[WikiEN-l] Scale of online resources, was Re: Rating the English wikipedia
On 16/02/2011 23:56, Carcharoth wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:54 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: There's a *heck* of a lot still to be written. On that topic, I came across this interesting essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth It tries to project to the year 2025! I'd be interested in any discussion at all on the amount of useful material out there (on the Web) and how it is changing. It is a fact that there are more and more reliable sources posted that can be used to create articles. This is a factor that affects directly what actually gets written, as opposed to what potentially might be a topic to write about. I think we just don't know how much will be around in 2025 that could support our work, either in the form of public domain reference material, or respectable scholarly webpages to which we can link. Extrapolations leaving out this factor aren't worth as much as they might be. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Scale of online resources, was Re: Rating the English wikipedia
Even if the online resources didn't improve, and we could really do with a big improvement in parts of the developing world, as long as the Internet continues to be updated we can expect a steady flow of new articles. Sports, Politics, popular culture and science are all going to generate new articles for the foreseeable future. We currently have half a million biographies of living people, assuming we keep our current notability standards and coverage levels, then to keep that number stable we can expect at least ten thousand more each year. So even without filling in the historical gaps there will be a steady increase in the total number of biographies on the pedia. Large gaps in our coverage of people who retired pre-Internet are slowly being filled in from the obituary pages, and that could continue for decades. Every year there will be new films, books, natural disasters and sports events. So if we still have an editor community to write them, we can expect a steady flow of new articles. I think we need a model of article growth that blends two elements, multiple bell curves showing the process of initially populating the pedia with various subjects, and an annual input of new articles on newly notable subjects. I expect that on many subjects of interest to our first wave of editors - computing, milhist, contemporary western popular culture and the geography of the English speaking parts of the developed world we have already gone quite away over the top of the bell. But there are other bell curves that we are at much earlier stages of. Judging from the newpages I've seen in the last few months populated places in the Indian subcontinent is very much on the fast rising side of the bell curve. The bell curves of species, astronomical objects, chemicals, genes and chemicals are all in their early stages. In future as new editors come on board or existing editors acquire new enthusiasms we can expect that yet unwritten areas of the pedia will go through their own bell curve expansions. We still have a huge influx of new editors, though very few stick around. I suspect the ultimate size of the pedia depends at least as much on the way we treat new editors as it does on the availability of easily accessible sources. WereSpielChequers On 17 February 2011 09:38, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 16/02/2011 23:56, Carcharoth wrote: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:54 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: There's a *heck* of a lot still to be written. On that topic, I came across this interesting essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia_extended_growth It tries to project to the year 2025! I'd be interested in any discussion at all on the amount of useful material out there (on the Web) and how it is changing. It is a fact that there are more and more reliable sources posted that can be used to create articles. This is a factor that affects directly what actually gets written, as opposed to what potentially might be a topic to write about. I think we just don't know how much will be around in 2025 that could support our work, either in the form of public domain reference material, or respectable scholarly webpages to which we can link. Extrapolations leaving out this factor aren't worth as much as they might be. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Scale of online resources, was Re: Rating the English wikipedia
On 17 February 2011 10:54, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote: I think we need a model of article growth that blends two elements, multiple bell curves showing the process of initially populating the pedia with various subjects, and an annual input of new articles on newly notable subjects. Sigmoid with a linear limit, i.e. more or less what we see? - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). And more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Guideline_status_restored And the section immediately below it. I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_difficult The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at least), was reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecturediff=prevoldid=414368190 With the edit summary: It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people can follow the link). Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth 3-manifolds. I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it said that the 3-sphere is the the surface of the [[unit ball]] in four-dimensional space. I suppose adding the word informally might soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcement: Survey study on the categorization of contributors to Wikipedia
Hello, At first: thank you for replying. I've checked the grammar of the survey and made some corrections in the introduction. Although I can't see any grammar errors in the questions. Concerning your second point about vandalism I agree. The results (I've launched the survey last sunday) show that most of the respondents say that anonimity is not a problem but Wikipedia's greatest strength. But I'm still curious about this topic and would like to check it. Therefore, I hope that I could run the survey on the WikiEN list. Regards, Jeroen Kleijn Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project which investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Op 14-02-11 11:29, michael west schreef: On 13 February 2011 16:47, Jeroen Kleijnjeroenkl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project that investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Check your grammar on the survey. and in terms of the question relating to anonymity and vandalism, most editors will not describe it as a problem. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED magazine article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_is_the_poincare_conjecture/ I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I found the SEED magazine article more accessible and I learnt more from it. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
This is typical sophomoric writing, sometimes literally done by 2nd year students, actual sophomores. It is not limited to math; my particular pet peeve is our philosophy articles. A skilled teacher with years of experience teaching at the college level can often make such subjects much more understandable. Fred There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). And more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Guideline_status_restored And the section immediately below it. I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_difficult The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at least), was reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecturediff=prevoldid=414368190 With the edit summary: It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people can follow the link). Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth 3-manifolds. I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it said that the 3-sphere is the the surface of the [[unit ball]] in four-dimensional space. I suppose adding the word informally might soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
Actually, I think the point of the mathematics articles, is that many of them (especially the more advanced ones) are written and used by practising mathematicians. See the comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%253AWikiProject_Mathematicsaction=historysubmitdiff=408581050oldid=408567259 So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science and maths topics. Carcharoth On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: This is typical sophomoric writing, sometimes literally done by 2nd year students, actual sophomores. It is not limited to math; my particular pet peeve is our philosophy articles. A skilled teacher with years of experience teaching at the college level can often make such subjects much more understandable. Fred There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-newbie (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). And more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Guideline_status_restored And the section immediately below it. I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_difficult The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at least), was reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecturediff=prevoldid=414368190 With the edit summary: It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people can follow the link). Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth 3-manifolds. I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it said that the 3-sphere is the the surface of the [[unit ball]] in four-dimensional space. I suppose adding the word informally might soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science and maths topics. Yyyesss. A working subject matter expert who also happens to be a brilliant and lucid writer would be *ideal*, but in practice someone with sufficient broad knowledge and writing skill to do a reasonable piece of (what is effectively) science journalism is what we actually have in the best case. And really, that's pretty good. Channel your inner Isaac Asimov. More often, we get (as Fred describes) an interested student who hopefully can also write a bit, and *that's not bad*. At worst we have a semi-opaque technical data dump, but that's still better than no article at all, and Wikipedia is after all a work in progress ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science and maths topics. Yyyesss. A working subject matter expert who also happens to be a brilliant and lucid writer would be *ideal*, but in practice someone with sufficient broad knowledge and writing skill to do a reasonable piece of (what is effectively) science journalism is what we actually have in the best case. And really, that's pretty good. Channel your inner Isaac Asimov. However, one of the arguments being put forward is that too much explanation breaches the provisions against not a textbook and original research (i.e. providing your own opinions instead of sourcing it to others). I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, and the view that there is a need to balance these issues that are in tension with each other. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcement: Survey study on the categorization of contributors to Wikipedia
Mr. Kleijn-- Sounds like a followup survey's in order, then, and I'd be more than willing to participate. I won't hold the question's format against you-- questionnaires are very difficult to write without leading the questionnee. God bless, Bob On 2/17/2011 6:44 AM, Jeroen Kleijn wrote: Hello, At first: thank you for replying. I've checked the grammar of the survey and made some corrections in the introduction. Although I can't see any grammar errors in the questions. Concerning your second point about vandalism I agree. The results (I've launched the survey last sunday) show that most of the respondents say that anonimity is not a problem but Wikipedia's greatest strength. But I'm still curious about this topic and would like to check it. Therefore, I hope that I could run the survey on the WikiEN list. Regards, Jeroen Kleijn Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project which investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Op 14-02-11 11:29, michael west schreef: On 13 February 2011 16:47, Jeroen Kleijnjeroenkl...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project that investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Check your grammar on the survey. and in terms of the question relating to anonymity and vandalism, most editors will not describe it as a problem. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Announcement: Survey study on the categorization of contributors to Wikipedia
Hi, Thanks for the quick reply. Do you mean that you are waiting on a new URL of the survey? I have edited the currenct survey so the URL given in my first email is still correct. Do I need to post the full message again before publishing (on the list), or will this be done by the moderators of the list? Sorry for the inconvenience, but maybe I misunderstood? Regards, Jeroen Kleijn Op 17-02-11 16:44, Bob the Wikipedian schreef: Mr. Kleijn-- Sounds like a followup survey's in order, then, and I'd be more than willing to participate. I won't hold the question's format against you-- questionnaires are very difficult to write without leading the questionnee. God bless, Bob On 2/17/2011 6:44 AM, Jeroen Kleijn wrote: Hello, At first: thank you for replying. I've checked the grammar of the survey and made some corrections in the introduction. Although I can't see any grammar errors in the questions. Concerning your second point about vandalism I agree. The results (I've launched the survey last sunday) show that most of the respondents say that anonimity is not a problem but Wikipedia's greatest strength. But I'm still curious about this topic and would like to check it. Therefore, I hope that I could run the survey on the WikiEN list. Regards, Jeroen Kleijn Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project which investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Op 14-02-11 11:29, michael west schreef: On 13 February 2011 16:47, Jeroen Kleijnjeroenkl...@gmail.comwrote: Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project that investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn Check your grammar on the survey. and in terms of the question relating to anonymity and vandalism, most editors will not describe it as a problem. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote: To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED magazine article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_is_the_poincare_conjecture/ I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I found the SEED magazine article more accessible and I learnt more from it. Unfortunately the magazine article completely ducks the issue of what the conjecture is. Even on a charitable view, it confuses a necessary with a sufficient condition, which would be the *whole point*. This kind of this is actually why this one has not been solved yet on WP: we (rightly) don't allow people to waffle around the facts in order to claim they are explaining. (If you think we do badly, have a look at a standard mathematical encyclopedia: http://eom.springer.de/p/p073000.htm.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote: To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED magazine article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_is_the_poincare_conjecture/ I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I found the SEED magazine article more accessible and I learnt more from it. Unfortunately the magazine article completely ducks the issue of what the conjecture is. Even on a charitable view, it confuses a necessary with a sufficient condition, which would be the *whole point*. This kind of this is actually why this one has not been solved yet on WP: we (rightly) don't allow people to waffle around the facts in order to claim they are explaining. (If you think we do badly, have a look at a standard mathematical encyclopedia: http://eom.springer.de/p/p073000.htm.) Hmm. Tricky one. Would you put a link to that magazine article in the external links? It might be missing the point, but it does give a different perspective and a less dry one. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 February 2011 14:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: So some might object to your use of the term sophomore, but the rest I agree with. You need people who have experience explaining things to make things like that accessible, but I would suggest technical writers and those who are good at popularising and explaining science and maths topics. Yyyesss. A working subject matter expert who also happens to be a brilliant and lucid writer would be *ideal*, but in practice someone with sufficient broad knowledge and writing skill to do a reasonable piece of (what is effectively) science journalism is what we actually have in the best case. And really, that's pretty good. Channel your inner Isaac Asimov. However, one of the arguments being put forward is that too much explanation breaches the provisions against not a textbook and original research (i.e. providing your own opinions instead of sourcing it to others). I have some sympathy with that viewpoint, and the view that there is a need to balance these issues that are in tension with each other. Carcharoth Information needs to be usable by people with a wide range of competence. A well written article presents information in layers geared to the likely range of potential readers. I've had some luck with well-written textbooks, not copying them but using the way they explain things. That vitiates the original research objection. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On 17 February 2011 17:09, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: Hmm. Tricky one. Would you put a link to that magazine article in the external links? It might be missing the point, but it does give a different perspective and a less dry one. Something technical but right is 100% better than something highly readable and clearly wrong. That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good writing. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On 17 February 2011 17:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good writing. Or is it because writing well is difficult, and writing accurately is difficult, and writing well AND accurately is difficulty squared? Nah, that would be ridiculous, it's just obsessive nerds who are broken; of course. - d. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Accessibility of technical articles
(to list as well) On 17 February 2011 18:37, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 February 2011 17:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good writing. Or is it because writing well is difficult, and writing accurately is difficult, and writing well AND accurately is difficulty squared? I believe that was precisely what I said in the quoted paragraph, yes. Nah, that would be ridiculous, it's just obsessive nerds who are broken; of course. At this point you're reading things inside your own head rather than things I wrote. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
On 17/02/2011 17:09, Carcharoth wrote: On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 17/02/2011 13:19, Carcharoth wrote: To take the Poincare conjecture example, compare the Wikipedia article to this accessible explanation. Should the Wikipedia article incorporate explanatory aspects similar to those used in the SEED magazine article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_is_the_poincare_conjecture/ I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I found the SEED magazine article more accessible and I learnt more from it. Unfortunately the magazine article completely ducks the issue of what the conjecture is. Even on a charitable view, it confuses a necessary with a sufficient condition, which would be the *whole point*. This kind of this is actually why this one has not been solved yet on WP: we (rightly) don't allow people to waffle around the facts in order to claim they are explaining. (If you think we do badly, have a look at a standard mathematical encyclopedia: http://eom.springer.de/p/p073000.htm.) Hmm. Tricky one. Would you put a link to that magazine article in the external links? It might be missing the point, but it does give a different perspective and a less dry one. Actually I wouldn't in that case; but I might in the case of a more Scientific American-style treatment. By the way, I'm not saying that the exposition of mathematical articles, and in particular the lead sections, cannot be improved, because in most cases it can. There is the issue of finding some middle ground between an accurate factual treatment (with wikilinks of technical terms) which is what a mathematician from another field would want, and a more popular treatment. Compare for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_%28mathematics%29, and in particular the fourth paragraph of the fourth section on Representation theory, with http://www.aimath.org/E8/. The latter treatment is a decent example of the media coverage that a certain computation received not that long ago: but you can't extract from it exactly what was done (just that people thought it was exciting, and some general context). Anyway, I think this issue is going to remain with us. My experience with expository writing is that, no matter how much effort you put into the basics, there will always be someone who thinks you should do more. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Effect on the parser of large navboxes
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: And I don't know how I ever missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis It really is worth reading all that essay and its talk page. Make sure you read the history too, where I removed all the bogus technical claims three different times over the span of a few months before giving up when Wikid77 re-added them a fourth time. All the claims that links per se are a significant technical problem are complete garbage. The links tables are large, but not any kind of bottleneck. The thing that makes parsing slow is massive amounts of wikitext, whether it's links or anything else. Deeply nested templates might be a particular performance issue, for instance, but links table storage is definitely not. But I've given up on trying to keep Wikid77's persistently uninformed arguments off that page. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: If navboxes could be loaded dynamically, with AJAX, then editors could put as many links in them as they liked without DoSing the servers. AJAX would lead to a poorer user experience, since they'd take some time to open. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have some kind of HTML-level cache for templates? Normally you can't do that, because wikitext constructs might start and end in different templates. But perhaps templates could opt in to an HTML cache through a magic word to get improved performance, at the expense of behaving somewhat differently. This should work for the giant static navigation templates as long as they don't vary per-article in important ways. Although of course, you'd need someone who understands the parser to write the feature, while AJAX could be done by any Wikipedia editor who knows some JavaScript. (This is clearly more of a wikitech-l discussion, though.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Effect on the parser of large navboxes
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: And I don't know how I ever missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis It really is worth reading all that essay and its talk page. Make sure you read the history too, where I removed all the bogus technical claims three different times over the span of a few months before giving up when Wikid77 re-added them a fourth time. Ah, OK. I see. That essay should be userfied then, and I need to retract what I said on his talk page. The point made on the talk page here, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Overlink_crisis#Implications_for_.27What_links_here.3F.27 ...is exactly the point I've made in the past. Large navboxes transcluded over many articles swamps 'what links here'. I did see the parallel discussion on wikitech-l when David Gerard raised this subject there, and am hoping that something is done about it when someone finds the time. :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Accessibility of technical articles
Here is my attempt at a historical explanation for the way things are at the moment. First, mathematicians in general are often reluctant to say things that are mostly right but formally incorrect. It's part of the culture of the field, which was reinforced by a certain writing style that became popular in advanced mathematics in the later 20th century. Second, for a few years there was a lot of pressure on Wikipedia to tighten up the referencing on math articles. Writing techniques that were commonly accepted in the early days, like inventing examples or making up informal analogies, were suddenly deemed original research. Edits like this [1] are not rare today, where someone thought that a section that seemed easy and informal must actually be OR. Fortunately the examples in that section are actually covered in many textbooks, so I could just add a citation. But if the example was written just for Wikipedia, it would be very hard to maintain if someone seriously challenged its inclusion. The current state of many math articles reflects a combination of these trends. When we were asked (not always nicely) to make math articles stick to the sources, which are usually written in a dry, technical way, math editors mostly agreed. After all, we can read the sources, so we can read articles that resemble them. Recently, there has been talk of making articles more accessible. But many of the tools that we would use in other writing aren't available. * We can't just leave out the technical bits, like most popularizations do. * We can't invent examples and explain them in detail, because of the original research policy and because Wikipedia isn't a textbook. * We can't freely use analogies and informal explanations, for the same reasons (see [1] again). Many math editors care about accessibility, of course. But the confines that we are asked to write in are very tight, which makes it a particular challenge. - Carl 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kleene%27s_recursion_theoremdiff=413952471oldid=413931670 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
