Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikorym | Hacker News Reader

This may be true.

But I use wikipedia for mathematics and then things like geography and history. For the former, it works very well. For the latter two it seems like it's not too bad.

View on HN

Though many times subtle, history is often misrepresented in Wikipedia and definitely has a bias.

Sadly, there is no substitute for careful reading. History books will always be subtly representing the historians biases, even as the present a lot of detailed facts.

The Wikipedia is no different. But it still allows the interested-amateur to do a breadth-first study of a topic without drilling down into a whole book. In both cases, the reader can't assume that she has seen an unbiased (whatever that means) story. But she can glean enough facts to be less ignorant about the topic than before.

Mathematics on Wikipedia is top notch (my training was in mathematics so I can say this with a high level of certainty), but mathematics is hardly controversial. Not surprisingly, the more controversial the topic, the more biased Wikipedia gets. Try to look up any controversial political topic, current or historical, in most cases the objectivity and comprehensiveness of articles are highly questionable.

Also, you would hardly ever see edit wars on math topics, but they happen all the time on politics.

Any online resources you could recommend to someone looking to learn some higher level math? The highest I ever got in school was the beginnings of Calculus and I'd like to dig a little deeper. However, I keep running into the issue of not really understanding all of the Greek symbology.

My recommendation would be to pick a topic that you want to understand better, then I could offer to point you to that topic in a way that stems from my own work / my training set for maths.

the mathematics on wikipedia is very often correct, but very infrequently easy to read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com