Hi Ruslan,

sorry for the late reply.

On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300
Ruslan <rusli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Answering your questions:
> 
>    1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
>    included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not
>    matter.) The full reference is
>    http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836
>    2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be
>    included.
> 

I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing
known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts, that will
be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that can solve
31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions as legal
ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or someone else)
prepare a small public research document, which won't be an academic paper but
will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere (with sources on
GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML site) and then cite that
- will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy?

Thanks in advance,

        -- Shlomi Fish

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish       http://www.shlomifish.org/
http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/

A wiseman can learn from a fool much more than a fool can ever learn from a
wiseman.               — http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to