Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I'm curious about what people use to look things up these days.
When I was a kid, we had one of those multi-volume encyclopedias, purchased in 1966, that sent out a yearbook every year to update various topics. After a few years, you had to go through all the yearbooks to make certain you were actually looking at the latest information. After a while the Columbia Viking two-volume "desk" encyclopedia became more used in our household. In fact, I bought one of the single-volume big blue editions in 1990, to pair with the CRC Handbook. I also have a volume called "The New York Public Library Desk Reference". Between the three of them you could look up almost everything.
Microsoft Encarta came out in 1993, and pretty soon every home computer came with a CD-ROM encyclopedia of some sort, usually of fairly low coverage and quality. The Web also came out in 1993, and NCSA Mosaic was released, followed by Netscape Navigator in 1994 and Internet Explorer in 1995. By the late 90's, a vast disorganized collection of information was available via the Web, and characters like Richard Stallman were calling for some kind of free Internet encyclopedia. Nupedia was formed in 2000, I think, and grew into Wikipedia, still with us today. 6 million topics.
What else do people use? For instance, Investopedia. Is it better than Wikipedia? How? Why?
What about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, another interesting project?
What about raw Google searches? Yellow Pages replacements?
If you've got any favorites, I'd love to hear about them!
When I was a kid, we had one of those multi-volume encyclopedias, purchased in 1966, that sent out a yearbook every year to update various topics. After a few years, you had to go through all the yearbooks to make certain you were actually looking at the latest information. After a while the Columbia Viking two-volume "desk" encyclopedia became more used in our household. In fact, I bought one of the single-volume big blue editions in 1990, to pair with the CRC Handbook. I also have a volume called "The New York Public Library Desk Reference". Between the three of them you could look up almost everything.
Microsoft Encarta came out in 1993, and pretty soon every home computer came with a CD-ROM encyclopedia of some sort, usually of fairly low coverage and quality. The Web also came out in 1993, and NCSA Mosaic was released, followed by Netscape Navigator in 1994 and Internet Explorer in 1995. By the late 90's, a vast disorganized collection of information was available via the Web, and characters like Richard Stallman were calling for some kind of free Internet encyclopedia. Nupedia was formed in 2000, I think, and grew into Wikipedia, still with us today. 6 million topics.
What else do people use? For instance, Investopedia. Is it better than Wikipedia? How? Why?
What about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, another interesting project?
What about raw Google searches? Yellow Pages replacements?
If you've got any favorites, I'd love to hear about them!
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Wikipedia is my go to starting point. Then for movies and TV, I’ll also look at IMDb. Neither source is perfect, but they continue to evolve and improve.
If I want US news, I start with Sky News and the BBC. If I want neutral, I’ll start with Reuters or AP. US reporting has gotten much worse over the years. I’m more interested with foreign news outlets are saying about us.
For tech news I like Ars Technica and the Verge. For hardware I’ll look around as a lot of tech reporting is disappearing.
I used to be an avid reader of the Economist when it was free online from the library.
For books, there are YouTube channels that I like. But that’s really a personal preference.
Investopedia has really good videos.
If I want US news, I start with Sky News and the BBC. If I want neutral, I’ll start with Reuters or AP. US reporting has gotten much worse over the years. I’m more interested with foreign news outlets are saying about us.
For tech news I like Ars Technica and the Verge. For hardware I’ll look around as a lot of tech reporting is disappearing.
I used to be an avid reader of the Economist when it was free online from the library.
For books, there are YouTube channels that I like. But that’s really a personal preference.
Investopedia has really good videos.
-
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
NIH or National cancer institute for cancer research papers
Mayo Clinic for medical information
Investopedia or Bogleheads for financial/investing matters.
BLS.gov for labor statistics
YouTube for car repair videos
In general
.org sites are generally very good
.gov sites for raw data
I never use social media.
Edu sites can be good especially for research results.
Mayo Clinic for medical information
Investopedia or Bogleheads for financial/investing matters.
BLS.gov for labor statistics
YouTube for car repair videos
In general
.org sites are generally very good
.gov sites for raw data
I never use social media.
Edu sites can be good especially for research results.
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I can read much faster than I can watch video. So I prefer text to video of talking heads saying text. On the other hand, I like video for demonstrations of technique, like carpentry or cooking or sailing. One of the defects of Wikipedia, IMO, is its relative failure to embrace video for those kinds of things.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Rather than a list of individual resources which would be incomplete and are subject to change over time, what you really seek is the ability to critically assess, interpret, and apply information sources to your questions at hand. Being able to do that makes the entire world of amassed knowledge available to you in a usable way, even if it means just knowing when to seek expert help.
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
But, you asked for a starting point, so here is a link to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation:
https://www.chea.org/directories
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
But, you asked for a starting point, so here is a link to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation:
https://www.chea.org/directories
Semper Augustus
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
refdesk.com
and wikipedia, and wiktionary.
wikihow is good for how-to instructions.
and wikipedia, and wiktionary.
wikihow is good for how-to instructions.
How can you tell if someone’s a vegan |
Ans: Oh, they’ll tell you |
How do you know if a boglehead doesn’t care about calculating dividend yield? |
Ans: Oh, they’ll tell you, even if 10 other people have
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Reddit for problem solving or product recommendations
AI is becoming a good starting point as well. And before anyone yells “but sometimes it’s wrong!” You can always just ask for sources
AI is becoming a good starting point as well. And before anyone yells “but sometimes it’s wrong!” You can always just ask for sources
“You can have a stable principal value or a stable income stream but not both" |
- In Pursuit of the Perfect Portfolio
-
- Posts: 967
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 3:52 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Google in some cases, DuckDuckGo in others.
Wikipedia peaked about 10-15 years ago. Since then, the quality of many articles has fallen and I find myself reading it much less.
Wikipedia peaked about 10-15 years ago. Since then, the quality of many articles has fallen and I find myself reading it much less.
Society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never sit in
-
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
How do you know the original poster doesn't have a bachelor's degree.Teague wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:13 pm Rather than a list of individual resources which would be incomplete and are subject to change over time, what you really seek is the ability to critically assess, interpret, and apply information sources to your questions at hand. Being able to do that makes the entire world of amassed knowledge available to you in a usable way, even if it means just knowing when to seek expert help.
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
But, you asked for a starting point, so here is a link to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation:
https://www.chea.org/directories
I'm not going to argue against education, but a BA/BS is
not required to analyze basic information.
If it is, then citizens without a college degree would not
be able to function in society, and college has become
High School. I don't believe that that is the case.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
How insulting. What makes you think most well regarded 4 year colleges teach critical thinking?Teague wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:13 pm Rather than a list of individual resources which would be incomplete and are subject to change over time, what you really seek is the ability to critically assess, interpret, and apply information sources to your questions at hand. Being able to do that makes the entire world of amassed knowledge available to you in a usable way, even if it means just knowing when to seek expert help.
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
But, you asked for a starting point, so here is a link to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation:
https://www.chea.org/directories
While the moments do summersaults into eternity |
Cling to their coattails and beg them to stay - Townes Van Zandt
-
- Posts: 2836
- Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:06 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Teaching with library of congress
https://blogs.loc.gov/teachers/?fbclid= ... jXAmlpRpkA
I like the CDC flu map: https://www.cdc.gov/fluview/surveillance/usmap.html.
There is generally good information on the CDC page.
With a grain of salt I sometime use https://www.city-data.com/ for various bits of information about cities/locations usually when I'm looking at real estate... I haven't used it in a while - it use to pull public information and government census info. Not sure how far behind it might be. t
https://blogs.loc.gov/teachers/?fbclid= ... jXAmlpRpkA
I like the CDC flu map: https://www.cdc.gov/fluview/surveillance/usmap.html.
There is generally good information on the CDC page.
With a grain of salt I sometime use https://www.city-data.com/ for various bits of information about cities/locations usually when I'm looking at real estate... I haven't used it in a while - it use to pull public information and government census info. Not sure how far behind it might be. t
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Been there, done that. Sure. But what I was asking was, what "individual resources" do people find helpful at the moment?Teague wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:13 pm Rather than a list of individual resources which would be incomplete and are subject to change over time, what you really seek is the ability to critically assess, interpret, and apply information sources to your questions at hand. Being able to do that makes the entire world of amassed knowledge available to you in a usable way, even if it means just knowing when to seek expert help.
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
That's interesting. Can you say more? How do you assess that quality decrease? Are there specific areas?rogue_economist wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:33 pm Google in some cases, DuckDuckGo in others.
Wikipedia peaked about 10-15 years ago. Since then, the quality of many articles has fallen and I find myself reading it much less.
And, when you do a Web search, how do you choose which results to explore?
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Wikipedia is my go-to. Britannica is a distant second.
Three details.
1) On Wikipedia, I take the "verifiability" policy seriously. I look at the source citations. If I have even the trace of a doubt, I look up the sources.
2) On anything remotely controversial, I check the "history" to see if there's some kind of edit war going on, and I check the "talk" page for discussions about the point.
3) Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view" policy. If an article seems to be uncritically favorable to something, particularly some kind of commercial product, I take the time to see whether there is a "criticisms of" or "disputes" section.
Just today, Wikipedia explained to me something I hadn't understood: exactly HOW Ohio had successfully blocked, for over ninety years, Alaska's wishes to re-establish Denali as the name of the mountain in Denali National Park.
Three details.
1) On Wikipedia, I take the "verifiability" policy seriously. I look at the source citations. If I have even the trace of a doubt, I look up the sources.
2) On anything remotely controversial, I check the "history" to see if there's some kind of edit war going on, and I check the "talk" page for discussions about the point.
3) Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view" policy. If an article seems to be uncritically favorable to something, particularly some kind of commercial product, I take the time to see whether there is a "criticisms of" or "disputes" section.
Just today, Wikipedia explained to me something I hadn't understood: exactly HOW Ohio had successfully blocked, for over ninety years, Alaska's wishes to re-establish Denali as the name of the mountain in Denali National Park.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I’m using Perplexity AI which is designed for searching. It shows what sources it has used to construct its response and I often follow the link to them just to be sure it isn’t coming from a post by “Steve” in some Reddit thread.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Work: vendor manuals, textbook
Personal computer: man pages
House/DIY: homedepot.com
Health: mayoclinic.org
Chess: books, lichess.org, chess.com
Hiking: guide book, topo maps
Miscellaneous data: bls.gov, eia.gov, fred.stlouisfed.org, weather.gov
Geography curiosities: Google Maps, Wikipedia (mostly for pictures), paper maps
Random facts could be Google search or Wikipedia or "AI" result. But I am less likely to "look things up" if not actionable or memorable. Too much clutter for the mind.
Personal computer: man pages
House/DIY: homedepot.com
Health: mayoclinic.org
Chess: books, lichess.org, chess.com
Hiking: guide book, topo maps
Miscellaneous data: bls.gov, eia.gov, fred.stlouisfed.org, weather.gov
Geography curiosities: Google Maps, Wikipedia (mostly for pictures), paper maps
Random facts could be Google search or Wikipedia or "AI" result. But I am less likely to "look things up" if not actionable or memorable. Too much clutter for the mind.
- slippinsurlies
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:18 pm
- Location: Mainland US
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
As long as the level of understanding I need to achieve is “familiar” not “expert” then Wikipedia is great. Also conditional on the topic I need info on NOT being highly controversial, decisive, or otherwise in the midst of a struggle.
Recently, ChatGPT has been a great go-to. It is good for the same level of understanding as Wikipedia, but more focused on my specific context.
For example: I recently had a cholesterol test and wanted to have a basic idea of how to interpret the number before I go talk to my doctor about it. I can search Wikipedia for cholesterol test, LDL cholesterol, and other relevant topics. I skim those articles and gather the info I need. Or, I just ask ChatGPT, “What is a normal healthy LDL cholesterol level?” or “How should I interpret an LDL cholesterol test result of XXX?” Using ChatGPT gets me the same information, with the same quality, in a much quicker and useful way.
Recently, ChatGPT has been a great go-to. It is good for the same level of understanding as Wikipedia, but more focused on my specific context.
For example: I recently had a cholesterol test and wanted to have a basic idea of how to interpret the number before I go talk to my doctor about it. I can search Wikipedia for cholesterol test, LDL cholesterol, and other relevant topics. I skim those articles and gather the info I need. Or, I just ask ChatGPT, “What is a normal healthy LDL cholesterol level?” or “How should I interpret an LDL cholesterol test result of XXX?” Using ChatGPT gets me the same information, with the same quality, in a much quicker and useful way.
“Don’t do something. Just stand there.” -Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 10130
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:47 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Wikipedia is the best starting point for general info. It's like a gateway drug. If I am interested enough, or if my spidey-sense detects something amiss, I graduate to harder stuff. Sometimes quora is useful but you have to have good spidey-sense. Brittanica online isn't bad either.
I use ChatGPT mostly for amusement purposes, often just out of curiosity to see what it comes up with...I probably underuse it and should use it more. It's great for generating things like heartfelt Christmas card messages to your inlaws.
I don't think there is a reliable site anymore for product reviews (though if a product gets less than 4/5 on Google or Amazon I am skeptical). I think the best out there is probably reddit.com...as explained to me by an academic whose research is tightly connected to this, there are so many interconnected reddit sites that it is very difficult to successfully overwhelm them with spam. I still use wirecutter as well but I no longer trust them as I used to, so I use it less and less and when I do use it I try to verify their analysis elsewhere.
For news I usually use NYT or Reuters. I think Reuters is more objective but less user-friendly. Reuters is free. NYT charges a nominal $1/wk which can probably be renewed if you threaten to switch to WaPo.
There is no good popular site for medical info. I usually google the topic and connect "nih" or something like that to my google, then look for appropriate academic articles since I am comfortable with reading medical studies and critiquing them. University sites are usually reliable, or well recognized professional organizations. Quackwatch was great for exposing psedoscience in the health fields but it has not been updated in quite awhile. So if the quack has only been around for the last decade or so they may be omitted.
I use "media bias fact check" a lot to verify the reliability and bias of sources. I also use "snopes" and other similar sites to verify things like quotes and extraordinary claims.
Even though I am a doctor I still have not found a reliable way to find a new doctor. I do what most people do...often resort to online reviews that are mostly BS. Asking recommendations from your current MDs will usually give you a recommendation of somebody who is in their referral base or an old med school buddy. The one thing that does seem to work is asking your MD who they PERSONALLY see.
I use ChatGPT mostly for amusement purposes, often just out of curiosity to see what it comes up with...I probably underuse it and should use it more. It's great for generating things like heartfelt Christmas card messages to your inlaws.
I don't think there is a reliable site anymore for product reviews (though if a product gets less than 4/5 on Google or Amazon I am skeptical). I think the best out there is probably reddit.com...as explained to me by an academic whose research is tightly connected to this, there are so many interconnected reddit sites that it is very difficult to successfully overwhelm them with spam. I still use wirecutter as well but I no longer trust them as I used to, so I use it less and less and when I do use it I try to verify their analysis elsewhere.
For news I usually use NYT or Reuters. I think Reuters is more objective but less user-friendly. Reuters is free. NYT charges a nominal $1/wk which can probably be renewed if you threaten to switch to WaPo.
There is no good popular site for medical info. I usually google the topic and connect "nih" or something like that to my google, then look for appropriate academic articles since I am comfortable with reading medical studies and critiquing them. University sites are usually reliable, or well recognized professional organizations. Quackwatch was great for exposing psedoscience in the health fields but it has not been updated in quite awhile. So if the quack has only been around for the last decade or so they may be omitted.
I use "media bias fact check" a lot to verify the reliability and bias of sources. I also use "snopes" and other similar sites to verify things like quotes and extraordinary claims.
Even though I am a doctor I still have not found a reliable way to find a new doctor. I do what most people do...often resort to online reviews that are mostly BS. Asking recommendations from your current MDs will usually give you a recommendation of somebody who is in their referral base or an old med school buddy. The one thing that does seem to work is asking your MD who they PERSONALLY see.
"The truth cannot force its way in, when something else is occupying its place." |
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
My first step is generally going to be Wikipedia.
I find that they have an unparalleled ratio of:
[Information content] / [Time expended]
I find that they have an unparalleled ratio of:
[Information content] / [Time expended]
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I use Wikipedia extensively. I have made some minor contributions and corrections. It's a great resource, although it should not be treated the same as an authoritative source in important cases. Usually it's pretty good, and article owners look after it and maintain quality levels and protect against abuse.
I most commonly use it for extremely quick lookups with the free Wikipanion app by Robert Chin for iOS. I recommend it.
If you become familiar with the typical layout and content of Wikipedia articles, you can find information very quickly.
I most commonly use it for extremely quick lookups with the free Wikipanion app by Robert Chin for iOS. I recommend it.
If you become familiar with the typical layout and content of Wikipedia articles, you can find information very quickly.
-
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I'll assume OP refers to general queries, not related to professional needs or when a specialty-focused source is needed.
If getting a wrong answer to a question isn't consequential (What country has highest per capita garlic consumption? What's the Klingon word for love?), I just enter the question or key words into Google and find that the AI answer is usually sufficient.
Other general references:
Wikipedia is good if I want a 1-2 minute long answer (Who were the Gnostics? What's in snake venom?).
YouTube when audio/video is helpful (How do I replace the air filter? What's shoe gaze?).
If getting a wrong answer to a question isn't consequential (What country has highest per capita garlic consumption? What's the Klingon word for love?), I just enter the question or key words into Google and find that the AI answer is usually sufficient.
Other general references:
Wikipedia is good if I want a 1-2 minute long answer (Who were the Gnostics? What's in snake venom?).
YouTube when audio/video is helpful (How do I replace the air filter? What's shoe gaze?).
-
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:55 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I was really into Lush back in the 90's, but for whatever reason, that didn't translate into liking other shoe gaze bands.Feldman wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 7:51 pm This is shoe gaze, or actually a cover of shoe gaze:
https://youtu.be/9TAxjkU6tNk
But to return to topic, I wonder what those who have bothered to read Wikipedia articles about their own professional specialty think of their accuracy. The one time I did, I found and corrected a gross error. While I still use Wikipedia, that experience made me consign it to "don't rely on it for anything important."
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Understood, and no slight intended toward anyone. Knowing how to sort the wheat from the chaff is of course the tricky part of this stuff, and where things generally go wrong.littlerfish wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:59 pmBeen there, done that. Sure. But what I was asking was, what "individual resources" do people find helpful at the moment?Teague wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:13 pm Rather than a list of individual resources which would be incomplete and are subject to change over time, what you really seek is the ability to critically assess, interpret, and apply information sources to your questions at hand. Being able to do that makes the entire world of amassed knowledge available to you in a usable way, even if it means just knowing when to seek expert help.
I'd suggest obtaining a 4 year degree in almost any subject from a well regarded college, ideally with a science related focus, but really completing any major will accomplish much toward this goal.
A few sources I'm particularly familiar with:
Wikipedia is a great starting point and my go-to, the closest thing to having that encyclopedia in your folks house. "Trust but verify."
Youtube videos can be a godsend for DIY repairs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ for primary source biomedical literature. But understand that being included there does not imply anything about the quality of a particular study. And the significance of one study vs. another can vary tremendously. That wheat vs. chaff thing.
cdc.gov for health topics
nws.noaa.gov for weather
noaa.gov The overarching agency NOAA as "America's environmental intelligence agency"
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Expert info in public health effects of environmental exposures and protecting people from these exposures.
Semper Augustus
-
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 6:16 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a very high-quality source (though not always "neutral"). I'd also include some of the specialist medical encyclopedia or textbook projects, like eyewiki and Deranged Physiology, in this top tier. These are among the best freely available sources there are. They are syntheses of multiple primary sources by true experts who devoted a good deal of time and effort to the task, are written for an audience who is willing to read carefully, and usually have explicit editorial oversight.
At a slightly lower tier, I'd put the professionally edited sources written by true experts for a general audience. An example is the Mayo clinic's website These are generally trustworthy and you don't really have to waste time fact-checking them, but they do leave a lot more out than the tier above, so while you're getting an accurate picture, you are probably missing a lot of info.
Everything else -- and that includes primary sources such as journal articles -- needs a careful fact check and a heavy dose of critical thinking.
LLM-generated text is only as good as the sources it plagiarizes from. It is generally good when the same information is plastered all over the internet (assuming that info is accurate). It is also OK when there is only one source that even discusses the issue, but it can still make serious mistakes in interpreting the single source. I have seen too many errors with the flavor of "This business is open 9-3," citing the business's website as a source... when a glance at the business's website shows that this is actually the holiday hours for a holiday that has already passed.
At a slightly lower tier, I'd put the professionally edited sources written by true experts for a general audience. An example is the Mayo clinic's website These are generally trustworthy and you don't really have to waste time fact-checking them, but they do leave a lot more out than the tier above, so while you're getting an accurate picture, you are probably missing a lot of info.
Everything else -- and that includes primary sources such as journal articles -- needs a careful fact check and a heavy dose of critical thinking.
LLM-generated text is only as good as the sources it plagiarizes from. It is generally good when the same information is plastered all over the internet (assuming that info is accurate). It is also OK when there is only one source that even discusses the issue, but it can still make serious mistakes in interpreting the single source. I have seen too many errors with the flavor of "This business is open 9-3," citing the business's website as a source... when a glance at the business's website shows that this is actually the holiday hours for a holiday that has already passed.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Music is definitely one of my passions.
I'm always incredibly impressed with Wikipedia whenever I look up any musician / band and see all that at Wikipedia. Where else would I go to find that wealth and depth of information?
I'm always incredibly impressed with Wikipedia whenever I look up any musician / band and see all that at Wikipedia. Where else would I go to find that wealth and depth of information?
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Generally, just raw google searches.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Which many of them point to Wikipedia entries.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Thanks, everybody, for your contributions so far! Keep 'em coming!
A few comments:
@MrNarwhal mentioned FRED, the project at the St. Louis Federal Reserve that allows inspection of the various databases the US government maintains. Fantastic if you're wondering about trends and stats. I've noticed Paul Krugman using it to good effect in various economic analyses. Worth noting that if you edit the graph, you can build your own custom formulae to combine various data sets in particular ways.
@protagonist notes that "There is no good popular site for medical info." Which I also believe. Several folks have mentioned the Mayo Clinic website, which is about as good as we're going to get, because learning to understand real medical information requires a specialized education. However, @eigenperson points out two great (but technical) expert-curated sites, eyewiki, "an ophthalmic wiki where ophthalmologists, other physicians, patients and the public can view an eye encyclopedia written by ophthalmologists covering the vast spectrum of eye disease, diagnosis and treatment", and Deranged Physiology, the not-so-private notes of an internist in Australia who is careful to warn everyone that the information therein may not be correct, but which looks pretty carefully organized to my non-physician eyes.
A few comments:
@MrNarwhal mentioned FRED, the project at the St. Louis Federal Reserve that allows inspection of the various databases the US government maintains. Fantastic if you're wondering about trends and stats. I've noticed Paul Krugman using it to good effect in various economic analyses. Worth noting that if you edit the graph, you can build your own custom formulae to combine various data sets in particular ways.
@protagonist notes that "There is no good popular site for medical info." Which I also believe. Several folks have mentioned the Mayo Clinic website, which is about as good as we're going to get, because learning to understand real medical information requires a specialized education. However, @eigenperson points out two great (but technical) expert-curated sites, eyewiki, "an ophthalmic wiki where ophthalmologists, other physicians, patients and the public can view an eye encyclopedia written by ophthalmologists covering the vast spectrum of eye disease, diagnosis and treatment", and Deranged Physiology, the not-so-private notes of an internist in Australia who is careful to warn everyone that the information therein may not be correct, but which looks pretty carefully organized to my non-physician eyes.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Well done! Bravo!Doctor Rhythm wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 8:00 pm ...I wonder what those who have bothered to read Wikipedia articles about their own professional specialty think of their accuracy. The one time I did, I found and corrected a gross error.
IMPORTANT QUESTION: Did that error actually cite a source? That the key to using Wikipedia. Of course, if it's important, you have to follow the citation and check the source.While I still use Wikipedia, that experience made me consign it to "don't rely on it for anything important."
Also, very rarely, I have encountered uncorrected vandalism. For a while Princeton and University of Pennsylvania fans were edit-warring on the question of the University of Pennsylvania's year of foundation. Briefly--not an expert with no skin in the game myself--Princeton has a decent claim to a founding year of 1746, Penn has a strained claim to 1740, and for a while if you looked up Penn it was a coin-flip whether the article would give 1740 or 1749 as the founding date, depending on which institution's fans had edited it last. Founding date is vitally important to colleges because in an academic procession it determines the order of march.
Remember, Wikipedia never says "this is true." All it ever says is "this statement summarizes or is supported by this source."
My general experience is that Wikipedia is very good in my own former professional areas--math, zoology, and computer programming, but fairly weak on investing. As opposed to economics, where it sure looks detailed but I can't judge accuracy.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:10 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I use Wikipedia a lot, but often look at it in different languages.
Obviously for many questions there are no reliable answers. I come across instances of this phenomenon all the time. An example: Christopher Frayling's 2000 bio of Sergio Leone notes disputes even about his year of birth and about such things as whether there was a miraculous uptick in interest in "A Fistful of Dollars" at the first cinema where it opened. Frayling is a British academic.
What I turn to varies by subject. For STEM subjects I like college textbooks. For United States law, there is caselaw available on various websites, e.g., Justia. Many states' statutes are online. For medical info I look at the NHS website. Google Scholar will get you a lot of articles that professors in many fields put up on their websites, many of them peer reviewed.
Obviously for many questions there are no reliable answers. I come across instances of this phenomenon all the time. An example: Christopher Frayling's 2000 bio of Sergio Leone notes disputes even about his year of birth and about such things as whether there was a miraculous uptick in interest in "A Fistful of Dollars" at the first cinema where it opened. Frayling is a British academic.
What I turn to varies by subject. For STEM subjects I like college textbooks. For United States law, there is caselaw available on various websites, e.g., Justia. Many states' statutes are online. For medical info I look at the NHS website. Google Scholar will get you a lot of articles that professors in many fields put up on their websites, many of them peer reviewed.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I forgot to mention that Wikipedia is fantastic for translating phrases and technical terms--that is, locating the customary term used in the target language. For example, to translate "mutual fund" into Portuguese, find the English article on "mutual fund," then "languages," then "Portuguese," and arrive at the Portuguese article on "Fundo de investimento."Badinvestor wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:23 am ...I use Wikipedia a lot, but often look at it in different languages...
It is much better for that purpose then online translators or dictionaries.
In particular, it is very good to see whether geographic terms in a foreign language translate parts of the name or not. For example, yes, "Mount St. Helens" (Wikipedia article title in English) corresponds to "Monte Santa Helena" in Portuguese. But "Grand Canyon" in Portuguese is "Grand Canyon." ("O Grand Canyon é um desfiladeiro íngreme esculpido pelo rio Colorado, no estado do Arizona, nos Estados Unidos.") But the Great Lakes are "Grandes Lagos da América do Norte."
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
In a similar vein, it's great for transliterating names, e.g. the Hebrew spelling for a famous person's English name.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:30 am forgot to mention that Wikipedia is fantastic for translating phrases and technical terms--that is, locating the customary term used in the target language. For example, to translate "mutual fund" into Portuguese, find the English article on "mutual fund," then "languages," then "Portuguese," and arrive at the Portuguese article on "Fundo de investimento."
...
How can you tell if someone’s a vegan |
Ans: Oh, they’ll tell you |
How do you know if a boglehead doesn’t care about calculating dividend yield? |
Ans: Oh, they’ll tell you, even if 10 other people have
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
For medical, I really like the MedCram videos on YouTube. And he cites his sources.
-
- Posts: 349
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:04 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
A couple more of my favorite Web sites:
I read a lot more than I converse (and always have), and I don't watch TV news, so I often have trouble coming up with the pronunciation of an obscure word or foreign phrase or even the names of world leaders. Luckily, the VOA Pronunciation Guide is there to help with some of that.
I used to like the National Geographic maps site, and still poke around on it occasionally. But Google Earth has taken over most of my map browsing.
There are a lot of scams out there, both plausible and implausible, and I find The Skeptic's Dictionary a useful counter-agent.
I keep the Merck Manual on my phone.
If you're in the computer science part of the world, NIST maintains a helpful Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures, and there are many useful single-topic sites, like this Github project which is really a book on the implementation of Kalman filtering in Python, complete with Juypiter notebooks for each chapter.
I read a lot more than I converse (and always have), and I don't watch TV news, so I often have trouble coming up with the pronunciation of an obscure word or foreign phrase or even the names of world leaders. Luckily, the VOA Pronunciation Guide is there to help with some of that.
I used to like the National Geographic maps site, and still poke around on it occasionally. But Google Earth has taken over most of my map browsing.
There are a lot of scams out there, both plausible and implausible, and I find The Skeptic's Dictionary a useful counter-agent.
I keep the Merck Manual on my phone.
If you're in the computer science part of the world, NIST maintains a helpful Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures, and there are many useful single-topic sites, like this Github project which is really a book on the implementation of Kalman filtering in Python, complete with Juypiter notebooks for each chapter.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Appreciate and use many of those listed above. Here is a somewhat eclectic mix of a few specialty sources I've been using recently.
For auto research:
US News Cars
For estimating home maintenance/repair/upgrade costs:
Homewyse
Tech News
Reddit Tech News
Others have mentioned St. Louis FRED. I keep these bookmarked on my desktop:
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
10-Year Real Interest Rate
The search box on bogleheads.
Current fixed income rates:
Fixed Income, Bonds & CDs
Best High-Yield Savings Accounts
Current TIPS Pricing:
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities
For auto research:
US News Cars
For estimating home maintenance/repair/upgrade costs:
Homewyse
Tech News
Reddit Tech News
Others have mentioned St. Louis FRED. I keep these bookmarked on my desktop:
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
10-Year Real Interest Rate
The search box on bogleheads.
Current fixed income rates:
Fixed Income, Bonds & CDs
Best High-Yield Savings Accounts
Current TIPS Pricing:
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
This. AI models are already getting to the point where they are getting as good or better than most of the sources mentioned (and quantitatively proven to be so). Yes hallucinations were and still are a problem to a degree, as are (biased) longwinded morality lectures you didn't ask for, but just get into the habit of asking for sources and request "concise" answers.ScubaHogg wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:22 pm AI is becoming a good starting point as well. And before anyone yells “but sometimes it’s wrong!” You can always just ask for sources
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 54850
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
The problem is that the current crop of LLM AI chatbots hallucinate sources.mrspock wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:53 pmThis. AI models are already getting to the point where they are getting as good or better than most of the sources mentioned (and quantitatively proven to be so). Yes hallucinations were and still are a problem to a degree, as are (biased) longwinded morality lectures you didn't ask for, but just get into the habit of asking for sources and request "concise" answers.ScubaHogg wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:22 pm AI is becoming a good starting point as well. And before anyone yells “but sometimes it’s wrong!” You can always just ask for sources
ChatGPT has done this to me several times, even citing a book with a hallucinated ISBN number.
Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
I don't believe the LLM AI chatbots actually know their sources. Retaining that information in the training corpus would not only be costly but would expose them to risk of discovery of the use of unlicensed copyrighted material.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 51478
- Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:07 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Certainly the Google AI queries answers that they were posting at the top of searches, turned out to be wrong about Google's own products.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pmThe problem is that the current crop of LLM AI chatbots hallucinate sources.mrspock wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:53 pm
This. AI models are already getting to the point where they are getting as good or better than most of the sources mentioned (and quantitatively proven to be so). Yes hallucinations were and still are a problem to a degree, as are (biased) longwinded morality lectures you didn't ask for, but just get into the habit of asking for sources and request "concise" answers.
ChatGPT has done this to me several times, even citing a book with a hallucinated ISBN number.
Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
I don't believe the LLM AI chatbots actually know their sources. Retaining that information in the training corpus would not only be costly but would expose them to risk of discovery of the use of unlicensed copyrighted material.
I've yet to find a personal use case for AI. If I can't trust it, then I can't use it.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Why is that a problem? I’ll discover it the instant I go to the source. I’ll be duped for all of 2 secondsnisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pm The problem is that the current crop of LLM AI chatbots hallucinate sources.
“You can have a stable principal value or a stable income stream but not both" |
- In Pursuit of the Perfect Portfolio
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
This is true for some searches, but it isn’t the majority. As another poster said, you can catch this very quickly.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pmThe problem is that the current crop of LLM AI chatbots hallucinate sources.mrspock wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:53 pm
This. AI models are already getting to the point where they are getting as good or better than most of the sources mentioned (and quantitatively proven to be so). Yes hallucinations were and still are a problem to a degree, as are (biased) longwinded morality lectures you didn't ask for, but just get into the habit of asking for sources and request "concise" answers.
ChatGPT has done this to me several times, even citing a book with a hallucinated ISBN number.
Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
I don't believe the LLM AI chatbots actually know their sources. Retaining that information in the training corpus would not only be costly but would expose them to risk of discovery of the use of unlicensed copyrighted material.
Fantastic time to be alive to watch this technology mature, and leverage it. Coding has become an absolute joy again.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Coming from you ... that is a huge statement.Valuethinker wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 4:10 pmCertainly the Google AI queries answers that they were posting at the top of searches, turned out to be wrong about Google's own products.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pm The problem is that the current crop of LLM AI chatbots hallucinate sources.
ChatGPT has done this to me several times, even citing a book with a hallucinated ISBN number.
Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
I don't believe the LLM AI chatbots actually know their sources. Retaining that information in the training corpus would not only be costly but would expose them to risk of discovery of the use of unlicensed copyrighted material.
I've yet to find a personal use case for AI. If I can't trust it, then I can't use it.
I will be sending regarding AI to another topic. I heard it on C-Span this morning and about to hear it again. But the person talked about a business owner saying he was not going to be hiring any additional human employees because all the current ones have become incredibly more productive due to their use of AI.
I'm going be trying out certain things to see if it will give me any value.
Currently, it's been an extreme low ratio of:
Value provided / Time expended.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
-
- Posts: 6159
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:47 pm
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
There are still encyclopedias, look at for example https://www.britannica.com/.
Encyclopedias contain articles by those considered expert in a particular area and who are also willing to acknowledge authorship.
Wikipedia sometimes contains direct copies from other sources without acknowledgement of authorship. Sometimes original or partly original articles without given authorship. I rate Wikipedia as probably correct, especially for non-controversial topics (Newton's laws, for example). I would not be astonished however to find a result contrary to authoritative sources.
At present I would have to rate AI lower. Probably correct? Mostly correct?? I do not perceive it as reliable enough to use if a wrong result would be inconvenient. If it matters I would use Wikipedia for a quick result to be later checked by original sources found with a (non-AI) Google search.
Encyclopedias contain articles by those considered expert in a particular area and who are also willing to acknowledge authorship.
Wikipedia sometimes contains direct copies from other sources without acknowledgement of authorship. Sometimes original or partly original articles without given authorship. I rate Wikipedia as probably correct, especially for non-controversial topics (Newton's laws, for example). I would not be astonished however to find a result contrary to authoritative sources.
At present I would have to rate AI lower. Probably correct? Mostly correct?? I do not perceive it as reliable enough to use if a wrong result would be inconvenient. If it matters I would use Wikipedia for a quick result to be later checked by original sources found with a (non-AI) Google search.
-
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:10 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
The non-existent URLs are easy to deal with, since seeing if a URL exists or not is quick. Nonsupportive sources are more of a problem because you have to read the source carefully to determine that it's nonsupportive.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pm Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Well, and all of that is a problem if one has to double check all the output of AI, which one does, and many people already don't. It's just not trustworthy. I've searched for topics where I already know the answer (areas where I have prior expertise) and have gotten some blatantly false answers that sound good. Sometimes they pull legit info from a legit source, but are picking bits that sound related to the question, but aren't really. Similar to the issue of saying a business's hours are 9-3 when that's the holiday exception, but with much more complicated terminology and whatnot.Badinvestor wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 11:23 amThe non-existent URLs are easy to deal with, since seeing if a URL exists or not is quick. Nonsupportive sources are more of a problem because you have to read the source carefully to determine that it's nonsupportive.nisiprius wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2025 2:34 pm Microsoft Copilot, originally touted for citing sources, has cited non-existent URLs; URLs that exist but don't support the fact they are cited in support of; and somewhat generic URLs that are just places where you might reasonably expect to find the information.
Please don't rely on it for anything that is really important, like medical info, safety info, etc.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
For pet care and other veterinary stuff (targeted for the education of animal owners, it's not full technical info for vets):
https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/
The articles are written and updated by real vets.
https://veterinarypartner.vin.com/
The articles are written and updated by real vets.
-
- Posts: 3569
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:16 am
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
When it comes to some basic things related to American history, I find Wikipedia, Britannica and AI contain simple mistakes. Wikipedia at least is better than the other two.
"History is the memory of time, the life of the dead and the happiness of the living." Captain John Smith 1580-1631
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
I agree with your opinion on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger mentioned the bias, particularly with political topics. Wikipedia may get you started but don’t rely on it.rogue_economist wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:33 pm Google in some cases, DuckDuckGo in others.
Wikipedia peaked about 10-15 years ago. Since then, the quality of many articles has fallen and I find myself reading it much less.
Re: Wikipedia... or what? How to look things up?
Depends upon how deeply you want to go. Many times Wikipedia presents far more than what I was searching for. No need to go any farther than it for those times.bikefish wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2025 4:28 pmI agree with your opinion on Wikipedia. Larry Sanger mentioned the bias, particularly with political topics. Wikipedia may get you started but don’t rely on it.rogue_economist wrote: Fri Jan 31, 2025 2:33 pm Google in some cases, DuckDuckGo in others.
Wikipedia peaked about 10-15 years ago. Since then, the quality of many articles has fallen and I find myself reading it much less.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."