If (and only if) appropriate to Wikipedia guidelines / practice, I suggest including reference to this thread in the revision of a page to resubmit for Wikipedia.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Waldir Pimenta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >
