The English Wikipedia now has seven million articles.

Post Reply New Topic

The English Wikipedia reached 7,000,000 articles today.

Honestly I'm surprised. I assumed there was much more on there. I've never come across anything without a wikipedia entry about it.

In reality, they need financial help to make the site function as it did years ago.
We don't give anything, and then we expect them to be as extensive as before. They're lacking, often misleading, and written by someone who claims to be competent.

In fact, seven million informational articles from the English Wiki seem like a lot.
Numerically, they're a hundredth of what they should be.

It's a long way off.

Try typing in "music groups," and some band members are cited but have no definition on Wikipedia.

We want a very useful site that works for free.

They've been asking for grants for years and only get crumbs.

Sooner or later, it will close thanks to us, who don't give anything

Except a contribution (I do).

But soon, those who invested in AI will create a monopoly of pseudo-information that's all junk.

Do we want Zuckerpedia? We're already there.

Control metareality with Apple.

It invested billions of dollars in February 2022, and Apple in March.
Have you ever seen how the internet works now thanks to AI controlled by two multimedia giants and that's it?

They're changing the facts.

They're reducing Wikipedia to minimalistic blurbs.

Then it will all be the same, and we'll have overviews or something completely the same. Then if we search for information, we'll get like seven answers that say a lot of different things.

We don't deserve Wikipedia: what does it survive on?

They've been writing to us for years, and they're in deep trouble.

The internet will be a world of AI controlled by embalming algorithms, dripping and percolating.

You Tube videos will disappear: the rarely viewed ones.

You watch 90% of the videos that are very interesting.

Doesn't two billion views on mediocre artists seem strange to you?

I'm a bit surprised whenever I can't find a Wikipedia article on something.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formazion ... ron_Maiden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Maiden

He's sorely missed. You'll see, he'll disappear.

Many things are missing.
Then the constant links to Facebook if you're looking for something.

A master of the virtual world, Zuckie.

He's allowed everything.

Wikipedia is nice, but not essential.

People used to get by just fine with a physical encyclopedia, or an encylcopedia across several CD-ROMS.

Sure, it wasn't as good as Wikipedia, but you can research things without it.

There are lots of research tools available for free on the internet, including Google Scholar if you want to look things up, like academic papers. Some of the academic papers on there are behind a paywall, but not all.

I think it's very useful for getting minimal but immediate information.

Sometimes you need things right away.
And you're not at home, or it's nighttime and you can't go anywhere.

§
Usually, I use Wikipedia to open tons of pages that you wouldn't otherwise open.

I read something that interests me, then I click on a name or something presenting them, and as if by a sort of multiplier effect, I can spend hours because it gives me tons of ideas I wouldn't have had.

Studying is another matter, of course.

But I save all the things I search for in my favorites.

Then I research things differently.

I need scientific research, I use PubMed and other medical sites.
I search for Supreme Court rulings.
Because in our country, one of those has the force of state law.

But then I search differently.

I search there for inspiration and that's it.

Then I go to specialized sites.

The Italian language is complicated.
A good site is the Accademia della Crusca, where scholars write.

If I need to know something quickly about a living being, insect, plant, or something else, I have the Google LENS app.

In a flash, it gives you the exact text from the image about what caught your attention, then you can't find it again or you have to take a photo.

Then you waste a lot of time searching.

I've always been fascinated by statistics.

The Big Episode on Wikipedia | STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW

^^
The point is, if I were to research online, not on specialized sites, I'd find the same things.
I don't know who edited articles, how, or what skills the people who wrote them have (assuming they're people and not self-generated AI).

If you search medical websites, you'll find different things about objective matters.

I need information to get ideas on how to treat a disease.
I only find incorrect information.

But also disorders: they're incorrect, they contradict each other.

Anyone who writes online can write incorrect things, and it happens, because my studies make me aware that they are.
I'm not omniscient, but I know some things very well, others not.

But if I check the ones I know, I find them incorrect everywhere.

Absurd advice is given.

Even doctors.

§

As long as I encounter errors on musical bands, they don't harm me.
Others create them, and a lot.

I have a serious allergy to resolve, so I research basic topics and then read up on specialized sites.

I find myself entering contradictory information on every site: the topic is identical, the answers aren't.

They also lead you to the wrong way of choosing the right specialist for me, that is, the Specialization.
Now I have clearer ideas because I've been looking for solutions for months.
Maybe I've found them.
Now I have to find someone who hypothetically follows a sensible method to resolve it.

I always think logically, even if I sometimes joke.

There are no wrong answers, just wrong questions.

And who you ask them to.

On the Internet, you can get information by asking the right question to someone who can answer you.

Once, I even skipped the specialized sites. I asked the head of the Write the text to be translated here...Single Commission on Medicines in Italy.(Commissione Unica sul Farmaco
he checks all the drugs that will be able to access Italy and chooses them.
On an excluded drug category.

He answered me kindly twice (I also asked for more).

After all, he was the one who eliminated a drug that no one in Italy knows about. It belongs to the SSREs, which work in the opposite way to SSRIs.

It's strange that something opposite can work.

On the human brain.

In fact, he ruled it out because it caused tissue necrosis as a symptom.

He didn't rule it out randomly.

The others, no.

But only the opposite ones are used.

If I ask a psychiatrist, he doesn't even know them.

He certainly doesn't know the research.

Because he doesn't study it.

He asks for what you don't need.

Many drugs are based on a presumption of effectiveness.

So entire classes are ineffective.

They're used instead of asking researchers.

I asked a leading researcher from the European Commission, and then he did that too.

The question must be asked carefully. You'll get a valid answer.