|
Sagebrush posted:oh, right, you're the local Actual Wikipedia Sperg who keeps reporting all of the funny stuff we post in this thread
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
so what you're saying is you're not qualified enough to say it's a bad article
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:so what you're saying is you're not qualified enough to say it's a bad article wikipedia isn't a scientific journal aimed at experts, it's an encyclopedia. if someone has a reason to be looking something up, and they find the article utterly incomprehensible, it is the article that is at fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:so what you're saying is you're not qualified enough to say it's a bad article lol if you arent qualified to say that fishmech is a bad wiki
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:lol if you arent qualified to say that fishmech is a bad wiki fishmech was better as a wiki
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:so what you're saying is you're not qualified enough to say it's a bad article it is by definition a bad article if it's not comprehensible by the layman encyclopedias are summaries, not primary sources. that's the entire reason they exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it is by definition a bad article if it's not comprehensible by the layman that and to fully explore Lie Groups in Popular Culture, subsection 1: Anime
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
there needs to be another language that multi line mathematical latex jerkoffs can post their poo poo in like the other end of the spectrum from Simple, that stuff never belongs in the main article
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it is by definition a bad article if it's not comprehensible by the layman i get what you're saying. however a public wiki that can be edited anonymously and where your edits go live right away is never going to be britannica. imo wikipedia could be improved by making sure that articles about really obscure topics link "backward" in a chain to more general articles that have been written in layperson-friendlier style; this would help people come to grips more easily in learning about things that are several steps away from their current knowledge. but if you required every article on there accessible to everybody it would remove tons of useful stuff. as much as i enjoy poking fun at wikipedia, it's also something i have relied on almost every day of my life for years now 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:i get what you're saying. however a public wiki that can be edited anonymously and where your edits go live right away is never going to be britannica. imo wikipedia could be improved by making sure that articles about really obscure topics link "backward" in a chain to more general articles that have been written in layperson-friendlier style; this would help people come to grips more easily in learning about things that are several steps away from their current knowledge. but if you required every article on there accessible to everybody it would remove tons of useful stuff. as much as i enjoy poking fun at wikipedia, it's also something i have relied on almost every day of my life for years now isnt one of the localized wikipedias like that? i wanna say the german one, like they tag "known good revisions" or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:it is by definition a bad article if it's not comprehensible by the layman not when it's an inherently complicated topic, which is something wikipedia carries because it's not limited to fitting in like 10 books like a real encyclopedia is
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
this is so bullshit the article on some obscure aspect of quantum mechanics isn't understandable by a grade schooler!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:this is so bullshit the article on some obscure aspect of quantum mechanics isn't understandable by a grade schooler!! idt the problem is that complex topics have complex articles, it's that complex articles jump right into unintelligible jargon and formulae instead of including an overview for a layperson. it works two ways in that Wikipedia doesn't have to only include very brief overviews of topics, but they also don't have to just include the most specific details of a topic
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:idt the problem is that complex topics have complex articles, it's that complex articles jump right into unintelligible jargon and formulae instead of including an overview for a layperson. it works two ways in that Wikipedia doesn't have to only include very brief overviews of topics, but they also don't have to just include the most specific details of a topic yeah. basically every article should have a summary at the top that gives you the encyclopedia-britannica version. laypeople can read that to get a sense of what the thing means, advanced wikipedia users like fishmech can skip down to the details. there are a lot of articles that do have this, but the scientific and mathematical articles are hugely lacking. also wikipedia could really stand to have a style guide
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:idt the problem is that complex topics have complex articles, it's that complex articles jump right into unintelligible jargon and formulae instead of including an overview for a layperson. it works two ways in that Wikipedia doesn't have to only include very brief overviews of topics, but they also don't have to just include the most specific details of a topic if you've ever read a graduate math text you'll realize that this isn't just a problem for wikipedia. the thing is that it is not easy to communicate complex topics to laypeople and it is nearly impossible to do it in a way that is faithful to the underlying material and not just a poor analogy like "think of the universe like a rubber sheet". even professional science and tech writers frequently screw up their descriptions meant for laypeople or muddle things instead of clarifying. the closest I've seen to what you're looking for, for math, is the princeton companion to mathematics which has dozens of big name professional mathematicians writing articles about their fields of interest. it's still not accessible for a complete lay person, probably more like an undergrad math major. you can read some of the chapters online for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:also wikipedia could really stand to have a style guide  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:if you've ever read a graduate math text you'll realize that this isn't just a problem for wikipedia. the thing is that it is not easy to communicate complex topics to laypeople and it is nearly impossible to do it in a way that is faithful to the underlying material and not just a poor analogy like "think of the universe like a rubber sheet". even professional science and tech writers frequently screw up their descriptions meant for laypeople or muddle things instead of clarifying. yeah but you can 100% include the class of thing the topic is and include the chain of knowledge you would need to understand what was happening
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
from the perspective of automata theory and formal languages i don't think i have ever read an article i know something about without noticing griveous errors, so i am not sure wikipedia can quite handle those things either way
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:from the perspective of automata theory and formal languages i don't think i have ever read an article i know something about without noticing griveous errors, so i am not sure wikipedia can quite handle those things either way this, but everything always
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
but also thats no reason to write really bad wikiepedia articles
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:griveous errors
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Powaqoatse posted:isnt one of the localized wikipedias like that? i wanna say the german one, like they tag "known good revisions" or something? i've seen it used a few different places. wikipedia has the "pending changes protection" mode of article protection, which (when enabled on an article) makes it so some users' edits don't show up live, their edits have to be approved first. i think when citizendium launched, it defaulted to showing you only articles that had made it through a certain stage of their expert-review process, but looking at their site now, it seems like they default to showing you the main "under development" version and if an article has a formally-approved "citable version" you have to click through from the development version to see it. seems like a tradeoff between having kind of a "trunk" and "release" version of each article in order to help iron them out, and on the other hand introducing another bit of wiki-bureacracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:yeah. basically every article should have a summary at the top that gives you the encyclopedia-britannica version. laypeople can read that to get a sense of what the thing means, advanced wikipedia users like fishmech can skip down to the details. and the encyclopedia britannica version would be "nothing at all", because it would be way beyond the scope of a physically limited book? so it sounds like they already have what you want??? some things are too complex to have a summary for people as dumb as you are, you're just going to need to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:some things are too complex to have a summary for people as dumb as you are, you're just going to need to deal with that. wow rude
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
if only there were some kind of middle ground, some alternative other than dumbing everything down to be accessible to a five year old, or having articles that consist solely of fantastically convoluted equations that only three people in the world are qualified to understand. but alas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
I do sometimes wish you had to use a consistent name to edit though. My friends are constantly trying to win arguments about ancient near East languages when they are the ones who edited that article. So rude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
quote:The identity of the young blonde woman dancing in the video remained unknown until 2013, when she was identified as Louise Court,[10] a journalist who served as editor-in-chief at Cosmopolitan and is now a director at Hearst Magazines UK.[11]
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
*takes huge vape hit* "You were dancing, you were dancing the safety dance, you were not bothered by things like that, men with hats were the same as men without hats to you. You just danced the safety dance, not caring about the safety of how you danced or where you wanted to. Me, I was part of the safety now. Far more a part of it than Louise Court was.” *exhales*
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:yeah but you can 100% include the class of thing the topic is and include the chain of knowledge you would need to understand what was happening yea I've long dreamed of some sort of universal math wiki that properly organizes all math with cross references showing how topics relate, various depths of explanations and proofs at different levels of generality and sophistication, problem sets and/or canonical examples, etc, all with some way to efficiently search for what you want in a way that doesn't require you to already know the magic jargon terms related to the problem you're trying to solve. like an electronic version of every textbook and journal paper all on a single platform and knitted together into a coherent whole. if the technical aspects of the wiki platform are already done (including my magical search AI), and you convinced the faculty of a dozen top math departments and their grad students to pause their research and dedicate themselves to the project, you might have something decent after a few years idk, and you'd need to have a system to keep it updated, like everyone would need to agree to publish on it as a platform for new research and textbooks. maybe someday. the point is that the whole wikipedia model works great for topics like pokemon where there's a broad, uh, spectrum, of people with the knowledge, and the motivation to organize that knowledge and compulsively update it. the more specialized the knowledge gets the more that system breaks down. you're expecting experts to do a massive amount of work for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
post the most diplomatic insult you can find on wikipediaquote:Moreover, music videos exalted the visual appeal of a band, an area where some British metal groups were deficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:post the most diplomatic insult you can find on wikipedia going to take umbrage at use of 'were' here when it is clearly an ongoing phenomenon
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_destroyed_libraries#What.cd The issue here is not WP's definition of a library, but this article's definition of its scope. An outsider who read this article before the addition of What CD would reasonably think that it is a list of brick-and-mortar libraries that have been physically destroyed. Nevertheless, I affirm the bold addition of What CD, and I affirm the subsequent deletion. At that point, my understanding of WP:BRD is that the next action should not have been the edit war restoration, but this discussion, and I think this discussion should have taken place with the article in remaining in status-quo-ante. Now that I've thought about it a bit (I tend to think while my fingers are typing), I'm wondering if, prior to its destruction, What CD was on any WP lists of libraries that included both digital and brick-and-mortar libraries. If it were indeed on such a list, supported by WP:RS, then I'd fully support its inclusion on this list. YBG (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC) So basically you're telling me I'm right? The page should be renamed to "List of destroyed material/physic libraries"? And then, we could start a talk to add What.CD to a WP list (which would take some time discussing), but honestly, I don't see Wikipedia adding a "piracy page for most here" to that list. ikobia (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:if only there were some kind of middle ground, some alternative other than dumbing everything down to be accessible to a five year old, or having articles that consist solely of fantastically convoluted equations that only three people in the world are qualified to understand. but alas. it's already at that middle ground. his problem is he's still too stupid to understand that middle ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:it's already at that middle ground. his problem is he's still too stupid to understand that middle ground. have u ever found a Wikipedia page that u could not understand fischmech?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Graff posted:have u ever found a Wikipedia page that u could not understand fischmech? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_expression
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
ka-pow
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I set em up, you put em in the back of the net
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Graff posted:going to take umbrage at use of 'were' here when it is clearly an ongoing phenomenon what changed is that british metal isn't really a thing anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 18:55
|
|