5 ms·

FWIW, that article's top graphic[1] is currently malformed[2]. Hmm, and the text incorrect[3]. Wikipedia's coverage of this topic has regrettably been unstable

FWIW, that article's top graphic[1] is currently malformed[2]. Hmm, and the text incorrect[3]. Wikipedia's coverage of this topic has regrettably been unstable over the years. Broken chromaticity diagrams are so common, each time the graphic is swapped, it's a toss up whether it's a correct one. And then edits reflect that, and common misconceptions. Perhaps if WP had not just Article and conversational Talk pages, but also something like a writer's notebook, it might serve as memory, as immune system, as a place to caution "make sure when editing that you don't ...". Perhaps it will stabilize some day - the Sun[4] page seems to have at long last settled on a white-not-yellow Sun. Yay. That's more than several of the most used intro astronomy college textbooks have managed. Science education content is... something we struggle to do well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PlanckianLocus.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PlanckianLocus.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PlanckianLocus.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PlanckianLocus.png (13:38, 3 January 2012) [2] Obvious errors: the blackbody curve shown doesn't go through white, and does go through yellow. Incorrect white-point math is a recurring cause. [3] "It goes from deep red at low temperatures through orange, yellowish white, white, and finally bluish white at very high temperatures." (emphasis added) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

alejohausner 5y ago
Well, the biggest error for me is that the tongue-shaped region is completely filled with color! On any three-color device like an LCD display, the gamut of producible colors will cover a triangular region inside that tongue. Any chromaticity diagram that is filled completely is a lie.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  It's hard to call that an error. Do you want it to show garbled static? Every point on the diagram shows the closest available color based on the format.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Well, you would not be able to see "mud": https://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html https://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stun...
sbierwagen 5y ago
After twenty years of using wikipedia, my conclusion is this: in order to keep a single article in decent shape, you need both: 1) Constant vigilance, to monitor the article and revert drive-by edits putting up random nonsense. 2) Solid political backup from other long-time wikipedia editors, to fight off constant AFDs and DRN attempts to destroy whatever you've done. If at any point you slack off, the article will be gutted and replaced with garbage. This resembles any other human endeavor, in that you're valiantly resisting entropy while everyone in the world calls you a moron for even bothering. As a disclaimer, I suppose I don't see any way this could be technically "fixed", short of replacing humanity with something else.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  When I edit an article, it is automatically added to my watchlist, which currently has about 800 articles in it (most of which I don't care about; I should do some weeding). On an average day, maybe 20 of those articles are edited. Most of those edits are minor. Most vandalism has already been reverted before I see it. A substantial wrong edit needs my attention maybe once a week. When you speak of "valiantly resisting entropy", it sounds like a battle against the forces of Mordor. For me it's more like weeding the garden; a fairly pleasant activity, that's easiest if you do a little every day. You're still working against entropy, of course, but as you note that is like every other human endeavour. There are articles I care about that I don't edit. These are mostly articles that some person or group reckons they "own". I don't edit anything to do with the Middle East, for example, nor any article about nationalist politics. Life's too short. I agreee there's no technical fix for that problem. There doesn't seem to be a social fix either; such articles are presumably just going to remain unreliable. Perhaps Wikipedia just isn't suitable as a repository for certain kinds of information. Incidentally, articles on food seem to get nationalists going. The article on Biryani, for example is the subject of constant drive-bys, constantly flipping back and forth between India, Persia and Pakistan.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

alejohausner 5y ago

Well, the biggest error for me is that the tongue-shaped region is completely filled with color! On any three-color device like an LCD display, the gamut of producible colors will cover a triangular region inside that tongue. Any chromaticity diagram that is filled completely is a lie.

Dylan16807 5y ago
It's hard to call that an error. Do you want it to show garbled static? Every point on the diagram shows the closest available color based on the format.
raxxorrax 5y ago
Well, you would not be able to see "mud": https://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stunning-colors.html https://www.livescience.com/17948-red-green-blue-yellow-stun...

sbierwagen 5y ago

After twenty years of using wikipedia, my conclusion is this: in order to keep a single article in decent shape, you need both: 1) Constant vigilance, to monitor the article and revert drive-by edits putting up random nonsense. 2) Solid political backup from other long-time wikipedia editors, to fight off constant AFDs and DRN attempts to destroy whatever you've done. If at any point you slack off, the article will be gutted and replaced with garbage. This resembles any other human endeavor, in that you're valiantly resisting entropy while everyone in the world calls you a moron for even bothering. As a disclaimer, I suppose I don't see any way this could be technically "fixed", short of replacing humanity with something else.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 5y ago
When I edit an article, it is automatically added to my watchlist, which currently has about 800 articles in it (most of which I don't care about; I should do some weeding). On an average day, maybe 20 of those articles are edited. Most of those edits are minor. Most vandalism has already been reverted before I see it. A substantial wrong edit needs my attention maybe once a week. When you speak of "valiantly resisting entropy", it sounds like a battle against the forces of Mordor. For me it's more like weeding the garden; a fairly pleasant activity, that's easiest if you do a little every day. You're still working against entropy, of course, but as you note that is like every other human endeavour. There are articles I care about that I don't edit. These are mostly articles that some person or group reckons they "own". I don't edit anything to do with the Middle East, for example, nor any article about nationalist politics. Life's too short. I agreee there's no technical fix for that problem. There doesn't seem to be a social fix either; such articles are presumably just going to remain unreliable. Perhaps Wikipedia just isn't suitable as a repository for certain kinds of information. Incidentally, articles on food seem to get nationalists going. The article on Biryani, for example is the subject of constant drive-bys, constantly flipping back and forth between India, Persia and Pakistan.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]