Is there anything that can be learned that cannot be learned through reading Wikipedia articles?

>Prose is the ordinary form of the written (or spoken) language.[1][2] It is not poetry. It does not use any special format such as lists or tables. In writing, it is without special rhythm. It is similar to everyday communication. That is what makes the most important distinction with poetry, and with theatrical works such as plays.

>The word prose comes from the Latin prosa, meaning straightforward, hence the term "prosaic". Prose writing is usually adopted for the description of facts or the discussion of whatever one's thoughts are, incorporated in free flowing speech. It may be used for newspapers, novels, magazines, encyclopedias, broadcast media, letters, stories, history, philosophy, biography, and many other forms of media.

>Prose generally has no formal structure, like meter or rhyme, that is often found in poetry. Therefore, it is used to describe literature which is non-poetic, and non-theatrical. There is, however, a blend of the two forms of literature known as prose poetry.

Actual knowledge and perspective on the subject. Wikipedia is trash. Just go look at how absolutely retarded the community is and then read a proper monograph on a subject and compare to the wikipedia page. Poor citations and that retarded tendency to feign impartiality will always hinder it. It does more bad than good.

The science articles aren't too bad, but any public figures who don't have socially acceptable views on race sometimes have their pages unironically describe them as neo-nazi white supremacists within the first sentence. The notability rule allows this to happen, because it basically defines truth as whatever journalists working for a select few media outlets write (the media outlets they allow are almost entirely liberal.) If CNN refers to you as a 'neo-nazi,' congratulations, you're now officially a neo-nazi without you even identifying as such! All a wikipedia editor has to do is reference that article and it's set in stone, even if you come out and say you're not.

A great deal. Useless for philosophy for example.

getting users to donate to your website

I used the online Britannica and OED. What does Lit think about these?

Yeah I read an article on someone the other day that instantly claimed he was a neonazi white supremacist. The source for this was a facebook post, not even clear if it was made by the man himself or some hire or just some random person, literally stating that he is not a white supremacist he's an ethnic nationalist. 'white' not being an ethnicity in this case or in any case really. That was in their sole source lmao. Pretty much means if you're of European stock you can't have an ethnic group or anything that is your own except selfevident evil, you are just this vague 'white' that must answer to everything pinned on it. I wouldn't be surprised if 'whites' get regularly killed in the streets for racial reasons in 2-3 generations, in America and Europe at least. You can't pump this sort of thinking into the world population through massive media corps and expect it to be alright. It can get to that extent only because it is politically incorrect to acknowledge or act upon trends that might portray their ideal of 'whites' as having any kind of injustice dealt to them. Unlike any other of their fantastical groups.

riding a bike

Only right answers in this thread

Are you jewish by chance?

How to solve maths problems.
Try learning higher maths (not just notions and definition, but mathematical understanding and problem-solving) by reading Wikipedia article. Just try.

That's even more the case with manual expertise, eg surgery, and with anything involving real-time reactions in social situations.

Everything

Wikipedia articles are often sourced from Buzzfeed and Vice shit so if you want to be a total retard keep basing your knowledge on Wikipedia.

you mean like (((friedman)))?

true information about controversial figures.
what you should do with your life.
how to be an effective communicator
anything that is not supportive of "I fucking love science"

Not to piss into the wind

qualia duh desu

Yes, the material not already existing on Wikipedia in the expected places, which requires me to do original research (absurdly, against wikipedia policy) to self-educate on same, after which I punch up my findings with citations on Wikipedia, to first of all improve my own retention of what I've learned, second of all to provide useful information to others, and as a distant third consideration, actually improve the encyclopedia/website. The format is very restrictive, but it does make sense for personal needs - I regularly refer to what I've already punched up on my own interests when coming back to them.

t. Wikipedia "extended confirmed" user with a few thousand edits. The "extended confirmed" user is one of the various faggy statuses within the system, and this one lets you edited the pages with that level of protection - typically, pages on very controversial subjects which are highly prone to vandalism or fuckery, even from "confirmed" users. A very simple, intuitive example: the Donald Trump article (which I don't recall having ever edited, personally). This particularly faggy status is "about as high as one goes" over the course of normal editing unless one starts applying for privileges. I actually like the idea of having the faggy status of "template editor" but I don't do enough of it to really warrant asking about it.