bholdr's comments

I think so. There are a few of theme floating around Youtube. This is what I found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gveTy4EmNyk

>I'm much more likely to believe a wikipedia page than some random buzzfeed article.

I think that's part of the problem. You (almost blindly) trust it. Not saying Wikipedia in any way can be compared to buzzed articles, but people don't use buzzfeed articles to make a scientific point in an argument because Buzzfeed is very explicit about what it is and what is not.

I feel with Wikipedia it is not as clear, so when using it for your arguments, one should treat it with caution.

Fair enough. Valid points. Still I believe we conflating things here. I believe encyclopedias are good source for well established facts, don't think they are the main source for citation when discussing hypotheses that still undergoing testing. When it comes to Wikipedia, you basically trust it to be up to date with state of the art. Yes, research seems to show that it converges towards some notion of the truth, but it takes time and ultimately you don't know if what you are reading at the moment is a true representation of what was actually written in the original paper. Again, not saying this is bad, I would just be cautious about accepting an argument which is solely a copy&paste from a Wikipedia page that makes claims based on handful publications that I presume the person posting haven't read. To sum up, I am not against Wikipedia, I am somewhat cautions accepting wild statements like "Drinking coffee can Kill you" just because someone took the time to put it into a wikipage (with a bunch of citations).

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/09/15/12/13/australias...

Thank you for that clarification. My point was that basing your argument on a paragraph from the Wiki doesn't really hold water. Have you gone through those cited articles? Have you checked the data? You trust that those statements next to the citation are representative of what is actually been said in the article itself. Wikipedia is great, I am all for it. I just personally wouldn't building my argument solely based on what is said there.

Correlation doesn't mean causation.

Wiki is not a very reliable source for citations :) Nevertheless, it points that there are inherit contradictions in any research study. We should avoid make "marketing" claims.

I am sure there are lesson to be learnt.

True, there is much more to it. By "We" was referring to developers and product designers and by "thinking in graphs" I wasn't referring to a particular data structure rather that is more natural for people for grasp concepts based on association to other concepts and context.