otoh I have no knowledge of the way of the Wiki On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Jeffrey Sarnoff <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>> >
