5 ms·

The article also contradicts Wikipedia, e.g., the article claims that Barbeau introduced the derivative in 1961, but Wikipedia gives several references to Shell

The article also contradicts Wikipedia, e.g., the article claims that Barbeau introduced the derivative in 1961, but Wikipedia gives several references to Shelly's definition of the derivative in 1911. You'd expect an emeritus professor to have enough time on their hands to check their sources...

playingalong 2y ago
They likely weren't emeritus in 1961.
- lupire 2y ago
  The article is 2014, when Lipton was 64. So maybe emeritus, maybe not.
- yau8edq12i 2y ago
  I'm talking about the author of the article, Lipton. Not Barbeau who is the subject of the article itself, not its author.
samatman 2y ago
One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you can use it as a time machine, instead of just blindly throwing about accusations. If you look at the first page in 2014, the time of the article, you'll find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arithmetic_derivative&oldid=593878052 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arithmetic_deriva... > E. J. Barbeau was most likely the first person to formalize this definition. This suggests to me that Shelly's earlier definition in 1911 was not generally known. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a significant driver in rescuing earlier results in mathematics from obscurity. But you can't cite what you don't know. So I wouldn't expect an emeritus professor, or anyone, to have either a time machine or a crystal ball.
- yau8edq12i 2y ago
  Look, I'm a professor of mathematics at a research university. If I decided to use Wikipedia as my sole source for deciding who to credit for what, my papers would get rejected when they inevitably become wrong. "it wasn't on Wikipedia" is hardly an excuse when it comes to ethics. What is known by the average Wikipedia editor is not what is known by experts in the field.
  - thecodedmessage 2y ago
    Would you have found out about those earlier sources without Wikipedia? I think it really depends on how obscure they actually were. I’d take the fact that neither Wikipedia nor this article knew about these earlier sources in 2014 as evidence that they were pretty obscure.
    - yau8edq12i 2y ago
      You don't need to reply twice to make your point. > Would you have found out about those earlier sources without Wikipedia? I'm not an expert in this domain. The author is.
  - thecodedmessage 2y ago
    “Ethics” for what is almost certainly an honest mistake with a reasonable diligence of research? Accusing someone of ethics violations should require more research than you’ve done!
  - samatman 2y ago
    That should mean you know better than to accuse one of your colleagues of ethics violations on the basis of a cursory perusal of Wikipedia. Would you do something like that using your real name?
    - yau8edq12i 2y ago
      In an informal conversation, the equivalent of a forum like HN but with my real name? Sure, I would have no problem saying out loud and unanonymously > "it wasn't on Wikipedia" is hardly an excuse when it comes to ethics which is what I actually wrote, in a post where I'm not even talking about the particular situation. I expressed dismay about a failure to properly attribute ideas, and then I explained that I don't care about what was written in 2014 on Wikipedia, experts should know better anyway. If you've decided to read an accusation in what I wrote, that is absolutely on you. The most negative thing I wrote about the author was: > You'd expect an emeritus professor to have enough time on their hands to check their sources... And, again, I would have absolutely no problem saying that in public with my real name. I've said much "worse".

playingalong 2y ago

They likely weren't emeritus in 1961.

lupire 2y ago
The article is 2014, when Lipton was 64. So maybe emeritus, maybe not.
yau8edq12i 2y ago
I'm talking about the author of the article, Lipton. Not Barbeau who is the subject of the article itself, not its author.

samatman 2y ago

One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that you can use it as a time machine, instead of just blindly throwing about accusations. If you look at the first page in 2014, the time of the article, you'll find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arithmetic_derivative&oldid=593878052 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arithmetic_deriva... > E. J. Barbeau was most likely the first person to formalize this definition. This suggests to me that Shelly's earlier definition in 1911 was not generally known. Indeed, Wikipedia has been a significant driver in rescuing earlier results in mathematics from obscurity. But you can't cite what you don't know. So I wouldn't expect an emeritus professor, or anyone, to have either a time machine or a crystal ball.

yau8edq12i 2y ago
Look, I'm a professor of mathematics at a research university. If I decided to use Wikipedia as my sole source for deciding who to credit for what, my papers would get rejected when they inevitably become wrong. "it wasn't on Wikipedia" is hardly an excuse when it comes to ethics. What is known by the average Wikipedia editor is not what is known by experts in the field.
- thecodedmessage 2y ago
  Would you have found out about those earlier sources without Wikipedia? I think it really depends on how obscure they actually were. I’d take the fact that neither Wikipedia nor this article knew about these earlier sources in 2014 as evidence that they were pretty obscure.
  - yau8edq12i 2y ago
    You don't need to reply twice to make your point. > Would you have found out about those earlier sources without Wikipedia? I'm not an expert in this domain. The author is.
- thecodedmessage 2y ago
  “Ethics” for what is almost certainly an honest mistake with a reasonable diligence of research? Accusing someone of ethics violations should require more research than you’ve done!
- samatman 2y ago
  That should mean you know better than to accuse one of your colleagues of ethics violations on the basis of a cursory perusal of Wikipedia. Would you do something like that using your real name?
  - yau8edq12i 2y ago
    In an informal conversation, the equivalent of a forum like HN but with my real name? Sure, I would have no problem saying out loud and unanonymously > "it wasn't on Wikipedia" is hardly an excuse when it comes to ethics which is what I actually wrote, in a post where I'm not even talking about the particular situation. I expressed dismay about a failure to properly attribute ideas, and then I explained that I don't care about what was written in 2014 on Wikipedia, experts should know better anyway. If you've decided to read an accusation in what I wrote, that is absolutely on you. The most negative thing I wrote about the author was: > You'd expect an emeritus professor to have enough time on their hands to check their sources... And, again, I would have absolutely no problem saying that in public with my real name. I've said much "worse".