Hacker News Reader

Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

I have found the opposite… there is hardly a consistsntly more organized and accurate source that is accessible to the public, but I would be glad to hear what it is if you have one in mind.

Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than local news channels even about recent events, and everything is sources (casualty count: who said it etc.)

View on HN

I think Wikipedia is a great start to finding content at a general level.

Though, vertical specific niches often have better sources of information. For e.g. Examine.com currently seems better for nutrition and supplement information. Or even an old school reference book like The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth is better for algorithms.

I disagree that the old school books are better. It is like saying MacOS 7 is better than today’s Linux that has many people fixing bugs and expanding its features over the years

> Or even an old school reference book like The Art of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth is better for algorithms.

It is rediculous to compare an encyclopedia like wikipedia to an advanced text like Knuth. They aren't trying to do the same thing.

Wikipedia is how you find a reference like The Art of Computer Programming for a given subject.

> Wikipedia is far more trustworthy than local news channels even about recent events, and everything is sources (casualty count: who said it etc.)

That's more due to the very low quality of news.

What is CONSISTENTLY higher quality that wikipedia?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com