Yes, the second -- I agree on the import of unbaised content, and this thread is that.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Waldir Pimenta <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that would be necessary, since any assertions he has made > here will likely be in some form or another in the book, which can be cited > down to the page number. Or were you suggesting this as evidence of > significant interest in the concept from an implementation perspective / an > independent community? > > On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 4:37:41 PM UTC+1, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: >> >> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>
