zero information other than green and red bars.
science	Around 2006-2008 or so there was this whole discussion about "Web 2.0" and what it meant. In 2006 TIME Magazine recognized "you" as person of the year, with various web 2.0 properties like Facebook and MySpace as the paragons of the new social internet. Well, we all know what happened to MySpace and how facebook perhaps isn't an uncomplicated force for good today. I do, however, remember an article from a few years later that took a sober look at Web 2.0 and what it brought. It acknowledged facebook and gmail and all that new stuff that was gaining a greater audience at the time. It also argued that Wikipedia was the jewel of the internet and that it was the thing that realized the potential of the internet and in particular the thing that leveraged the power of "web 2.0" to do good. And it was god damned right. For all its faults, Wikipedia is an absolute treasure and a singular achievement of mankind. I have a hard time imagining the world without it. I even get teared up about it, when I really think about it. Turns out mankind can do something right.
science	I know professionals that used to write for ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA (EB). I was told by them that if EB could be taken seriously and used for a source, then WIKIPEDIA (WP), without a doubt, should definitely be able to be used as a source as well. WP is scrutinized so much more than EB ever was apparently. However with WP, just like with EB, primary sources should be double checked and cited alongside WP. Any teacher or professor who says, "Don't use WP, use real sources!," is just mad that kids nowadays have such quick and easy access to the information they need. They're the ones who don't think calculators should be used either. They probably secretly wish you still had to use a card catalog and the Dewey decimal system!
science	At first I was credulous. Then I paused to reflect upon how bizzare it is that people can learn at entirely different paces, in entirely different directions. I was reminded of an xkcd sketch on the subject. All I know is that I've known of the Ainu for longer than I can recall, and I assumed that everyone knew of the sensitive history the Japanese had with the natives of Okinawa and Hokaido, but I cannot recall exactly from what point I knew. All I do know, is that wikipedia is perhaps one of the most extraordinary products of mankind, and I value it for it's existance, insofar as it has remained steady against all of those who frequently sought to undermine it and enter into editing struggles to push their version of fact. Like a tool, wikipedia can be used ineptly, irresponsibly, or sometimes it serves no purpose at all, and more refined, specialised, even antiquated tools are needed instead, but it's one incredible tool nevertheless.
science	I've written quite a few highly-voted posts on SU with Wikipedia links, but most of those links are there for the definition of a specific term (and therefore a bit of a tangent). Most links could be left out without much difference to the answer. It's also natural for longer posts (as many highly-voted ones are) to include more links to references. So, while there's a correlation, I'm not sure to what extent you can say the Wikipedia link itself influences votes.
science	The poorer folks who didn't own encyclopedias would have to journey to the library, hope the volume they wanted wasn't already in someone else's hands, and spend a great deal more time on the research. Now someone way out in the North Woods, 50 miles from the nearest library, can find that same information in his pocket for a fraction of the time for free. No cellular data and no fixed wireless or satellite internet? That's okay, Wikipedia is fairly usable on dialup. Sure, it's not life or death, but it makes us a great deal more knowledgeable very quickly and easily.
science	Original response said users should pay $5/mo. I said we that is over shooting and $5/yr is realistIf goal. Another individual said it was worth it to them. So then my question to you: 1. Why not attack the first guy saying $5/mo? 2. Why would you think $5/mo is something the average Wikipedia user would pay or is using it the equivalent of $5/mo? 3. Guy with his anecdote is indirectly supporting the original argument for $5/mo. I just told him that isn’t the typical user. If you disagree, go back to #2. I get it...these posts bring in people like you that want to CJ all over Wikipedia. Reality doesn’t matter to you
science	Brittanica is slightly more accurate. >For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts. In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia. [Sauce.](https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/)
science	Exactly. I read a random Wikipedia page a day on average too. I especially love history, and any time I wonder something specific about something I just open up the app and have the info instantly. I also add articles to the reading list as if they are books I plan on reading. It's so incredible and I feel like some people take for granted just how awesome it is that it's free and so accessible.
science	yea. but lets face it, like other "new" creations on the internet, back in the day, it needed a few corners cut, to begin with. Today it's on the same scale of quality like Britannica. :) however it has other issues. that could be helped by having educated people fact checking it, etc. to avoid power struggles.. &#x200B; plus, wikipedia has links to the references. that can be followed too.... for more knowledge.....
science	I’m also a teacher who loves Wikipedia. I’m young enough to have had access to Wikipedia in school and to have parroted the “Wikipedia is a bad source” nonsense before the understanding of its value evolved. Now I regularly reference it in class and talk about how I use it to get a feel for a topic and get details from the sources. I want to teach them to use their resources and to be critical thinkers. Wikipedia is a great tool to support that. They all have access to it from their pockets, so why not spend just as much time teaching them to use that effectively as searching academic databases that they might use through college, if they go, and never see again.
science	But the problem is that academic papers arent approachable to the common reader. It's just academics writing for fellow academics. Wikipedia skips the jargon and just writes what these articles say in far more approachable ways. There is nothing more frustrating than having an article that has a great point, but is written in such a way that even with a degree and a passion for the field I can't get through it all in an enjoyable way. So yeah, while papers are great most are written for academics only. Which defeats the whole purpose of academic work.
science	>I would argue Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the internet. Think about how uneducated we’d be without it. So before Wikipedia everyone was a dumb fuck? Ever heard of a library or books? Wikipedia is a tool to spread misinformation, it is easily manipulated, people need to stop using as a 1 stop shop for knowledge in the same way we should avoid using google or Yahoo as our primary sources of information.
science	This came up a while back in a minor part of the scandal that caused Bryan Colangelo, GM of the 76ers, to lose his job because his wife was tweeting defensively about him from a series of burner accounts and revealing confidential information in the process. A few of her tweets used the European method for denoting money (something like "That player is not worth 10$ million per year"), which was one of the clues that Twitter sleuths used to determine that they were written by a non-native English speaker—and even to link them specifically to Colangelo's wife, who is Italian.
science	As a gray hair person, you are correct. The whole thing started by founding by the US government, more specially the department of defense (DARPA). They were looking for a communication system that would be resilient to attacks. Researchers in US envisioned communication protocols and started connecting computers across universities. More specially inter connecting their networks, hence the name: inter + net = internet. You can find maps of the early connections. What researchers did with that? They send each others jokes, pranks and research papers. That made knowledge a bit faster to spread among universities and students started using it as well (no cats gifts yet). Eventually connections have been allowed with for profit companies and from there a snowball effect connected pretty much everything together. The early days (1980's) had users mostly over educated (PhD and engineers) who were eager to share their knowledge and most importantly learn from others. The hypertext markup started late in the 1980's at CERN, a European research center. The person was looking for an interface to easily navigate between content. Fast forward we end up with a foundation that is willing to gather all human knowledge. It definitely has its roots in the early days of internet and stick to the original version of internet creators. The only concern I have with wikipedia is that is entirely centralized and US biased, but that is surely better than a company selling your profile for advertisements. TLDR: bunch of geeks with 150 IQ started connecting their computers to exchange everything they knew. Internet was born.
science	I wouldn't say targeting a specialist audience defeats the purpose of academic work. If each academic paper were written to be accessible to a wide (layman) audience, each 5-page publication would turn into a 500-page book, detailing all the concepts that are expected to be well known among fellow researchers. Most researchers have very little time (80 hour workweeks are not uncommon in academia), so a report needs to cut to the chase and be concise. Also, "intermediate" results presented in most studies are only of interest to specialists. If a study yields results that are of greater societal interest or have a direct application, it is quite often accompanied by a press release summarising the main findings and take-home messages. These press releases find their way to popular science journalists and editors who can interpret them and convey the message in an understandable way (which is an art in itself).
science	>I keep getting surprised by how uninvolved I don't have the source right now, but I've definitely come across some studies that tend to prove otherwise. Corporations, PR team, politics, all have infested wikipedia since quite some time, and they have established editors in the lot. It's quite logical, considering the importance of looking good on wikipedia given it's usually the only thing the average joe will look at to get a general idea of something he just heard about. There are even online services you can hire that guarantee you established editors.
science	And many fewer people are actually capable of comprehending what’s in that paper when they lack the background. I see techbros on this site consistently misinterpreting studies because they have zero formal education in anything relevant to the paper’s field. To a lesser extent I see this with people whose education is in hard sciences when they look at political science studies and don’t seem to understand why p values are so high. No matter how smart or educated you may be sometimes the wiki summary is more comprehensible than the actual paper unless you have a relevant degree.
science	Just a sidenote but I've always thought that the problem with Wikipedia as a source is less to do with its reliability per se, and more to do with its inherently temporary nature. When taught to students citation is usually framed in the context of giving due credit for somebody else's work, but really the point of citation is to give your readers a way to refer to the source material that you're using to underpin whatever argument you're putting forward. That's trickier with a source like Wikipedia that can change at a moment's notice, as compared to a traditional encyclopedia where once a particular edition is published the information will exist in exactly that form for as long as a copy of that edition can be tracked down. I suppose Wikipedia could probably get around that problem by letting you view a snapshot of an article from a particular time? But honestly I don't know if such a feature exists.
science	It's just general knowledge of the world. Same goes for regional minorities in countries all around the world. History, Geography, Politics. All subjects it is a duty for all conscientious citizens to acquaint themselves with as much as they are capable, or so my old German teacher used to tell me. It seemed so sensible as to be universal, or so I thought as a child. I've never cared more for Japan than any other country, although I've never met anyone with whom I discussed the matter who wasn't at least familiar with the Ainu and Ryukyuans. Maybe they don't know about the haplogroup anomalies, or the ethnic replacement of the neolithic inhabitants closely related to the Ainu, but they know the expected minimum.
science	Very true. I think it might be cool if somehow someone made a version that was more like a classic encyclopedia for putting on flash drives and such. Like, skip all the pages about the drummer in an indie band from Switzerland. While it's cool to have that kind of thing, I feel like a large amount of space goes to things like people, specific cities and places, other general stuff that very few people will look at. So having a curated version would be cool. Would be a lot of work though.
science	I really wish that wikipedia articles made it easier to view ideas/materials that were eliminated,discarded and/or decided against... I'm aware there are talk pages with archives, but they usually don't seem to provide the the amount of detail I'd hope for. It seems like articles could possibly maintain more detailed changelogs or even "forking" within individual articles... i.e. the articles would still look identical as they do today but you could view the forks in same way that you view the talk pages..
science	Okay here is the rub. There is NO way to have any sort of platform wide accounting regarding any measurement of how rampant any abuse is. Due to factors too numerous to mention, most problems do not come to the surface, and the variations of abuse that fall of the radar can be so minor as involving only two or three people that nothing gets registered anywhere, at all. [Censorship, Suppression, The Shining Light of Wikipedia, and other disappointments.](http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2017/06/censorship-suppression-the-shining-light-of-wikipedia-and-other-disappointments/)
science	He is entirely unsure of what he is even saying. "Dont give them any more ideas" this is 2018 - those who had the idea to abuse the platform for agenda based editing happened years and years ago, Larry Sanger, the co-founder, quit over many of these abuses. The problem is twofold on Wikipedia. One is the software design flaw, which increases competition while community rules and guidelines foister collaboration. Second issue is, by the standards of Wikipedia's own community, a "honeypot" for those on the spectrum. [This group tends to lack social empathy, increasing the tensions in these flaws.](http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/09/oliver-d-smith-mediawiki-poster-boy/) &#x200B;
science	I totally get why most papers are written at a higher level. 100% agree with you on that. However, I do feel that this keeps things from spreading to the general public as easily. I'm not saying we need to work better at writing "dumber", but perhaps writing in a more engaging way? I have a book about a region in europe that I have zero experience in, and a book related to my own archaeological research. The one on Europe was a far better read because the author did an excellent job painting a picture of the world these people lived in, which made it far more enjoyable. The one on my own area of research didn't do this at all. Both were written recently and both by respected researchers who did the needed stats, but one was far better simply because the author didnt make it as sterile.
science	This was my feeling also. There's a lot of reasons why SO links to Wikipedia but not the other way around. Theres lots of issues with measuring "value". So im not exactly confident the results can be known from what data I think exists out there to collect. And while I think Wikipedia is great, I think Reddit and StackExchange are great too. They're all just different data structures. There are some graph-based ones out there now that communities build trees together rather than strings. Interesting times! But to say objects have more value than arrays, because arrays appear in more objects than objects in arrays... is... I just think the whole thing starts from a weird place. I think it's due to the fetishization of big data. I mean, website analysis in itself is not science. It's journalism with numbers. I like that. I think it's cool. But when the awards start coming out and the main findings are that a company, albeit Wikipedia, are awesome. Meh.
science	All authors are equal, but some are more equal than others... I have seen many publications that were dry as bone and remained undigested even after a second pass. So yes, the trick is to write an easily readable and well structured paper, regardless of your audience. For science communication to the public, I'd say peer-reviewed publications are not the right medium. So that's where Wikipedia and Reddit come in :)
science	>I would argue Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the internet. I agree, I wish I had an offline backup of it all :/ It sucks being Swedish though, the Swedish articles are pretty crap usually and I have to choose between a Swedish article with very limited information or an English one that I might not fully comprehend. It's usually fine in English but I like reading about science-heavy things that use a lot of advanced terminology, it can get confusing.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.