“No page with that title exists.”
On that same page, those academic i****s link to Amazon.com instead of linking to Wikipedia. What a bunch of mediocre i*******s. This is so stupid. Another evidence why we should should not listen to tenured professors who encapsulate themselves into the Ivory Tower. What a bunch of losers. I can’t believe that they don’t link to Wikipedia. It is pitiful to the highest degree.
I hope you have noticed that this is the default setting of Scholarpedia, not the link from “tenured professors who encapsulate themselves into the Ivory Tower”.
Not every subject has an entry in Wikipedia to use Wikipedia as a default pointer. However, it is common to have book devoted to the topic, hence the Amazon link.
Wikipedia is one of the top ten visited websites in the world, and it is the world’s #1 encyclopedia. Those professors who run Scholarpedia don’t want to link to Wikipedia because they don’t like user-generated content —Ihighly suspect.
I thank you for your comment, but it won’t change my opinion. I still view their world view and policy as completely stupid.
They should link to Wikipedia, first, and maybe to Amazon.com, second.
So,
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bayesian_statistics (from http://www.midasoracle.org/2009/08/07/bayesian-statistics-scholarpedia-edition/)
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Just trying to understand your attitude towards Scholarpedia.
Scholarpedia would be brilliant if only they linked to Wikipedia. What is disturbing is that I highly suspect that they snub Wikipedia. That is my problem with them.
They should link to both Wikipedia and Amazon.com at the bottom of each of their entry. They don’t do that because I highly suspect they have a dim view of Wikipedia. But the scholars (and the graduate students) should be helping creating content at Wikipedia (and linking to it), instead of snubbing it.