I read a lot of papers and it is hard if you don’t have background knowledge of the subject. If it’s something I am really interested in, then I will dive deep, if it’s not I will probably let it go when I get to the point where I no longer grasp what’s being said.
Wikipedia editors are petty and incredibly biased. Start reading the talk pages, especially on controversial articles, and your opinion on Wikipedia’s objectivity will rapidly plummet.
Also, it’s a bit like reddit: you find yourself learning so much about new topics, until you start reading about things you have actual expertise on, and you realize the people writing this shit are uninformed idiots, and, when you try to fix the information, the petty nerds who control it revert your changes and ban you.
sci-hub and annas-archive
I want to be less reliant on Wikipedia and Google Scholar, but in truth I still use them a lot
So you directly read papers on those topics? I tried doing that but I feel it requires a huge amount of background
I am not the person you are replying to.
I read a lot of papers and it is hard if you don’t have background knowledge of the subject. If it’s something I am really interested in, then I will dive deep, if it’s not I will probably let it go when I get to the point where I no longer grasp what’s being said.
Why do you want to be less reliant on Wikipedia?
Curious about this one too
Wikipedia editors are petty and incredibly biased. Start reading the talk pages, especially on controversial articles, and your opinion on Wikipedia’s objectivity will rapidly plummet.
Also, it’s a bit like reddit: you find yourself learning so much about new topics, until you start reading about things you have actual expertise on, and you realize the people writing this shit are uninformed idiots, and, when you try to fix the information, the petty nerds who control it revert your changes and ban you.