On Sep 7, 2015 2:43 PM, "CHARLES GILLINGHAM" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The right way to proceed is just to drop new content into the article, and let the Wikipedia process work. Approval from Numenta is unnecessary — the process will insure that Numenta’s interests are served.
+1 Speaking as a numenta employee (albeit not on behalf of Numenta), I say go for it. No need for approval from Numenta. > > The most important Wikipedia policies that apply are these: > > (1) Everything in Wikipedia should be attributed to reliable sources, such as prominent newspapers, published books, major news outlets, etc., (unless it is something so obvious that it is “unlikely to be challenged”). The footnotes in Wikipedia articles are there to provide verification (unlike academic footnotes, which provide clarification or attribution). They are there to prove that this isn’t something you just made up. > > (2) The subject of an article is not allowed to edit the article; e.g., no one who works from Numenta should edit the article about Numenta. This is to avoid self-promotion and self-protection. Wikipedia aspires to a “Neutral Point of View”, and the assumption is that this is impossible when you are writing about yourself. Anything that even appears to be self promotion (regardless of who contributed it) will be deleted when it is noticed. > > (3) Wikipedia’s editors are encouraged to “be bold”. Wikipedia is always a “work in progress”. Editors are expected to post drafts directly in the encyclopedia and let others help edit them. > > (4) Once an article is written, it belongs to the community. The article will go through many changes after you write it — some will improve the article, some will weaken it. Some will be from people who disagree with your point of view. Any dispute is resolved by providing more sources and better sources. > > I edited Wikipedia extensively several years ago, but retired some time ago. The only time-consuming part is doing the research — i.e. finding reliable sources that back up what you want to write. If someone else can do this part, I’d be happy to handle the technical side (i.e. building nice looking footnotes, flattening the tone, etc.), > > At Wikipedia, I’m [[User:CharlesGillingham]], if you want to contact me there. > >> On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Rohan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi David >> >> Totally agree that the wiki needs updating. As someone who stumbled across On Intelligence two months ago, bridging the gap between the book release and where we stand today as well as key milestones between then and now has been arduous and required much research across a variety of sites. >> >> Happy to help if I can be of assistance. >> >> Also, as someone fresh to the area I'd typically prefer content authenticated via Numenta over a public wiki contributers' interpretation. The challenge is who at Numenta could manage the authenticiation process? >> >> Rohan >> >> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 10:17 AM, cogmission (David Ray) < [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi George, >>> >>> I'm trying to avoid the modified text being made public before it adheres to an adequate qualitative standard as determined by Numenta designates. I'm not familiar with the editing procedure of Wikipedia (this will be my first contribution) - but I'm assuming there must be some attempt to have submitted text be "authenticated" by the domain experts (those that are being written about or accepted authorities on the topic)? I'm not sure... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:35 AM, CHARLES GILLINGHAM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There's no need to develop the page outside of Wikipedia. Just make changes directly to the Wikipedia pages at any time. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Sep 6, 2015, at 9:48 AM, cogmission (David Ray) < [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Simply put, I would like to see the wikipedia listing for Hierarchical Temporal Memory improved and brought up to date. >>>>> >>>>> Problems: >>>>> The current listing has several inaccuracies regarding the current state of HTM Theory; does not reflect the historical evolution of the theory; and instead, superimposes the historical/older version's origins with newer developments creating a cognitive mishmash of indistinct informational attributes. >>>>> >>>>> Solution: >>>>> I would like to see the current page/listing accurately describe the events following the publishing of "On Intelligence"; the formation of Numenta; and the eventual split between approaches favored by Dileep George, and Jeff Hawkins. I propose that coverage of Dileep George and his company Vicarious link to another page that those in that camp can more fully enhance at their will - and the rest of the listing then proceed to describe the development of the Cortical Learning Algorithm and the more current focus of Numenta et al. >>>>> >>>>> Unknowns: >>>>> 1. Is the term "Hierarchical Temporal Memory" currently used by Dileep George and Vicarious? >>>>> >>>>> Process: >>>>> Once this proposal has been honed such that it reflects a satisfactory approach and direction; that the current listing text be incrementally and iteratively modified, then submitted for approval - each submission's approval representing an interactive improvement of the entire text until such time as it is considered to be an accurate representation. This entire process is to proceed "offline" (not posted to wikipedia until finished). >>>>> >>>>> I propose this iterative approach because it will make things easier (initially for me specifically, but maybe by a "team" of people who would like to participate - I encourage this). Advantages: >>>>> >>>>> 1. the text updates can be made in small increments as knowledge is acquired seeing as the "implementing team" doesn't possess the whole story. [ Again, the "implementing team" will be initially composed of myself but is wide open to other community contributors ;-) ] >>>>> >>>>> 2. Submissions of small changes won't take much time to "validate" and turn around time can be more "immediate" leading to a quicker process.This will consume negligible time on the part of the validator, increasing willingness and therefore the process' general momentum. >>>>> >>>>> What does everyone think? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> With kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> David Ray >>>>> Java Solutions Architect >>>>> >>>>> Cortical.io >>>>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://cortical.io >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> With kind regards, >>> >>> David Ray >>> Java Solutions Architect >>> >>> Cortical.io >>> Sponsor of: HTM.java >>> >>> [email protected] >>> http://cortical.io >> >> >
