On 12/01/2012 4:01 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
well, i cannot tell that the WP admins are going to do anything about
this other than wait for the page protection to expire (about 26 hours)
and then see what happens. if enough of us converge upon the article,
then the "tendentious" editor
On 1/11/12 10:50 AM, Thomas Young wrote:
Man I wish I hadn't gone to that wiki page now, it really is a mess and there
are some pretty glaring errors (missing brackets on the summation in the
Fourier series equation, and citation needed... wtf?)
-Original Message-
From: music-dsp-boun
Hi Tom,
The wikipedia entry was:
"Very similar to C and C++, but the ''while loop'' could also have been written
on one line:"
As I said, this implies that that it couldn't be done in one line in C/C++, and
it can. So, I'd say that the original writer was incorrect.
And again, so you think th
Man I wish I hadn't gone to that wiki page now, it really is a mess and there
are some pretty glaring errors (missing brackets on the summation in the
Fourier series equation, and citation needed... wtf?)
-Original Message-
From: music-dsp-boun...@music.columbia.edu
[mailto:music-dsp-b
On 11/01/2012 14:39, Alen Koebel wrote:
Also, things that are considered correct don't necessarily stay correct.
That also works in reverse. Things that were correct on Wikipedia can be become incorrect in the blink of an eye. For every contributor that actually knows something about a subje
On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:41:08 AM Didier Dambrin di...@skynet.be wrote:
> But it's still the place I'd trust the most.
It would seem likely then that you believe the results of the informal study
(not peer reviewed) by Nature back in 2005 that found Wikipedia had only
32% more errors
On 11/01/2012 12:25, Tom Molesworth wrote:
..
$factorial *= $counter-- while $counter > 0;
and as such is not the same as this:
while($counter > 0) { $factorial *= $counter-- }
Hang on a mo - this really depends on the definition of "statement" in
the two languages. And, how long a line i
Scholarpedia is of course a more reliable source than wikipedia in
general, being curated by experts. But those topics that appear in both
are often more accessibly written on wikipedia. Unfortunately though,
scholarpedia doesn't seem to have anything on additive synthesis or even
DSP at large (yet
Without looking at the page (I might do that later), I remember from
doing a few good edits which sometimes were deliberately changed that of
course the process of the wiki use has turned from "good quick facts"
(wikiwiki appears to mean "quickly") to a battle with spammers and
strangely inspir
On 11/01/12 06:45, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Just to get my fingertips wet again, I "fixed" something trivial that I had commented on
over two years ago: One of the simplest things you could imagine, an article on the "while
loop" construct in programming. There were examples in many computer languag
Wikipedia isn't always 100% accurate but it's still the most well presented and
informative source for a huge variety of topics, people should remember that it
is an encyclopaedia as well, not a reference book for advanced signal
processing.
On a slightly more philosophical note I think the ide
You don't have to convince me, because I have a funny story about a (small)
mistake about the history of the company here, in a wikipedia article. One
day I see that same mistake on our own website, and ask the one who setup
the page where he got that information.. wikipedia of course. So a mis
On 1/11/12 9:39 , Didier Dambrin wrote:
> How is wikipedia a bad idea? Only because it has mistakes? Sure, but
> it's still a lot more reliable than any other source on the net. All
> encyclopedias can have mistake & any information has to be verified anyway.
> What else would replace it? Certainl
How is wikipedia a bad idea? Only because it has mistakes? Sure, but it's
still a lot more reliable than any other source on the net. All
encyclopedias can have mistake & any information has to be verified anyway.
What else would replace it? Certainly not random discussions in random
forums/new
14 matches
Mail list logo
