27 ms·

I haven't found that to be true at all, but maybe I'm editing different articles. I've gone through on a bunch of math topics that I know a fair bit about and r

I haven't found that to be true at all, but maybe I'm editing different articles. I've gone through on a bunch of math topics that I know a fair bit about and reworded things to be understandable to someone not steeped in jargon and I've always gotten a positive or at least a neutral response.

ColinWright 15y ago
Tweaking what's there isn't so bad. Anything substantial is rapidly punished unless perfect from the start.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Most of my editing is creating new short articles that are far from complete (often one or two paragraphs), and I haven't had problems. I do tend to cite at least one source per article, though (the place I got my info from). Is that the main reason? Or am I just lucky? Or choosing unproblematic areas? Occasionally someone or a bot slaps on a "this article is a stub" footer, but that doesn't really bug me. The one time I ran into trouble was a pretty edge case: my article on internet-meme rapper "Average Homeboy" was deleted, though it seems to now have been recreated. When I write articles on almost anything that isn't internet culture, there doesn't seem to be an army of evildoers looking to hassle me about them (say, on a CS theorem, castle in Greece, Prussian general, or a city hall in Minnesota).
mclin 15y ago
Thanks! Way too often I find a math article jumps straight into the equations without a good overview that can be understood by someone without a math background. Example applications, for example, would greatly reduce the abstract nature of these pages. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllability
- eru 15y ago
  Do you see that page as a good or bad example?
  - mclin 15y ago
    Well, I'd seen the term 'Continuous Linear System' somewhere and came to this page, where it starts out as: Consider the continuous linear time-variant system <equations!> so, bad.
    - eru 15y ago
      It's a math topic. Expect equations.
      - bane 15y ago
        The problem is not that it has equations, it's that, unless you already understand the topic to some level of mastery, you can't even understand the page...ergo it's not a useful resource.
- ColinWright 15y ago
  It's an encyclopedia, not a tutorial or textbook. It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference. What you want is something that would be more useful, but harder to produce.
  - mclin 15y ago
    It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference. Really? That's the exact opposite of how I think of it. An encyclopedia is something you learn an initial shallow understanding from. A field specific reference text is something you reference. eg. My linear algebra text book. For sure re usefulness, which is why moultano's work is greatly appreciated.
  - thyrsus 15y ago
    Deletions inspired by that attitude is exactly what keeps me from contributing.
    - ColinWright 15y ago
      Exactly - and me. I'm not saying that's how it's supposed to be, I'm saying how the mods seem to be trying to interpret it. Tutorial material seems to get short shrift.
  - bane 15y ago
    "It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference." Is this a garden path sentence? I hope so because the beginning almost completely contradicts the ending.
    - ColinWright 15y ago
      <blink> Something to learn from, to me, means tutorial-like material. Something that gives an overview, examples, general theory, more examples, exercises, cross-correlations, and other things intended to help you to learn. Something you reference means, to me, something in which you go and check facts. Hence the contrast with the idea of learning from it. Some people can learn from reference works. In my experience they are in a minority. Most people need extensive examples, context, relationships, and exercises. I believe WikiPedia is intended to be a reference work, something to be referred to in order to check facts. I believe WikiPedia is intended not to have tutorial material or other aspects designed to aid learning. I hope that makes my beliefs clear, as well as my understanding of the specific terms used. And I'm confused by your use of the term "Garden Path Sentence." The sentence you quote doesn't seem to offer any opportunity to re-interpret it partway through, nor to have an alternative interpretation (which suddenly becomes impossible to continue) up to some point. So I guess all you mean is that you don't understand, because you think the sentence is oxymoronic or, more simply, self-contradictory. If that's the case, I hope I've clarified it sufficiently.
- ordinary 15y ago
  I often try to get math topics by reading about them on Wikipedia. I've found that almost universally, they're completely incomprehensible, unless you already know everything about the topic that's being discussed, and are thoroughly versed in adjacent topics. [1][2] We can compare that with articles on physics, which is pretty close to math, after all: they are almost always excellent and mostly understandable even to complete laymen (ie, me). [3][4] If Wikipedia's goal is indeed making all human knowledge freely accessible, then that does not just consist of putting up the words. It means making the content accessible, not just available. While Wikipedia succeeds magnificently in many areas, math is not one of them. ___ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
  - eru 15y ago
    Just check the article on Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy), which sounds good, and its discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy), which makes you think twice about the quality of the article.

ColinWright 15y ago

Tweaking what's there isn't so bad. Anything substantial is rapidly punished unless perfect from the start.

_delirium 15y ago
Most of my editing is creating new short articles that are far from complete (often one or two paragraphs), and I haven't had problems. I do tend to cite at least one source per article, though (the place I got my info from). Is that the main reason? Or am I just lucky? Or choosing unproblematic areas? Occasionally someone or a bot slaps on a "this article is a stub" footer, but that doesn't really bug me. The one time I ran into trouble was a pretty edge case: my article on internet-meme rapper "Average Homeboy" was deleted, though it seems to now have been recreated. When I write articles on almost anything that isn't internet culture, there doesn't seem to be an army of evildoers looking to hassle me about them (say, on a CS theorem, castle in Greece, Prussian general, or a city hall in Minnesota).

mclin 15y ago

Thanks! Way too often I find a math article jumps straight into the equations without a good overview that can be understood by someone without a math background. Example applications, for example, would greatly reduce the abstract nature of these pages. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllability

eru 15y ago
Do you see that page as a good or bad example?
- mclin 15y ago
  Well, I'd seen the term 'Continuous Linear System' somewhere and came to this page, where it starts out as: Consider the continuous linear time-variant system <equations!> so, bad.
  - eru 15y ago
    It's a math topic. Expect equations.
    - bane 15y ago
      The problem is not that it has equations, it's that, unless you already understand the topic to some level of mastery, you can't even understand the page...ergo it's not a useful resource.
ColinWright 15y ago
It's an encyclopedia, not a tutorial or textbook. It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference. What you want is something that would be more useful, but harder to produce.
- mclin 15y ago
  It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference. Really? That's the exact opposite of how I think of it. An encyclopedia is something you learn an initial shallow understanding from. A field specific reference text is something you reference. eg. My linear algebra text book. For sure re usefulness, which is why moultano's work is greatly appreciated.
- thyrsus 15y ago
  Deletions inspired by that attitude is exactly what keeps me from contributing.
  - ColinWright 15y ago
    Exactly - and me. I'm not saying that's how it's supposed to be, I'm saying how the mods seem to be trying to interpret it. Tutorial material seems to get short shrift.
- bane 15y ago
  "It's not supposed to be something you learn from, but something you reference." Is this a garden path sentence? I hope so because the beginning almost completely contradicts the ending.
  - ColinWright 15y ago
    <blink> Something to learn from, to me, means tutorial-like material. Something that gives an overview, examples, general theory, more examples, exercises, cross-correlations, and other things intended to help you to learn. Something you reference means, to me, something in which you go and check facts. Hence the contrast with the idea of learning from it. Some people can learn from reference works. In my experience they are in a minority. Most people need extensive examples, context, relationships, and exercises. I believe WikiPedia is intended to be a reference work, something to be referred to in order to check facts. I believe WikiPedia is intended not to have tutorial material or other aspects designed to aid learning. I hope that makes my beliefs clear, as well as my understanding of the specific terms used. And I'm confused by your use of the term "Garden Path Sentence." The sentence you quote doesn't seem to offer any opportunity to re-interpret it partway through, nor to have an alternative interpretation (which suddenly becomes impossible to continue) up to some point. So I guess all you mean is that you don't understand, because you think the sentence is oxymoronic or, more simply, self-contradictory. If that's the case, I hope I've clarified it sufficiently.
ordinary 15y ago
I often try to get math topics by reading about them on Wikipedia. I've found that almost universally, they're completely incomprehensible, unless you already know everything about the topic that's being discussed, and are thoroughly versed in adjacent topics. [1][2] We can compare that with articles on physics, which is pretty close to math, after all: they are almost always excellent and mostly understandable even to complete laymen (ie, me). [3][4] If Wikipedia's goal is indeed making all human knowledge freely accessible, then that does not just consist of putting up the words. It means making the content accessible, not just available. While Wikipedia succeeds magnificently in many areas, math is not one of them. ___ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
- eru 15y ago
  Just check the article on Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy), which sounds good, and its discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entropy), which makes you think twice about the quality of the article.