The Wikipedia article was redirected quite recently in fact, and after reviewing the edit history and reading the comments on the talk page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unum_(number_format)>, I can say (as an experienced Wikipedia editor) that the case for restoring the article can be made pretty solidly, especially because the redirect was performed unilaterally and without prior community consensus.
That said, and as one of the supporters of restoring the content admitted in the discussion, the tone of the article wasn't ideal. It sounded a bit promotional and was poor in details, which makes it understandable that the claims it made were disputed. I can assist in recreating the article in a manner that would make it more robust to the most common problems. This will require essentially a good objective description of the concept, and third-party sources to back the claims up. Elaborating a bit (but don't let this deter you, these are just guidelines, not absolute rules), here's what we need: 1. *An unbiased, objective description of the concept*, with sufficient technical details, code examples, ASCII diagrams, etc. to make the claims substantive and avoid vague assertions. The language should be encyclopedic, i.e. not address the reader directly, and avoid colorful expressions that don't provide objective value. This page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch> contains examples of what to avoid. 2. Indication of notability, which can be provided references to *substantial coverage (not passing mentions) of the subject by multiple independent, reliable sources*. These mostly are reputed publications, either for a general audience, or respected by experts within the relevant field. These sources can also be enriched with commentary from well-known experts published in their personal blogs or web pages (or even in discussion forums online, although this would be stretching the guidelines, so they must be only supplemental to the main sources). 3. *Inline citations to specific claims*, ideally pointing to either short publications (articles, etc.) that explicitly address the point being made, or to specific chapters or page numbers when they consist of book references. I have no expertise in this area, but I'd be glad to help out in preparing a draft for publication. Probably a page on Tom's repository would be the ideal place to work this out. To get things started, I created a page at https://github.com/tbreloff/Unums.jl/wiki/Draft-Wikipedia-article, with the contents of the Wikipedia article right before it got redirected. On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 8:49 PM, John Gustafson <[email protected] > wrote: > Guys, this reminds me: There used to be a Wikipedia page on Unum > (arithmetic), but it was taken down for some reason and now searches just > direct to my Wikipedia page. Maybe it's time to revive it. Then we could > start building a concise explanation there. > > On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, Waldir Pimenta wrote: >> >> A github wiki in the Unums.jl package would seem ideal. You get the >> "anyone can edit" feature, with accountability of who made each edit >> (github wikis are git repos, and to make edits people need to have a github >> account) and easy reversal of eventual bad changes. >> >> On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 3:41:36 PM UTC+1, Job van der Zwan wrote: >>> >>> Hey Tom, >>> >>> Well, I could change the setting to "anyone with the link can edit" - we >>> risk vandalism in that case, but as long as we keep the document link to >>> here the risk is minimal. >>> >>> On Friday, 31 July 2015 15:43:06 UTC+2, Tom Breloff wrote: >>>> >>>> I added some info to the readme at https://github.com/tbreloff/Unums.jl. >>>> I talk a little bit about how I'm intending to build the package, the >>>> available types, etc. There is also a stub issue for continuing the >>>> discussion of how unums fit into the world of numerical analysis: >>>> https://github.com/tbreloff/Unums.jl/issues/2. I'd love collaboration >>>> from anyone that wants to help implement some of the conversion functions >>>> and operations. I don't claim to be an authority on floating point >>>> arithmetic, so any and all comments are welcome. >>>> >>>> Job: Any chance you can move your google doc to a wiki or something >>>> more accessible? I'm happy to include it in my package if you want. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Job van der Zwan <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, 30 July 2015 00:33:52 UTC+2, Job van der Zwan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW, Tom, I was already working on a summary of the book (on an >>>>>> IJulia notebook). I'm on mobile right now so don't have access to it, >>>>>> but I >>>>>> can share it later. I think something like that might be useful to >>>>>> attract >>>>>> more collaborators - we can't expect everyone to read it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so since Tom is already working on a package, I moved my >>>>> summary-in-progress to Google Drive where it's easier for people to leave >>>>> comments: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d36_ppKeZDuYRadLm9-Ty8Ai2XZE5MS5bwIuEKBJ1WE/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For others who have read the book, please correct any errors or >>>>> misunderstandings on my part that you see. Expanding sections is also >>>>> encouraged :P >>>>> >>>>> Right now it's very bare-bones (since the meat is what you *can do* with >>>>> unums, not the definition of the format itself), but I'll hopefully get >>>>> around to expanding it a bit in the coming weeks. >>>>> >>>> >>>>
