Shor's Algorithm and Wikipedia

[carmencatalina]

For all we know, Rush wrote that Wiki entry, based on his lecture notes on the subject, and the student just memorized the lecture notes.

Why not?

[AVFan]

Why would you be a writer for a Stargate show? For years they get bagged about making up tech stuff and not doing any research, so when they actually do some pretty decent research what happens??? A thread bagging them for lifting facts from the internet. Are you guys serious? I would much rather this than just making crap up that has no plausible place in any logical scientific conversation.

Decent research? The number one thing professors tell you in English classes these days is "DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA". Since anyone can edit it, it's not reliable.

That's not to say that I don't use it on a daily basis (), but I would find a more reputable source to quote if I were taking something word-for-word to write a TV show.

That is, unless the specific point is that the student used Wikipedia to look up the information. It sounds plausible enough, and the only reason Rush knows about it is because that student quoted the information back to him in RL.

Or, a third option.. Maybe the Wikipedia entry was changed by a SG fan after this episode aired? So it was Wikipedia copying SG, not the other way around.

Just my $0.02.

[Lord Hurin]

For all we know, Rush wrote that Wiki entry, based on his lecture notes on the subject, and the student just memorized the lecture notes.

Why not?

True, just because anyone can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean everyone does. It also doesn't mean that many articles aren't started by people "in the know" about whatever it is they're writing. I've noticed far more correct things on Wikipedia than incorrect ones.

[Phenomenological]

Wikipedia is a pretty damn good resource. I'm not saying you should base an entire essay for an important university project on it and nothing else, but if you want to learn about something quickly it's a fantastic site. And far more accurate than people give it credit for.

[carmencatalina]

It also doesn't mean that many articles aren't started by people "in the know" about whatever it is they're writing. I've noticed far more correct things on Wikipedia than incorrect ones.

In my own field, we often go in and correct Wiki articles and add to them (always adding good footnotes and references), in the hopes of increasing the "signal to noise" ratio of the sciences. You will find that many people in science do some Wiki posting/correcting, basically as a public service.

[jelgate]

While I would never use Wikipedia as a source its been shown that the more complicated of science tend to be right on wiki. Because the its hard to fake thoose things because less people know what they mean

[Lahela]

My husband the quantum cryptography physicist assures me the Shor's Algorithm bit quoted in the show was accurate.

[g.o.d]

who cares? I didn't understand a thing . Math is one of my worst enemies

[Wayston]

who cares? I didn't understand a thing . Math is one of my worst enemies

really, even worse than atheists and evolutionists?

[Col. Matarrese]

Decent research? The number one thing professors tell you in English classes these days is "DON'T USE WIKIPEDIA". Since anyone can edit it, it's not reliable.

That's not to say that I don't use it on a daily basis (), but I would find a more reputable source to quote if I were taking something word-for-word to write a TV show.

That is, unless the specific point is that the student used Wikipedia to look up the information. It sounds plausible enough, and the only reason Rush knows about it is because that student quoted the information back to him in RL.

Or, a third option.. Maybe the Wikipedia entry was changed by a SG fan after this episode aired? So it was Wikipedia copying SG, not the other way around.

Just my $0.02.

Sorry, had to chime in on this one.

Just because your English professor says something doesn't make it intelligent...anyone who's been to college can tell you that. If references are cited and link to valid sources of information (as a good Wikipedia article does), there's no reason not to use Wikipedia as a source of information. All the articles really do is condense the vast amounts of information contained in technical and scientific journals down to a form readable by a common person and not someone with an advanced degree in the field.

*Most* of the fear of Wikipedia comes from old style scholars afraid of change. Really, if you actually look for citations, Wikipedia is just as accurate as any other scholarly source of information.

Remember, just because everyone *can* doesn't mean everyone *will*.

And to be fair, several of my professors right now will indeed correct an error if they see it just as a little gift to the average reader for taking the time to look up the subject.

[Otarush]

I love Wikipedia for general knowledge types of stuff- I look up computer science stuff for fun on there, actually. Nothing wrong with it except it's not detailed enough for some things and it's good to have more than one source. I need to go look up Shor's algorithm now: I'm intrigued XD.