7 ms·

Ironically, the Wikipedia pages about him in French [1] and English [2] are, currently, super short. It will help if Wikipedia (just giving them as an example)

by wslh 3y ago

Ironically, the Wikipedia pages about him in French [1] and English [2] are, currently, super short. It will help if Wikipedia (just giving them as an example) could handle the focus on certain people and topics in an smarter way and not after the facts. Wikipedia has a special opportunity about handling this because it is the canonical general reference on Internet. Hallucinated or not I found a better starting point on [3], a Reddit post of 2 years ago with a comment saying: "Even professional mathematicians are barely qualified to choose the best mathematician in their narrow field of expertise, let alone in general… (Before I left math, the most difficult work I encountered was by Michel Talagrand.)" [4] and last, but would be first indeed his own web page [5]. He even gives prizes ala Knuth for solving specific math problems. Last, really few mentions in *stackexchange.com and Reddit. [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand [3] https://chat.openai.com/share/39374448-da85-4897-977a-aaa37ed8e004 https://chat.openai.com/share/39374448-da85-4897-977a-aaa37e... [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/s81ysm/who_would_you_consider_the_greatest_mathematician/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/s81ysm/who_would_you_... [5] https://michel.talagrand.net/ https://michel.talagrand.net/ [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Astackexchange.com&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAR1036AR1039&oq=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Astackexchange.com&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg7MgYIAhBFGDvSAQg3MzA5ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Astac... and https://www.google.com/search?q=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Areddit.com&sca_esv=58652087346d5a22&rlz=1C5CHFA_enAR1036AR1039&sxsrf=ACQVn08F-0FLq0EBmFSbTE8fcZ38fVz1Lw%3A1710938754916&ei=gtr6ZcfFN6mZwbkPlr6QgA8&ved=0ahUKEwjHjuDF74KFAxWpTDABHRYfBPAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Areddit.com&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIE1pY2hlbCBUYWxhZ3JhbmQgc2l0ZTpyZWRkaXQuY29tSKQbUMMJWJkScAF4AJABAJgBogKgAYwLqgEFNS40LjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB-8D&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=Michel+Talagrand+site%3Aredd...

hopfenspergerj 3y ago
That was me on Reddit. I emailed him asking about some of his work on invariant means in the 1970s. He said “I had no taste then”, and told me what a waste of time it was. At that point, I decided to go into data science instead of trying to get a post doc…
- jebarker 3y ago
  How do you feel about that decision now? I left math after my PhD and often find myself feeling nostalgic about it.
  - otoburb 3y ago
    Always something to look forward to in [early] retirement to keep the mind active.
epgui 3y ago
> [...] and not after the facts Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, they intentionally only cover topics retroactively, and preferably after the dust has settled. They're intentionally not intending to be many things, including a source of up to date news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...
- wslh 3y ago
  No pun intended. We all see (right?) that one of the cultural topics of the XXI is about focus. In a relative past people could study and/or read "all" texts and be intellectuals or feel like that. It is obvious that the focus economy always existed but now there are zillions of potential content to consume (good or not, doesn't matter). Wikipedia, as an example, has the opportunity to add layers (not many) of content in the quest of helping (not solving) this focus problem. As you said Wikipedia does not currently has this purpose, but this does not mean that they cannot carry the lit torch and pay attention to the focus economy (wordplay just by chance). It is also important to highlight that Wikipedia has many externalities, it is not just them. For example, Wikipedia results are generally the first that cames up in a search engine and their content is much used in machine learning. In this context, the problem of focus is not just about Wikipedia itself but the "focus graph" that has Wikipedia as one of the top releveant nodes.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Wikipedia is premised on being a tertiary source, and pays a price for every "layer" of content they add in volunteer time needed to correct inaccuracies, which are constantly being added. People have all sorts of ideas about things Wikipedia could be besides an encyclopedia, but the project is (wisely) not receptive to any of them. Meanwhile: if you're right about this, you can just fork and track Wikipedia and do your own site.
    - wslh 3y ago
      Even, beyond that, Wikipedia, again, as an example, has faults on its own merits: I keep reading about Michel Talagrand and find this entry [1] which mentions his work first but there is no link in [2] to [1] (at least now). I will try to restate this, for the sake of an interesting discussion, in a completely different direction but using Wikipedia as an example: in software engineering we create different kind of tests for our software systems, I think Wikipedia should add "unit tests" and other tests to augment, fix, and link their current content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand
captn3m0 3y ago
His homepage has this interesting snippet: > If you are desperate to get my books and your library can't afford them, try to type the words "library genesis" in a search engine. I disagree with piracy, but this site saved me many trips to the library, which unfortunately does not carry electronic versions of older books.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pyb 3y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18131009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18131009 for an earlier discussion of scientific blind spots in Wikipedia. I also wish there was a mechanism to prune certain Wikipedia pages that carry way too much detail, given the notability of their subject.

by wslh 3y ago

hopfenspergerj 3y ago

That was me on Reddit. I emailed him asking about some of his work on invariant means in the 1970s. He said “I had no taste then”, and told me what a waste of time it was. At that point, I decided to go into data science instead of trying to get a post doc…

jebarker 3y ago
How do you feel about that decision now? I left math after my PhD and often find myself feeling nostalgic about it.
- otoburb 3y ago
  Always something to look forward to in [early] retirement to keep the mind active.

epgui 3y ago

> [...] and not after the facts Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, they intentionally only cover topics retroactively, and preferably after the dust has settled. They're intentionally not intending to be many things, including a source of up to date news: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...

wslh 3y ago
No pun intended. We all see (right?) that one of the cultural topics of the XXI is about focus. In a relative past people could study and/or read "all" texts and be intellectuals or feel like that. It is obvious that the focus economy always existed but now there are zillions of potential content to consume (good or not, doesn't matter). Wikipedia, as an example, has the opportunity to add layers (not many) of content in the quest of helping (not solving) this focus problem. As you said Wikipedia does not currently has this purpose, but this does not mean that they cannot carry the lit torch and pay attention to the focus economy (wordplay just by chance). It is also important to highlight that Wikipedia has many externalities, it is not just them. For example, Wikipedia results are generally the first that cames up in a search engine and their content is much used in machine learning. In this context, the problem of focus is not just about Wikipedia itself but the "focus graph" that has Wikipedia as one of the top releveant nodes.
- tptacek 3y ago
  Wikipedia is premised on being a tertiary source, and pays a price for every "layer" of content they add in volunteer time needed to correct inaccuracies, which are constantly being added. People have all sorts of ideas about things Wikipedia could be besides an encyclopedia, but the project is (wisely) not receptive to any of them. Meanwhile: if you're right about this, you can just fork and track Wikipedia and do your own site.
  - wslh 3y ago
    Even, beyond that, Wikipedia, again, as an example, has faults on its own merits: I keep reading about Michel Talagrand and find this entry [1] which mentions his work first but there is no link in [2] to [1] (at least now). I will try to restate this, for the sake of an interesting discussion, in a completely different direction but using Wikipedia as an example: in software engineering we create different kind of tests for our software systems, I think Wikipedia should add "unit tests" and other tests to augment, fix, and link their current content. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorization [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Talagrand

captn3m0 3y ago

His homepage has this interesting snippet: > If you are desperate to get my books and your library can't afford them, try to type the words "library genesis" in a search engine. I disagree with piracy, but this site saved me many trips to the library, which unfortunately does not carry electronic versions of older books.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pyb 3y ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18131009 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18131009 for an earlier discussion of scientific blind spots in Wikipedia. I also wish there was a mechanism to prune certain Wikipedia pages that carry way too much detail, given the notability of their subject.