9 ms·

Marathon Editing Brings New Rigor to Wikipedia Physics

49 points by JohnHammersley 11y ago

freethemullet 11y ago
Where can I find complete list of the edited pages?
techdragon 11y ago
The article makes it sound like the usual tendency of Wikipedia to revert new contributions was avoided but tellingly they point out not all of the changes "stuck". The fact that a coordinated gathering of actual physicists working together on these pages had anything reverted is a telling example of the poison that will eventually kill Wikipedia. Without a coordinated list to see just which edits failed to stick I'm not able to completely back my assertion. However I doubt that these people, working in groups where they have many eyes proofreading and spellchecking at once, were submitting the kind of changes with typos or other mistakes that would be understandably rejected by Wikipedia.
- snori74 11y ago
  Well, physicists are not necessarily perfect. The article says that "...the group edited 51 existing physics pages, including Speed of Light...", but that particular edit was this one: Recently, there are some tests<1> on the upper limit of speed of light. The test conducted by Zhang et. al showed that single photon still obeys speed limit which is the speed of light no matter in normal material or fast material. <1>Shanchao Zhang, J. F. Chen, Chang Liu, M. M. T. Loy, G. K. L. Wong, and Shengwang Du, "Optical precursor of a single photon," Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243602 (2011). And yes, it was reverted, with the comment "Poor wording. Perhaps someone with access to the source can cast this into proper English?". (As always with text-only communication, it's possible to read-in some snark, where none is intended). I don't get the impression that this little factoid would have greatly improved the article, but the poor wording would have degraded it. The correct call I think. Edit: formatting
  - ximeng 11y ago
    Grammar here is seriously lacking as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Doppler_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Doppler_cooling
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The correct approach is to fix the wording, not reject it completely. It's not even that bad. There have been problems with the speed of light article that required arbcom measures; edit wars with a lot of talk page and ANI discussion, with some bans for users. It's not a surprise to me that edits to the speed of light article get reverted.
    - roghummal 11y ago
      In my experience (outside Wikipedia) it's easier to shoot something down than it is to fix it. There's a proxy effect where the thing you fixed becomes your problem even when your fix has nothing to do with the (potentially future) problem. If this holds true for Wikipedia it'd make sense to see more rejections than fixes. Let the person submitting it fix it. It's their problem.
sparkzilla 11y ago
The fact that they have to do this kind of "edit-a-thon" shows that Wikipedia is not sustainable. Adding content shouldn't require extraordinary effort.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Good content does take a lot of effort to put in, people are to just going to put it in by themselves. Wikipedia is sustainable, that's why it's still around and the worlds most popular reference. The only feasible alternative is private collections of knowledge opening up to the public. Now that's would be ideal but it's not going to happen by itself either.
mikro2nd 11y ago
The real problem that WP's physics section suffers from is less "lack of content" and much more one of accessibility to ordinary readers. (I'm looking at you, Particle Physics!) Many of the articles are completely incomprehensible to anyone with less than grad-level knowledge of the topic, which sort of renders the whole exercise moot. An encyclopedia is meant to be accessible to the ordinary intelligent reader -- say about high-school level. I appreciate that much of the subject matter -- especially when it comes to topics like Quantum Physics or Particle Physics -- is actually completely counterintuitive and weird, and that it is only, really, properly described by the math. Nevertheless, responding to comments requesting lay-level clarity along the lines of "you won't understand it unless you get a PhD in it" is not at all helpful, and merely reveals an attitude of arrogant superiority. Many of the physics pages could really use the help of an editor who understands how to construct an $English sentence and is comfortable using imagery and allegory to explain the concepts, even though those may likely be inaccurate, misleading or technically wrong. Sadly those people usually don't have the requisite knowledge of the subject. Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"?
- unstabilo 11y ago
  > Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"? No. It's commonly attributed to Einstein, but of course he didn't say that, because he knew better. There are things you just can't explain at a certain level. For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but explained why not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM.
  - roghummal 11y ago
    >For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but explained why not: And it's possibly his failure, not some intrinsic property of MAGNETS WORKING that's impossible to explain to laymen. In his own words, "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." "... because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're familiar with."
graycat 11y ago
Simons did it again! Good results from brains, math, and money!

Where can I find complete list of the edited pages?

The article makes it sound like the usual tendency of Wikipedia to revert new contributions was avoided but tellingly they point out not all of the changes "stuck". The fact that a coordinated gathering of actual physicists working together on these pages had anything reverted is a telling example of the poison that will eventually kill Wikipedia. Without a coordinated list to see just which edits failed to stick I'm not able to completely back my assertion. However I doubt that these people, working in groups where they have many eyes proofreading and spellchecking at once, were submitting the kind of changes with typos or other mistakes that would be understandably rejected by Wikipedia.

snori74 11y ago
Well, physicists are not necessarily perfect. The article says that "...the group edited 51 existing physics pages, including Speed of Light...", but that particular edit was this one: Recently, there are some tests<1> on the upper limit of speed of light. The test conducted by Zhang et. al showed that single photon still obeys speed limit which is the speed of light no matter in normal material or fast material. <1>Shanchao Zhang, J. F. Chen, Chang Liu, M. M. T. Loy, G. K. L. Wong, and Shengwang Du, "Optical precursor of a single photon," Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243602 (2011). And yes, it was reverted, with the comment "Poor wording. Perhaps someone with access to the source can cast this into proper English?". (As always with text-only communication, it's possible to read-in some snark, where none is intended). I don't get the impression that this little factoid would have greatly improved the article, but the poor wording would have degraded it. The correct call I think. Edit: formatting
- ximeng 11y ago
  Grammar here is seriously lacking as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Doppler_cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-Doppler_cooling
- DanBC 11y ago
  The correct approach is to fix the wording, not reject it completely. It's not even that bad. There have been problems with the speed of light article that required arbcom measures; edit wars with a lot of talk page and ANI discussion, with some bans for users. It's not a surprise to me that edits to the speed of light article get reverted.
  - roghummal 11y ago
    In my experience (outside Wikipedia) it's easier to shoot something down than it is to fix it. There's a proxy effect where the thing you fixed becomes your problem even when your fix has nothing to do with the (potentially future) problem. If this holds true for Wikipedia it'd make sense to see more rejections than fixes. Let the person submitting it fix it. It's their problem.

sparkzilla 11y ago

The fact that they have to do this kind of "edit-a-thon" shows that Wikipedia is not sustainable. Adding content shouldn't require extraordinary effort.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Synaesthesia 11y ago
Good content does take a lot of effort to put in, people are to just going to put it in by themselves. Wikipedia is sustainable, that's why it's still around and the worlds most popular reference. The only feasible alternative is private collections of knowledge opening up to the public. Now that's would be ideal but it's not going to happen by itself either.

mikro2nd 11y ago

The real problem that WP's physics section suffers from is less "lack of content" and much more one of accessibility to ordinary readers. (I'm looking at you, Particle Physics!) Many of the articles are completely incomprehensible to anyone with less than grad-level knowledge of the topic, which sort of renders the whole exercise moot. An encyclopedia is meant to be accessible to the ordinary intelligent reader -- say about high-school level. I appreciate that much of the subject matter -- especially when it comes to topics like Quantum Physics or Particle Physics -- is actually completely counterintuitive and weird, and that it is only, really, properly described by the math. Nevertheless, responding to comments requesting lay-level clarity along the lines of "you won't understand it unless you get a PhD in it" is not at all helpful, and merely reveals an attitude of arrogant superiority. Many of the physics pages could really use the help of an editor who understands how to construct an $English sentence and is comfortable using imagery and allegory to explain the concepts, even though those may likely be inaccurate, misleading or technically wrong. Sadly those people usually don't have the requisite knowledge of the subject. Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"?

unstabilo 11y ago
> Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"? No. It's commonly attributed to Einstein, but of course he didn't say that, because he knew better. There are things you just can't explain at a certain level. For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but explained why not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM.
- roghummal 11y ago
  >For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but explained why not: And it's possibly his failure, not some intrinsic property of MAGNETS WORKING that's impossible to explain to laymen. In his own words, "I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you." "... because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're familiar with."

graycat 11y ago

Simons did it again! Good results from brains, math, and money!