4 ms·

I remember finding some physical constant in a Wikipedia article with more decimals than what I knew about. I've verified that and have found that these decimal

by acqq 7y ago

I remember finding some physical constant in a Wikipedia article with more decimals than what I knew about. I've verified that and have found that these decimals were bogus, and existed there in the article for quite a while (e.g. two years). I've never tried to right that wrong, believing it would take a lot of my energy. Don't believe Wikipedia blindly, even for the physical constants.

hcs 7y ago
I know this may have been a long time ago, and you decided it wasn't worth the effort making and defending the edit, but making a mention of your references on the talk page for the article could bring the error to the attention of other editors.
- acqq 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom "1907 IAU definition of the Angstrom: Was it 6438.4696, or was it 6438.46963 (???) I was wondering why I was coming up with 1553164.117 wavelengths of the cadmium red-line per 10^10 angstroms (the so-called "Cadmium meter", per the 1907 IAU definition given as 6438.46963), while virtually all internet searches were coming up with "1553164.13". Later, I managed to trace a change in the article from 6438.4696 to 6438.46963 in an unsourced one-character edit by 146.115.127.198, all the way back to 2008. I suspect that 6438.4696 (which yields 1553164.12459 per 10^10 (1907) angstroms) is correct (based on the printed publications which I have come across), and the error has since propagated to several other websites that have used Wikipedia as a reference. Should this ten-year-old edit be reverted, or not? DWIII (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)" After reading that, to find some who have since 2008 wrongly used that bogus constant (even in some books), search for: "6438.46963"
JadeNB 7y ago
Come on; what was the physical constant?

4 ms·

I remember finding some physical constant in a Wikipedia article with more decimals than what I knew about. I've verified that and have found that these decimal

by acqq 7y ago

hcs 7y ago
I know this may have been a long time ago, and you decided it wasn't worth the effort making and defending the edit, but making a mention of your references on the talk page for the article could bring the error to the attention of other editors.
- acqq 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAngstrom "1907 IAU definition of the Angstrom: Was it 6438.4696, or was it 6438.46963 (???) I was wondering why I was coming up with 1553164.117 wavelengths of the cadmium red-line per 10^10 angstroms (the so-called "Cadmium meter", per the 1907 IAU definition given as 6438.46963), while virtually all internet searches were coming up with "1553164.13". Later, I managed to trace a change in the article from 6438.4696 to 6438.46963 in an unsourced one-character edit by 146.115.127.198, all the way back to 2008. I suspect that 6438.4696 (which yields 1553164.12459 per 10^10 (1907) angstroms) is correct (based on the printed publications which I have come across), and the error has since propagated to several other websites that have used Wikipedia as a reference. Should this ten-year-old edit be reverted, or not? DWIII (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)" After reading that, to find some who have since 2008 wrongly used that bogus constant (even in some books), search for: "6438.46963"
JadeNB 7y ago
Come on; what was the physical constant?