6 ms·

seems to fail the "accessible" part. Pretty much every math topic is written for path professors.

by greggman3 5y ago

zepto 5y ago
Isn’t it great that you have access to math articles by math professors?
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  They said "written for". Yes, maths articles written by professors are good, but there is definitely a problem of Wikipedia being over-academic and so not being good as a general encyclopedia. I'm surprised they don't appear to have articles structured by depth (ie academic level). Where there's a relatively comprehensive article that you need at least a graduate level of understanding to read then there's an _encyclopedia_ article missing that targets someone of more moderate learning/intelligence.
  - zepto 5y ago
    When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      I'm referring to a collection of introductory articles covering a wide range of concepts/objects/people, etc. Deep introductions to a subject are great, but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? There's clearly space with web media to include more comprehensive articles, but IMO this should be _as well_. It's kinda the "if I had more time I'd have written more briefly" concept writ large (at web scale, if you will).
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seems like it. As another commenter wrote: “Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work.”
    - The_Colonel 5y ago
      @pbhjpbhj > but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work. There's also a Wikimedia's project called Wikibooks which is aimed at producing learning material.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      No I don't think so because these kind of things https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg/375px-Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/En... were not obsolete in 1982. They were not obsoleted until at least 10 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta) but probably more like 20 if you consider those physical media things are basically digitized books and weren't obviously superior in terms of accessibility or content. What old collections of books obsoleted in the early 80s are you referring to?
      - zepto 5y ago
        You’re right. I was off by 10 years.
  - zepto 5y ago
    It seems like a fairly weird expectation to be able to explain advanced mathematics to someone of moderate learning/intelligence.
    - bildung 5y ago
      It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. Many people in fields like mathematics or CS (and sadly also in the respective teaching positions) have only very rudementary concepts of the inner workings of the human mind, and e.g. equate the content with the mode of delivery. > to someone of moderate learning/intelligence. It's mostly about the learning, not the intelligence, i.e. current state of research shows only loose correlation to intelligence (g factor) and favors models that use a domain-specific skill to explain maths competency. Intelligence will certainly help, but its effect is quite overvalued.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. No it isn’t. It is an extreme claim that advanced mathematics can easily be explained to someone regardless of their intelligence. The evidence for this claim would be the presence educational programs that can easily educate almost anyone in advanced mathematics. These do not exist.
        pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        I made no such claim, it's very hard to explain complex topics, much harder than 'just' understanding them. Certainly impossible in some cases. But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO.
        zepto 5y ago
        > But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO I think that’s due to encyclopedias having been sets of books with limited space.
The_Colonel 5y ago
"Accessible" as in not being behind a paywall.

seems to fail the "accessible" part. Pretty much every math topic is written for path professors.

zepto 5y ago

Isn’t it great that you have access to math articles by math professors?

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
They said "written for". Yes, maths articles written by professors are good, but there is definitely a problem of Wikipedia being over-academic and so not being good as a general encyclopedia. I'm surprised they don't appear to have articles structured by depth (ie academic level). Where there's a relatively comprehensive article that you need at least a graduate level of understanding to read then there's an _encyclopedia_ article missing that targets someone of more moderate learning/intelligence.
- zepto 5y ago
  When you say ‘encyclopedia’, are you referring to those old collections of books that we’re obsoleted 40 years ago?
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    I'm referring to a collection of introductory articles covering a wide range of concepts/objects/people, etc. Deep introductions to a subject are great, but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? There's clearly space with web media to include more comprehensive articles, but IMO this should be _as well_. It's kinda the "if I had more time I'd have written more briefly" concept writ large (at web scale, if you will).
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Do you disagree about the purpose of an encyclopedia? Seems like it. As another commenter wrote: “Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work.”
  - The_Colonel 5y ago
    @pbhjpbhj > but to me they're not encyclopedic as they're not really introductory. Encyclopedia is not supposed to be an introductory learning material, it's supposed to be a reference work. There's also a Wikimedia's project called Wikibooks which is aimed at producing learning material.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    No I don't think so because these kind of things https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg/375px-Encyclopaedia_Britannica_15_with_2002.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/En... were not obsolete in 1982. They were not obsoleted until at least 10 years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encarta) but probably more like 20 if you consider those physical media things are basically digitized books and weren't obviously superior in terms of accessibility or content. What old collections of books obsoleted in the early 80s are you referring to?
    - zepto 5y ago
      You’re right. I was off by 10 years.
- zepto 5y ago
  It seems like a fairly weird expectation to be able to explain advanced mathematics to someone of moderate learning/intelligence.
  - bildung 5y ago
    It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. Many people in fields like mathematics or CS (and sadly also in the respective teaching positions) have only very rudementary concepts of the inner workings of the human mind, and e.g. equate the content with the mode of delivery. > to someone of moderate learning/intelligence. It's mostly about the learning, not the intelligence, i.e. current state of research shows only loose correlation to intelligence (g factor) and favors models that use a domain-specific skill to explain maths competency. Intelligence will certainly help, but its effect is quite overvalued.
    - zepto 5y ago
      > It actually is a pretty reasonable expectation for someone not completely clueless about education. No it isn’t. It is an extreme claim that advanced mathematics can easily be explained to someone regardless of their intelligence. The evidence for this claim would be the presence educational programs that can easily educate almost anyone in advanced mathematics. These do not exist.
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        I made no such claim, it's very hard to explain complex topics, much harder than 'just' understanding them. Certainly impossible in some cases. But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO.
        zepto 5y ago
        > But a shallower explanation is the essence of what encyclopedias are all about, IMO I think that’s due to encyclopedias having been sets of books with limited space.

The_Colonel 5y ago

"Accessible" as in not being behind a paywall.