Ask HN: Beating Wikipedia and Google with Science
2 comments
I gave up on reading tha abstracts which routinely show up on CF list after speaking with a phd chemist and published author who does a lot of work in alternative med circles. He told me the abstracts usually do not really say what the paper says if you read them both carefully.
Much to my frustration, one of the papers I tracked down and quoted on my website is no longer available. My credibility is on shaky ground to begin with so things like this likely do my reputation enormous harm. I think it is certainly an area with room for improvement.
Much to my frustration, one of the papers I tracked down and quoted on my website is no longer available. My credibility is on shaky ground to begin with so things like this likely do my reputation enormous harm. I think it is certainly an area with room for improvement.
1. Finding scientific papers on what you're looking for is a pain. 2. It's quite hard to figure out what the scientific consensus (if any) on a topic is. 3. Wikipedia's deletionist policy. (See #23 at ycombinator.com/ideas.html)
Here I could explain in great detail how we'd like to achieve this, but you can get a basic idea by visiting the site below. Note that the site doesn't actually do anything, and its sole purpose was for us to structure our thoughts and figure out exactly what we wanted.
http://isharestuff.net/?page=asdf or http://isharestuff.net/?page=Classical%20Mechanics
(Now don't get scared because of the domain name, we're definitely going to use a different one. I happened to have this domain name lying around, so it could be used to show HN what we had in mind.)
Having said all that, our question is simple: would you agree that the three problems I mentioned are problems, and would you try out new solutions to these problems?