Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a viewpoint that would be
worth reading even if the author were anonymous. In particular, the
following claim is quite accurate to my experience:
Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a
random walk around the highest
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:11:55PM -0800, Delirium wrote:
I think it's perfectly applicable to journal articles as well. I
personally, at least, think it's usually inappropriate to directly cite
a new-research result to the journal article, since evaluating journal
articles, and placing
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:51:10PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Specifics would be helpful.
The result described at [[Green-Tao_theorem]] was groundbreaking and of
extraordinary scientific interest. It will no doubt eventually be
covered in a text some day. The present article is just a
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:51:10PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is going to be the *source*
for a new summary and synthesize of primary source material.
That is the very position that we strove to exclude in the policy language.
An issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:02:47PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Sure. 150 to 200 years ago, Sophie Germain published a very valuable
insight into Fermat's Last Theorem.
It isn't necessary to go so far back. A large part of the important
mathematics of the 1980s and 1990s does not appear
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 07:44:58PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
It is *already* covered in a text. In fact, I note, just on Google Books,
at least six print secondary sources which *mention* it, and a few go into
details.
A book which only mentions a theorem but doesn't go into depth is
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:12AM +, Carcharoth wrote:
Why not both? Wikipedia requires editorial judgment for some things,
but selection of primary sources is one of the more tricky ones, and a
secondary source showing that you are not cherry-picking the primary
sources is a good
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:35:34PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If the community has decided that it doesn't trust an article built using
solely primary sources, than that is what it has decided.
If by community you mean WP policy then no such decision has been
made. It is perfectly
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:23:48PM -0500, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The very definition of important is, that many people cite it.
If no one cites it, it's not important.
Remember that I do not count a name check of a theorem as an actual
source for the theorem (since it is not actually a source
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:01:01PM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
But current policy explicitly forbids even summary of sources that
require expert knowledge to understand.
I use such sources all the time for mathematics articles. There's
simply no way to require verifiability but also exclude
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:15:10AM -0500, Phil Sandifer wrote:
I am not sure the point applies as well to NOR, where we do actually run
into the problem that we need to have some way of differentiating
between an acceptable interpretation of a source and an unacceptable
one.
The only
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:24:01PM +, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
This is very exciting! The first article appears to be [[SmY]], and
I don't see any glaring problems with it. The two diagrams could
use a footnote in each of their long
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:16:47AM +, Ian Woollard wrote:
Well, let's take an example, like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket
Down the side are a huge number of links including the French one:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fus%C3%A9e_spatiale
This title translates as 'Space
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:53:49PM +0100, Lukasz Bolikowski wrote:
Let me clarify a couple of assumptions that I've made:
i) there should be at most one article on any given topic in a language
edition, which is not true in sh:, az:, ku: and possibly others.
ii) the sum of interwiki links
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 03:22:55PM +0100, Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Lukasz Bolikowski schreef:
A short introduction: let's say that two articles are connected if there
is an interlanguage link from one to the other in at least one
direction. Next, let's say that if A-B and B-C are
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:40:13AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Lukasz analysis depends on linking being communicative, but this can
only be true when there is only one kind of link (x is the same
subject no more, no less as y). If we limited ourselves to that it
would preclude the x is
16 matches
Mail list logo
