Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks

    (www.theverge.com)
    599 points leotravis10 | 14 comments | 04 Sep 25 15:30 UTC | HN request time: 1.012s | source | bottom
    Show context
    djoldman ◴[04 Sep 25 16:30 UTC] No.45129069[source]▶
    > Wikipedia is the largest compendium of human knowledge ever assembled, with more than 7 million articles in its English version, the largest and most developed of 343 language projects.

    but:

    > The collections of the Library of Congress include more than 32 million catalogued books and other print materials in 470 languages; more than 61 million manuscripts; the largest rare book collection in North America ...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Congress#Holdings

    replies(5): >>45129102 #>>45129221 #>>45131969 #>>45136316 #>>45138468 #
    1. UtopiaPunk ◴[04 Sep 25 16:45 UTC] No.45129230[source]▶
    [citation needed]
    2. LtWorf ◴[04 Sep 25 16:48 UTC] No.45129286[source]▶
    Honestly it's the first place I look when I must implement some network protocol.
    replies(3): >>45129367 #>>45129371 #>>45138764 #
    3. mschuster91 ◴[04 Sep 25 16:54 UTC] No.45129367[source]▶
    yup. the amount of times I have looked up how to send an email over raw SMTP for troubleshooting...
    replies(1): >>45129604 #
    4. freedomben ◴[04 Sep 25 16:55 UTC] No.45129371[source]▶
    Network protocol stuff on Wikipedia has been top notch and my go-to since at least 2010. It really is highly underrated for that. I had to implement a layer 7 protocol on top of UDP back in the day, and it required a lot of understanding/fiddling with UDP and IP packet details to get it working right, and even required some router config (IP fragmentation became a huge problem, gotta love protocols designed by committee D-:)
    5. bilekas ◴[04 Sep 25 17:11 UTC] No.45129587[source]▶
    Leaving out that your comment is opinionated and objectively wrong, pop culture is also knowledge.
    6. rimunroe ◴[04 Sep 25 17:11 UTC] No.45129595[source]▶
    > Much of Wikipedia is pop culture, I wouldn’t call that knowledge.

    Why?

    7. mdp2021 ◴[04 Sep 25 17:12 UTC] No.45129604{3}[source]▶
    ...And on the contrary, I got deliria from an LLM in a similar area just hours ago.

    This probably highlights how human contribution or automated referencing both have a root in the sources, that should be recovered as a focus. Part of the future of the presentation of information should be hyperlinking "to the book pages".

    8. MitPitt ◴[04 Sep 25 17:43 UTC] No.45130009[source]▶
    All culture was once pop
    replies(1): >>45130256 #
    9. ◴[04 Sep 25 18:05 UTC] No.45130256[source]▶
    10. 01HNNWZ0MV43FF ◴[04 Sep 25 19:40 UTC] No.45131402[source]▶
    It's handy to have a neutral place I can look up books or passages of the Christian Bible so that I have a reference point when talking to people about it
    replies(2): >>45131704 #>>45135851 #
    11. UncleSlacky ◴[04 Sep 25 20:11 UTC] No.45131704[source]▶
    https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ exists.
    12. BlueTemplar ◴[05 Sep 25 07:21 UTC] No.45135851[source]▶
    Isn't the issue with this is that you would first have to know which bible to use ?
    replies(1): >>45136280 #
    13. spauldo ◴[05 Sep 25 08:29 UTC] No.45136280{3}[source]▶
    The differences between the translations are generally very minor. There are very few places where there is any significant difference in meaning.
    14. jowea ◴[05 Sep 25 14:06 UTC] No.45138764[source]▶
    Yeah, lots of the weaker parts of Wikipedia relate either to political controversy or things that the editor base doesn't care as much about.