Scholarpedia

[PhilO 0]

I just ran across this online encyclopedia:

http://www.scholarpedia.org/

after linking to an article (on Differential-algebraic equations) from a subject of great personal interest.

Scholarpedia looks to be a major improvement over the total anarchy and unreliable nature of Wikipedia (particularly given the last bullet point below.) From their home page:

-------------------

Welcome to Scholarpedia, the peer-reviewed open-access encyclopedia written by scholars from all around the world.

Scholarpedia feels and looks like Wikipedia -- the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Indeed, both are powered by the same program -- MediaWiki. Both allow visitors to review and modify articles simply by clicking on the edit this article link.

However, Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:

* Each article is written by an expert (elected by the public or invited by Scholarpedia editors).

* Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.

* Each article has a curator -- typically its author -- who is responsible for its content.

* Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.

[Carlos 0]

Thank you for providing this interesting site Phil.

[Brad Aisa 0]

Scholarpedia looks to be a major improvement over the total anarchy and unreliable nature of Wikipedia...

I had been skeptical and critical of Wikipedia for quite awhile, but I have to say I find it an extremely valuable resource. What I especially like is that it almost invariably has some useful information on almost any topic, especially ones related to current events or the latest technology. If I came upon some random web site with an article, I would have *no* information or context on which to base my estimate of its potential verity--conversely, I have come to have a fairly precise feel for the degree of verity I can have with Wikipedia (and it varies, depending on the type of article.) Note this doesn't mean I have **full confidence** it means I have a *known* confidence (or lack thereof, for some topics.) I find it thus an extremely useful first place to start, and I especially like the links, which will often take me directly to much more primary or authoritative sources.

Getting only *one* point of view on a subject, regardless how "authoritative" may not always be better than the fuzzy consensus wiki-type view that emerges on Wikipedia.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Scholarpedia looks to be a major improvement over the total anarchy and unreliable nature of Wikipedia...

I had been skeptical and critical of Wikipedia for quite awhile, but I have to say I find it an extremely valuable resource. What I especially like is that it almost invariably has some useful information on almost any topic, especially ones related to current events or the latest technology. If I came upon some random web site with an article, I would have *no* information or context on which to base my estimate of its potential verity--conversely, I have come to have a fairly precise feel for the degree of verity I can have with Wikipedia (and it varies, depending on the type of article.) Note this doesn't mean I have **full confidence** it means I have a *known* confidence (or lack thereof, for some topics.) I find it thus an extremely useful first place to start, and I especially like the links, which will often take me directly to much more primary or authoritative sources.

Getting only *one* point of view on a subject, regardless how "authoritative" may not always be better than the fuzzy consensus wiki-type view that emerges on Wikipedia.

On purely technical matters, especially in mathematics and science, wikipedia is quite useful. One should not accept any article in wikipedia as the last word. The articles generally have decent references to the literature of the various fields, and that is where serious research should begin. I use the wiki as a first level pointer into the literature, not as a last stop. For several of my physics courses I use the wiki entries as "Cliff Notes" (so to speak). To get in-depth material one should go to the journals or to arxive.org which has become the prepublication source of choice in scientific areas.

On political matters, that is a different story. Mathematics and sciences are largely a matter of fact or of well verified (or proven) hypothesis and theory. Political matters are largely opinion, convention and largely non-empirical assertion. On matters historical, the wiki is as good a source of dates of birth or when battles happened as the Encyclopedia Brittanica. In these fields, the references will also get the interested reader into the literature on the subject.

The wikipedia's main virtue is the breadth of subject matter. There are very few topics on which that don't have some material. Like any other tool, one should use it with caution and a dose of common sense.

The human race seems to have its share of blabbermouths, opinionated folk, and sometimes even knowledgable people and Jim Wales' brainchild has given them just the platform they crave. It has its uses, but caveat lector.

ruveyn