Anyone contribute to Wikipedia?

[jackmell]

Hi,

I've never contributed to Wikipedia and am thinking about editing an existing article. Do I just create an account and begin changing some other guy's stuff? Not sure how that works. Suppose there is an existing section which I feel is irrelevant and I wish to delete it and add other sections? Won't he be kinda' mad? Are my edits immediately visible on the web or does it go through a vetting process? Anybody got experience in this?

 

[arildno]

I have edited quite a bit.
A few points:
1. Unreferenced claims can be removed, or given an appropriate warning flag.
2. If you wish to introduce major improvements that would involve major deletions of previous sections, you may open a discussion on this on the article's associated Talk Page.
3. All your editing history is visible.
4. No, there is no prior vetting process

 

[jackmell]

I have edited quite a bit.
A few points:
1. Unreferenced claims can be removed, or given an appropriate warning flag.

What exactly is an unreferenced claim? I wish to introduce things which likely have never been seen before.

2. If you wish to introduce major improvements that would involve major deletions of previous sections, you may open a discussion on this on the article's associated Talk Page.

Oh Jesus, they'll just bicker with me won't they? But I suppose that is the polite thing to do. And suppose after the discussion, I still feel the existing section is completely irrelevant and feel my changes would be much more enlightening. Do I still make the changes or would I be prevented from doing so?

I still have work to do on the subject matter so won't be attempting the changes for some time.

 

[arildno]

" I wish to introduce things which likely have never been seen before."
Original research is forbidden.

 

[arildno]

"And suppose after the discussion, I still feel the existing section is completely irrelevant and feel my changes would be much more enlightening. "
Then do it, pose your arguments clearly, and if it evolves in an edit war, some administrator will get involved.

Remember to put pages you want to watch closely on your Watch List, where you will be automatically notified whenever an edit has happened.

 

[jackmell]

" I wish to introduce things which likely have never been seen before."
Original research is forbidden.

Well, I wouldn't call it original research. Rather it's just an elucidation of existing material presented in a new way that is more easily understood, or to be frank, just understood because what's on their now is completely incomprehensible except for those that already know it thus rendering the entire page as currently written, woefully inadequate in regards to a teaching tool.

Has to be done Arildno and I appear to be uniquely qualified to do so.

 

[jackmell]

Then do it, pose your arguments clearly, and if it evolves in an edit war, some administrator will get involved.

Remember to put pages you want to watch closely on your Watch List, where you will be automatically notified whenever an edit has happened.

Ok thanks. I'll plan for that then: Present the argument on the talk page clearly and hope they agree to it. That certainly is the professional thing to do.

 

[arildno]

Well, I wouldn't call it original research. Rather it's just an elucidation of existing material presented in a new way that is more easily understood, or to be frank, just understood because what's on their now is completely incomprehensible except for those that already know it thus rendering the entire page as currently written, woefully inadequate in regards to a teaching tool.

Has to be done Arildno and I appear to be uniquely qualified to do so.

Well, do so then!

 

[Pythagorean]

what's on their now is completely incomprehensible except for those that already know it thus rendering the entire page as currently written, woefully inadequate in regards to a teaching tool.

That's basically the story of mathematics on Wikipedia. You'd need to take a proofs course, some real analysis, and maybe some abstract algebra to understand a lot of it. Good to see experts that want to contribute and are aware of the concept of pedagogy.

 

[DennisN]

Anyone contribute to Wikipedia?

I have edited quite a bit too but I haven't been active there since 2008.
And I second all arildno said.

Some good intro links:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Policies and guidelines
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Be bold

 

[AlephZero]

Good to see experts that want to contribute and are aware of the concept of pedagogy.

I suspect most "experts who have a concept of pedagogy" also have lives, which is why Wikipedia is the way it is. Too much of the math stuff looks like it was written by students copying course notes they didn't understand.

Having spent some time (years, not months) working on an in-company "wiki" where at least there were some real sanctions against trouble-makers or those who were just ill-informed (i.e. email their manager!) I can't imagine why any sane person would want to do it for free and without any real powers against people whose spare time / subject knowledge ratio tends to infinity - or the style police who will argue for weeks about punctuation, etc.

 

[Pythagorean]

In my short experience, I did it because I was an enthusiastic grad student and that's what I did for a break. The style police never bothered me, they just fixed my article for me without saying a word (which I appreciated) and vandalism never happened with my subject except for when it was an automated attack and an automated wikibot just rolled it back.

I haven't wanted to spend my free time doing that for years now, though. My technical writing juju all goes into my own research now.

 

[arildno]

I can't imagine why any sane person would want to do it for free and without any real powers against people whose spare time / subject knowledge ratio tends to infinity - or the style police who will argue for weeks about punctuation, etc.

Maybe I'm insane, then!

Or, I might pick my topics carefully.

 

[UltrafastPED]

I occasionally make contributions - mostly correcting errors, or providing clarifications in technical or historical articles. I always read the talk/discussion section first.

BTW, what article do you intend to improve? Maybe we should all pitch in!

 

[jackmell]

I occasionally make contributions - mostly correcting errors, or providing clarifications in technical or historical articles. I always read the talk/discussion section first.

BTW, what article do you intend to improve? Maybe we should all pitch in!

I wouldn't mind if you guys helped. I need to do some more analytical work on it first as I still do not have a good understanding of the principle but maybe you guys could help with that. Before I say what it is, I'm curious, have any of you guys seen the plot below? I think I am the first to ever plot it like this and it is analytically precise. It's beautiful isn't it? I left out some of the covering to un-clutter it but the static image is still a little cluttered.

 

[SteamKing]

That's all very nice, but you miss the essential point: What is it?

 

[jackmell]

That's all very nice, but you miss the essential point: What is it?

That's precisely the point SteamKing: Every reference I looked up about the matter said the same incomprehensible thing, like they all just copied the text and I suspect it's because it's not well understood. And that is what I wish to remedy by updating the Wikipedia article about it.

I would like to leave it undescribed for just a while to see if anyone reading this can tell me what it is. Sides, I think Arildno is much better at math than me so if he can't tell me, then I guess I'll like that a little. :)

 

[arildno]

I have no idea what that is.
But this sounds suspiciously like you are falling into Original Research trap, jackmell.

Precisely because ANYONE can be editor at Wikipedia, it follows that the editor himself is DISQUALIFIED from being an authority (even though he is correct, or even a recognized expert in the field in his private life). That is a MAJOR structural difference between a(n ideal) Wikipedia article, and standard encylopedic article, or peer-reviewed research article.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now, that's the ideal principle behind the O.R. ban, it might be somewhat slackened in tight, rigorous logic in maths topics, but that is a field I actively avoid editing.

 

[jackmell]

I have no idea what that is.
But this sounds suspiciously like you are falling into Original Research trap, jackmell.

You're no fun Arildno. It's a pochhammer contour, $P$, over the real component of the function $w=z^{1/2}(1-z)^{1/3}$ (minus a few sheets to improve clarity)corresponding to $\beta(3/2,4/3)$ but most people just looking up that topic in Wikipedia will not understand what's going on, not to mention the equation:

$$(1-e^{2\pi i\alpha})(1-e^{2\pi i\beta}) \beta(\alpha,\beta)=\int_P z^{\alpha-1}(1-z)^{\beta-1}dz$$

does not describe the algebraic-geometry sufficiently to use it in practice.

I have no idea what that is.

:)

 

[jgens]

Glancing through the article on the Pochhammer Contour it seems reasonably well-written and on-point. So what exactly do you think should be improved?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you're arguing that things can be done better, that anyone could, but you're the one who actually will, I don't think Wikipedia will have a problem. If you are arguing that you are the only one who actually can, this smells a lot like original research.

 

[jackmell]

Glancing through the article on the Pochhammer Contour it seems reasonably well-written and on-point. So what exactly do you think should be improved?

I'm glad you asked jgens. This could be like the talk discussion described above. Ok:

(1) The illustration of the actual contour in the article is a poor reflection of the actual path of integration. Consider the function $w$ above which has six coverings. The value of the integral is dependent on which covering the integration begins on and therefore, the expression

$$(1-e^{2\pi i\alpha})(1-e^{2\pi i\beta}) \beta(\alpha,\beta)=\int_P z^{\alpha-1}(1-z)^{\beta-1}dz$$

reflects only one of six possible integration paths leading to six different answers. Which one is it? This should be better explained.

(2) It's not clear at all that the pochhammer contour shown in the article is homologous to

It's only by considering this contour that one can then interpret how the integral expression above is derived. I therefore recommend that this contour be the pochhammer icon.

(3) The article says nothing about what happens when $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are integers. The integral expression breaks down in that case.

(4) It would be nice if the author could go through a simple example deriving the integral expression. That is, show how the integral expression is derived for $z^{1/2}(1-z)^{1/3}$. That would solidify the reader's comprehension of the matter.

 

[jackmell]

If you're arguing that things can be done better, that anyone could, but you're the one who actually will, I don't think Wikipedia will have a problem. If you are arguing that you are the only one who actually can, this smells a lot like original research.

I should not give the impression that I'm the only one who can. Rather, I am uniquely qualified to illustrate the graphics since that appears to be my talent, and I feel I'm a good teacher capable of explaining complex concepts in a way that most can understand.

 

[jgens]

So most of your criticisms are essentially that you want the Wikipedia article to explain more about how the Pochhammer Contour relates to the analytic continuation of the beta function. Honestly I am not convinced that adding more pictures is the right way to do this, since IMO they do not clarify the points made in your complaints, but maybe the editors there will feel differently. Just an FYI your proposal is hardly as outrageous as the claim "I wish to introduce things which likely have never been seen before" and--depending on one's views regarding how math articles on Wikipedia ought to be written--has a decent chance of being well-received. Personally I like my wiki articles to be concise and on-point since I am more than happy to read an authoritative work on the subject if a particular article sparks my interest. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who think the website should be a pedagogical tool, and from that stand-point your proposed changes are great.Edit: The homologous to zero thing is obvious, by the way, from the definition of the contour as a commutator of loops.

 

[jackmell]

So most of your criticisms are essentially that you want the Wikipedia article to explain more about how the Pochhammer Contour relates to the analytic continuation of the beta function.

I wish the article to simply be more practical so that readers can actually use the information. For example, the published integral expression is correct for only one path through the function. There is a different integral expressions corresponding to beginning the integration over each covering of the function or there is a possibility I'm not understanding what particular path is implied in the article. For example, here are the six (numeric) values of the pochhammer integral for the function $w$ above:

$$
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-1.37669-0.794831 i \\
1.37669\, +0.794831 i \\
-\text{2.480233703139323$\grave{ }$*${}^{\wedge}$-8}-1.58966 i \\
-1.37669+0.794831 i \\
1.37669\, -0.794831 i \\
\text{2.480233429746903$\grave{ }$*${}^{\wedge}$-8}+1.58966 i \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$

only one of which can be used in the integral expression stated in that article and every other article about the matter that I've written.

And I hope no one reading this is the author of that article cus' now they're mad at me.

 

[jgens]

I wish the article to simply be more practical so that readers can actually use the information.

In my opinion, the article is plenty practical, since it tells you rather quickly what the contour is and how you can use it to get an analytic continuation of the beta function. I understand what you're trying to do with the proposed changes, however, and they are reasonable. So just ask the editors what kind of article it ought to be.

 

[Evo]

It's wikipedia, it shouldn't be too deep, right? It's a starting point for laymen, IMO. It's not used to fully teach.

 

[jackmell]

It's a starting point for laymen, IMO.

My entire point exactly. No layman, even someone who's had a class in Complex Analysis, is going to understand that Wikipedia article. Let me give everyone an example:

Edit: The homologous to zero thing is obvious, by the way, from the definition of the contour as a commutator of loops.

Ok, no offense to jgens as you seem to be very knowledgeable but I don't have a clue what that means and I suspect most layman won't either. And that's my point: If you know, then you probably don't need Wikipedia to help you with the pochhammer contour. But since you're using it, you're probably not advanced in the subject like me and the article as written is woefully inadequate to that audience.

I wish to present the beta continuation via the pochhammer contour in such a way that virtually everyone exiting a Complex Analysis class will have an intuitive understanding of what's going on.
I don't think that's unreasonable if it's presented correctly.

 

[arildno]

"I wish to present the beta continuation via the pochhammer contour in such a way that virtually everyone exiting a Complex Analysis class will have an intuitive understanding of what's going on.
I don't think that's unreasonable if it's presented correctly. "

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, jackmell, not a university course.

I would strongly suggest that you look at other encyclopedias, such as the Britannica and see how they treat the subject.

 

[jackmell]

But they do go into great detail with some subjects and I suspect the reason it's not being done with this article is that few people really understand what's going on and we're only waiting for someone like me to elaborate.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, jackmell, not a university course.

This. Consider for example the following pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_fields_in_general_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_scalars#For_geodesic_timelike_congruences

I frequent these two pages quite often so I chose them in particular. These two pages are extremely thorough and act as very useful references but it's clear that they set out to provide neither full physical intuition nor a physical exposition for the reader but rather to act as a concise resource for definitions and the likes. That is more or less what an encyclopedia is meant to do. They aren't textbooks.

 

[DennisN]

Just some more info which might be useful to a wiki beginner (and nothing about the actual suggested changes - I haven't considered them);

I checked the Pochhammer contour article briefly and in general (not the contents):

It's pretty short and the revision history says it has not been edited since Sep 13 2012 (which means it's not currently being actively edited). Also, the talk page is empty which indicates that there seems to be no history of conflicts about the page.

My policy when I actively edited articles was

1) If it was a minor change, I'll just do the change and see what happens with the edit history

2) If it was a medium/major change which I was uncertain about, I'd start a topic on the talk page and suggest what I was planning to do, and wait for answers. If no answers came within let's say, some days, a week, I'd do the change and say what I did on the talk page.

If you are planning to upload a picture, I recommend uploading it to Wikimedia Commons (and not Wikipedia), which means all the different encyclopedias in various languages will have easy access to the picture.

Again, this was just about general cases, I'm not considering the actual suggested changes for this particular wiki page.

 

[arildno]

Honestly, jackmell:
I think your contribution sounds great in principle, but why not make it into study material here at PF?

We have a specific subforum for that.

 

[arildno]

But they do go into great detail with some subjects and I suspect the reason it's not being done with this article is that few people really understand what's going on and we're only waiting for someone like me to elaborate.

Read WAnnabeNewton's comment.
And, I strongly suggest that you make a thread in the Maths&Science Materials section here at PF.
There, you can go really deep into the matter, and it most certainly will be an appreciated contribution.
Afterwards, you can crystallize that article into a Wikipedia entry.

To give an example of my own here, I made one on variable mass systems within classical mechanics.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=72176

there is absolutely no reason why an in-depth article at PF on Pochhammer contours would not be felt an important addition.

 

[jackmell]

2) If it was a medium/major change which I was uncertain about, I'd start a topic on the talk page and suggest what I was planning to do, and wait for answers. If no answers came within let's say, some days, a week, I'd do the change and say what I did on the talk page.

Thank you Dennis. That sounds very reasonable. I'll make a proposal similar to what I did above and propose it on the talk page sometime in the future. I believe I got from this thread a general approval to attempt such.