3 ms·

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 wo

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".

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".