Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-01/Recent research


 * I absolutely love the dinner party analogy! Barbara ✐ ✉  17:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "For content that is not politically charged or controversial, Wikipedia has proven to be as good as, if not better than, some its peers." -- I'd argue that this stands even for "politically charged or controversial" content. Of course, scientists have political biases too :)  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  21:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely -- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All of my teachers would emphasize the point of "who's funding this research?" I might understand the general distaste towards Wikipedia if it was funded by advertisements, or got millions of dollars from a few select corporations... but that's *not* what Wikipedia is! So yeah, I can see why in general Wikipedia can be as good as, if not better than, some of its peers. Clovermoss (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for introducing the concept of stigmergy to me. I find it to be a very good way of understanding what I do on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   04:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You already know then, that word will most certainly be in the next crossword puzzle. Barbara ✐ ✉  23:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My two-year-old granddaughter used it in conversation just yesterday. I wasn't surprised. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   23:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)