2009 was so late in wikipedia history that not on had every field (and subfield) made their own specialized wikipedia pages, many of them had started dying off at that point lol. Also that was a fun experiment that I wish hadn't died. I found the specialized wikis (which had proper authorship and some peer review) to be more useful than published literature reviews as a grad student. Scholarpedia pages are still up and probably useful, but I doubt many have been touched since 2012. Might be fun to run random matlab and python code from there just to see how compatible it still is lol.

[–] Llituro@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (4 children)

the amount of math topics covered in some detail on wikipedia is genuinely sort of staggering.

[–] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I just wish their math articles were more comprehensible to normie dummies like me

[–] Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think even for people that have studied a fair bit of math a lot of it is difficult to parse. Which I guess is fair. An encyclopedia is meant to be a reference and summary of knowledge, not necessarily a teaching tool. I think it still makes an alright guidepost for something, which I can then use to find learning materials.

load more comments (2 replies)