= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Nanani comments on The things we know that we know ain't so - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
You haven't spent much time editing Wikipedia, I take it.
Great idea in theory, in practice someone will revert the entry back to the common knowledge version in short order. Wikipedia's ban on original research, as well as fairness-of-viewpoint and notability restrictions, make it hard to use as such a vector.
If the updated knowledge becomes widespread, THEN wikipedia will be useful as a place to quickly check up on it. It will be a better indicator of update spread than anything else.
An expert wishing to fix Wikipedia might do better to provide an external source that Wikipedia can then cite. A blog post can suffice for this.
Well, in this particular case, the 'new' knowledge is the new mainstream viewpoint, and this new mainstream viewpoint seems already present in Wikipedia (the article mentions the article on Wernicke's area).
So while it may sometimes be hard to change things in Wikipedia, the difficulties you mention do not seem to apply in this case. I would make the change myself if I were more knowledgable in this area