Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


> Much of Wikipedia is pop culture, I wouldn’t call that knowledge.

Why?


Leaving out that your comment is opinionated and objectively wrong, pop culture is also knowledge.


All culture was once pop


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


https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ exists.


Isn't the issue with this is that you would first have to know which bible to use ?


The differences between the translations are generally very minor. There are very few places where there is any significant difference in meaning.


Honestly it's the first place I look when I must implement some network protocol.


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-:)


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.


yup. the amount of times I have looked up how to send an email over raw SMTP for troubleshooting...


...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".


[citation needed]




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: