Archive:Stories: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 -->
+{{cquote|As the husband of a PhD student, I look over many scientific articles and am struck by the continuing lack of connectedness between works cited, where citations still consist of author name(s) + year of publication. Scientists may be used to this, but I find it frustrating, and something that the original designers of HTML were trying fundamentally to address.  I think Wikipedia shows the full flowering of HTML's ability to cross link and draw together knowledge.  I think that that by itself would be enough to set Wikipedia apart, but I also think there is a subtler psychological effect involved.  Wikipedia's snowballing content and the increasingly rigorous and academic standards applied to that content are, I think, beginning to show people that they can publish their research and findings to the world through this forum and be happy that it will not be vandalized or subverted willy nilly, WHILST still being open for valid, properly referenced criticism.  This can only be a good thing, since it embeds in context the nuances and controversies that the lay person may not initially realize exist in any work of exploration, AND allow those facets to be easily explored.  It frees us from simply 'looking up the answer' and purveying that as gospel. :-)  Thanks. }}
+<hr>
 {{cquote|I especially like Wikipedia for the detailed, highly sophisticated articles on history, the arts and music, and science.  The depth and complexity of these articles are the equal of any existing reference source and are instantaneously accessible.  I use Wikipedia so frequently I have come to take its existence for granted -- and to overlook the obvious need to finance this noble enterprise.  Of special note is the quality of the articles on the medical sciences; as a physician, I have found this resource to be at least as valuable as the on-line medical websites I also access.