Wikipedia Magnetic Reconnection

[jjohnson]

You will notice, if you read a lot of peer reviewed papers, that not one includes references to Wikipedia. And they know why.

rjhuntington's last paragraph immediately above is precisely the reason. Can't be used in scientific research; it's for consensus-settled knowledge only, not debate or critical thinking. Can we learn stuff from Wiki? OF COURSE! But it's best to understand what it is you are learning, so that you know its limits and constraints, and use it appropriately. And avoid using it as a reference for debatable ideas.

[601L1n9FR09]

I watched both your videos. Bravo! Please make more. I was especially impressed with your layman explanation. With a little practice you could almost pass as a layman .Oh I also read your critique.

[Phorce]

Don't let WP wind you people up too much. There is a sort of method in the madness when you give a lot of people access to advanced collaborative editing technology. I still find it wonderful that any articles are produced at all and there are always gems like this article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chizhevsky

[cbragz]

hi michael,chris bennett here...i managed to reinstate your criticism section back into the article,cheers bro...

[davesmith_au]

hi michael,chris bennett here...i managed to reinstate your criticism section back into the article,cheers bro...

Which lasted for a whole 11 hours or so courtesy of the zealots at Gatekeepers-R-Us (aka Wikipedia...). And as a really good laugh, I read recently that Jimbo Wales reckons they're having trouble keeping editors because the software is turning them away - I suggest it's the softheads which are doing the turning...

Cheers, Dave.