Wikipedia is excessively fact checked. You can test this pretty simply by making a misinformation edit on a random page. You will get banned eventually
At the practice I used to use, there was a PA that would work with me. He’d give me the actual medical terms for stuff he was telling me he was worried about and between that session and the next I’d look them up, read all I could about them. Occasionally I’d find something he would peg as X and I’d find Y looked like a better match. I’d talk to him, he’d disappear for a moment and come back we’d talk about X and Y and sometimes I was right.
“Google’s not bad, I use it sometimes, we have access to stuff you don’t have access to, but sometimes that stuff is outdated. With Google you need to have the education to know what when an article is genuine or likely and when an article is just a drug company trying to make money”
Sorry, I should have clarified: they’d revert your change quickly, and your account would be banned after a few additional infractions. You think AI would be better?
I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.
I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.
I think a medical textbook would be better.
Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it’s not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.
Sorry but have to disagree. Look at the talk page on a math or science Wikipedia article, the people who maintain those pages are deadly serious. Medical journals and scientific publications aren’t intended to be accessible to a wider public, they’re intended to be bases for research - primary sources. Wikipedia is a digest source.
I can agree for you to disagree, It’s different for different situations, everything you’re saying is correct but but doesn’t make me fell better about my situation.
Was a good conversation, I do feel I can see that there are people doing their best to keep Wikipedia honest. Have a good one.
I’d give you calculators easily, they’re straight up tools, but Google and Wikipedia aren’t significantly better than AI.
Wikipedia is hardly fact checked, Google search is rolling the dice that you get anything viable.
Textbooks aren’t perfect, but I kinda want the guy doing my surgery to have started there, and I want the school to make sure he knows his shit.
Wikipedia is excessively fact checked. You can test this pretty simply by making a misinformation edit on a random page. You will get banned eventually
Sorry, not what i’m looking for in a medical infosource.
We only subscribe to the best medical sources here, WebMD.
At the practice I used to use, there was a PA that would work with me. He’d give me the actual medical terms for stuff he was telling me he was worried about and between that session and the next I’d look them up, read all I could about them. Occasionally I’d find something he would peg as X and I’d find Y looked like a better match. I’d talk to him, he’d disappear for a moment and come back we’d talk about X and Y and sometimes I was right.
“Google’s not bad, I use it sometimes, we have access to stuff you don’t have access to, but sometimes that stuff is outdated. With Google you need to have the education to know what when an article is genuine or likely and when an article is just a drug company trying to make money”
Dude was pretty cool
Sorry, I should have clarified: they’d revert your change quickly, and your account would be banned after a few additional infractions. You think AI would be better?
I think a medical journal or publication with integrity would be better.
I think one of the private pay only medical databases would be better.
I think a medical textbook would be better.
Wikipedia is fine for doing a book report in high school, but it’s not a stable source of truth you should be trusting with lives. You put in a team of paid medical professionals curating it, we can talk.
Sorry but have to disagree. Look at the talk page on a math or science Wikipedia article, the people who maintain those pages are deadly serious. Medical journals and scientific publications aren’t intended to be accessible to a wider public, they’re intended to be bases for research - primary sources. Wikipedia is a digest source.
I can agree for you to disagree, It’s different for different situations, everything you’re saying is correct but but doesn’t make me fell better about my situation.
Was a good conversation, I do feel I can see that there are people doing their best to keep Wikipedia honest. Have a good one.
Well then we def agree. I still think Wikipedia > LLMs though. Human supervision and all that