You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.
Comment author:chron
09 October 2016 06:53:59PM
3 points
[-]
Did anyone else find the banner at the top of the article (about preferring secondary and tertiary sources to primary ones) more interesting (about the problems with wikipedia) than the article itself?
Comment author:ChristianKl
09 October 2016 08:06:07PM
1 point
[-]
about the problems with wikipedia
The problem that Wikipedia adopts standards from modern evidence-based medicine?
It's better to read a meta-analysis from Cochrane (which is a secondary source) than reading various papers that make statements about what a drug did that might not replicate.
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (32)
Did anyone else find the banner at the top of the article (about preferring secondary and tertiary sources to primary ones) more interesting (about the problems with wikipedia) than the article itself?
The problem that Wikipedia adopts standards from modern evidence-based medicine? It's better to read a meta-analysis from Cochrane (which is a secondary source) than reading various papers that make statements about what a drug did that might not replicate.