Collaborative Efforts to Enhance Physics Articles on Wikipedia

[Sojourner01]

Alright forumers, I've heard numerous complaints about the quality of http://en.wikipedia.org" physics articles - an opinion which I share. Far too often they're undetailed, far too technical, and just plain confusing.

So who better to rectify the situation than us? I'm looking for volunteers to go over to wikipedia and make a real effort to improve physics articles as a cohesive unit. For the moment, first port of call is my user page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sojourner001/PF_Taskforce"

What say you, PFers?

 

[FUNKER]

I agree, but its going to take some work !

 

[cristo]

The problem with this suggestion is that Wikipedia can be amended at any time, by anyone. So, the effort that one puts into writing a physically correct page, can be undone by anyone the next day! For this reason, I'm not sure whether people will be willing to "waste" their time!

 

[JasonRox]

Why would you volunteer for wikipedia?

They have enough money to fix it themselves. Volunteer for something worthy, like something local in the community.

You have so many physics crackpots out there that it's hopeless. They will outnumber you like nothing.

 

[Sojourner01]

Wikipedia does not, contrary to popular belief, have a problem with vandals and crackpots. There are a great many admins roaming around whose main activity is reverting crap edits. By and large it works quite well - it's just that many pages are written by people whom, while their knowledge is top notch, their communication skills aren't the greatest and so things are frequently incomprehensible.

JasonRox, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the concept of Wikipedia. 'Themselves' is us. That is, contributors. I won't even debate the 'worthiness' of the Wikimedia foundation.

 

[moose]

The problem with this suggestion is that Wikipedia can be amended at any time, by anyone. So, the effort that one puts into writing a physically correct page, can be undone by anyone the next day! For this reason, I'm not sure whether people will be willing to "waste" their time!

You can view the edit history and retrieve any information you had on there previously.

 

[Mk]

Wikipedia does not, contrary to popular belief, have a problem with vandals and crackpots. There are a great many admins roaming around whose main activity is reverting crap edits. By and large it works quite well - it's just that many pages are written by people whom, while their knowledge is top notch, their communication skills aren't the greatest and so things are frequently incomprehensible.

Although one may be nitpicky, the thinking community is great on Wikipedia. PF and Wikipedia are my favorite places on the internet hands down. They are very homely and you really get to know people if you want to. Often times I am surprised at how little there are. ~~~~

 

[JasonRox]

So, can I go on there and just delete everything?

 

[mattmns]

Yep, but you would probably be banned (your IP), and also everything you delete can be easily reverted back to how it was before.

 

[Mk]

Yep, but you would probably be banned (your IP), and also everything you delete can be easily reverted back to how it was before.

And actually pretty fast too, they have many users completely dedicated to doing only that. They have software installed on their computer and a hacked javascript viewing interface. Also, they've written plenty of antivandalism bots which run around the clock to restore blatant vandalism, such as page blanking.

 

[Moridin]

Good luck with that. In my opinion, it is a good solution to the wrong problem. The whole open source, any-one-can-edit-contribute-change system seems to be an incorrect way of doing such a large scale production with so many areas and people involved.

Don't get me wrong - I use Wikipedia to read about some of the old TV shows I never saw all the episodes off when I got nothing else to do. It may not be that super reliable on the events or cast members, but I do not really care. However, encompassing such as serious subject as science provides a bad contrast.

'Wikipedia - the frontier of science' just doesn't make much sense at all.

 

[ZapperZ]

So, can I go on there and just delete everything?

Instead of doing that, you could simply add some "intelligent nonsense" to an area of Wikipedia that is still empty. Try looking up "angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy". I can easily help you write something that "appears" to be correct.

If Alan Sokal can do it for Social Text, we can certainly do it for Wikipedia!

:)

Zz.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Instead of doing that, you could simply add some "intelligent nonsense" to an area of Wikipedia that is still empty. Try looking up "angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy". I can easily help you write something that "appears" to be correct.

If Alan Sokal can do it for Social Text, we can certainly do it for Wikipedia!

:)

Zz.

Zapper, tut tut, do they not already have enough graffiti artists on Wiki, just because it's pseudo-intelectual doesn't make it right

I think it's a grand idea personally, and you could probably copy and paste reams of stuff here, and it uses latex, just so long as your sure to make it known who did the groundwork and get their permission.

 

[Sojourner01]

What wikipedia tends to amount to in science articles is peer-review. As long as the population of experts is high enough in a particular area, every change is intensely scrutinised by both experts and students. The main problem it has is not enough of both in many areas. Most of the articles are technically accurate, but very, very confusing. The main thing they need is reworking to be more accessible.

 

[DM]

Far too often they're undetailed, far too technical, and just plain confusing.

They can't physically improve the like of Physics and Maths related articles. They obviously need someone that is deemed competent enough to break down the material into a much more readable and learning content.

Are they personally going to hire a Physics/Maths teacher to do that? Who's going to finance this?

 

[ZapperZ]

What wikipedia tends to amount to in science articles is peer-review.

You are kidding, right?

If you are not, then do you know what process a manuscript has to go through in getting published in a peer-reviewed journal? If you do, then show me clearly how this and wikipedia "tend" to amount to the same thing.

As long as the population of experts is high enough in a particular area, every change is intensely scrutinised by both experts and students. The main problem it has is not enough of both in many areas. Most of the articles are technically accurate, but very, very confusing. The main thing they need is reworking to be more accessible.

In other words, to dumb it down so that the general public can understand it. And this "tends" to be like peer-reviewed journals? Really now!

Zz.

 

[Sojourner01]

Congratulations for totally misinterpreting my meaning.

Wikipedia article oversight is, at its most basic, a similar principle to peer review - in that a number of experts get the chance to scrutinise what is written. If it was a perfect system there would be enough experts contributing that an article reaches an ideal state very quickly. The differences are twofold - firstly, that there are almost always not enough experts to make this work as it should, and secondly - though this is a positive - that articles are never 'finished'. There is always the option for improvement.

Are they personally going to hire a Physics/Maths teacher to do that? Who's going to finance this?

You really aren't 'getting' this. Wikipedia is open-source and volunteer-driven. If you want to be a critic, feel free to come up with a better, more popular source for general information, then I'll believe your criticisms have some merit.

In other words, to dumb it down so that the general public can understand it. And this "tends" to be like peer-reviewed journals? Really now!

Same response. In case this had passed you by, that is the point of an encyclopaedia.

I acknowledge that in the statement about peer review what I said was not what i meant, but I think my meaning should have been obvious to any half-intelligent person without a chip on their shoulder.

 

[ZapperZ]

Congratulations for totally misinterpreting my meaning.

Wikipedia article oversight is, at its most basic, a similar principle to peer review - in that a number of experts get the chance to scrutinise what is written. If it was a perfect system there would be enough experts contributing that an article reaches an ideal state very quickly. The differences are twofold - firstly, that there are almost always not enough experts to make this work as it should, and secondly - though this is a positive - that articles are never 'finished'. There is always the option for improvement.

Same response. In case this had passed you by, that is the point of an encyclopaedia.

I acknowledge that in the statement about peer review what I said was not what i meant, but I think my meaning should have been obvious to any half-intelligent person without a chip on their shoulder.

No, it is NOT the same. For example, how do you think a journal selects the referees to "scrutinize" the submitted manuscript? This process is not even remotely similar to how it is done in Wikipedia. How much of a credential background do you think it takes to be the ones to "scrutinize" something? Who gets to decide what goes in and what goes out? What do you do when there's a dispute among the "experts"?

I put it to you that the way it is run right now, it has no similarity at all with a peer-review journal. Like I said, I could EASILY do an Alan Sokal to Wikipedia and no one would be the wiser.

It is because of this that there are now efforts by various groups to have an online encyclopedia that does NOT run the way Wikipedia does, but in fact requires experts with credentials in particular areas to monitor such posts. The division of Condensed Matter Physics of the APS is going to start its own online wiki encyclopedia. I'll give you one guess if you think they'll do it the way Wikipedia works.

Now where in here did I misrepresented your meaning?

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Remember, Sojourner:
Those who know know, those who don't know, don't know.
It is as simple, unanarchistic as that.

 

[Chi Meson]

It's my opinion that "peer-review," with respect to scientific articles, is a very specific process, and it is not at all what happens with Wikipedia. To call the "wiki" process "peer-review" might sound correct (by definitions of the individual words) but it is actually not correct.

That being said, I have to agree with the premise of Sojourner's OP that we at PF could do something to straighten out some of the posts (I've had the same though myself). But here's the problem as I see it:

Articles on simple matters such as gravity, and electrostatic attraction seem to be rewritten monthly, if not weekly. There is, for example, no shred of the edit on "the centrifugal effect" I posted about 2 years ago. The current artlcle (at least the article I last looked at) doesn't really say anything different, someone else just thought they could say the same thing better.

Articles on more profound matters such as Special and General Relativity and quantum suffer even more edits, including those that confuse, or even worse, add their own private "insights" to the matter.

If PF were to take on the oversight of the physics articles, it would amount to a policing of a certain list of articles. Perhaps individuals among us could choose to "own" a certain article. This is contrary to the "wiki" philosophy, and also sets up a competition between the others who have chosen to own the same article. My short stint of "owning" the centripetal/centrifugal page two years ago lasted about a week before I got very tired of it.

 

[-Job-]

I put it to you that the way it is run right now, it has no similarity at all with a peer-review journal. Like I said, I could EASILY do an Alan Sokal to Wikipedia and no one would be the wiser.

Zz.

Why don't you give it a shot then. It would be a great way to make your point. We can see how long it takes for Wikis to identify/correct it. It might be a learning experience for everyone.

 

[DM]

You really aren't 'getting' this. Wikipedia is open-source and volunteer-driven. If you want to be a critic, feel free to come up with a better, more popular source for general information, then I'll believe your criticisms have some merit.

Tell me something I don't know!

 

[ZapperZ]

Why don't you give it a shot then. It would be a great way to make your point. We can see how long it takes for Wikis to identify/correct it. It might be a learning experience for everyone.

But it HAS been done already. All that brouhaha about someone distorting information in Wikipedia is well know and is a fact.

I really do not intend to do that because it is a mean-spirited thing to do, especially if someone relies on such information. But I CAN, and it HAS been done. That's the whole point of it.

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

What wikipedia tends to amount to in science articles is peer-review. As long as the population of experts is high enough in a particular area, every change is intensely scrutinised by both experts and students. The main problem it has is not enough of both in many areas. Most of the articles are technically accurate, but very, very confusing. The main thing they need is reworking to be more accessible.

I'm going to agree with Zz here, that wiki is not at all like peer review. In peer review, you have an expert in a very specific field writing an article, it is then reviewed by his/her peers in that field, i.e., also with very specific knowledge to catch errors, then an editor goes through those reviews to further check that they are consistent with the goals of the journal, and if the reviews are too different, can choose to send it to more experts for review to see if there is consensus, then it is sent back to the original writer to correct those errors, if they are correctable. If the errors are too egregious, as is the case in some wiki articles, it is simply rejected and nobody else ever sees it.

In wikipedia, the errors are visible to everyone, even those with no expertise, until corrected.

You can view the edit history and retrieve any information you had on there previously.

And how many times are you going to do this before you get sick and tired of it? If you work really hard to make something comprehensible to the general public and still retain accuracy, and people who know less than you can keep coming in and meddling and making it worse again, are you really going to go back day after day after day just to keep reverting it back to your original text? I sure wouldn't bother. If I'm going to put that much effort into writing something clear and accurate for a novice, I'll write a textbook chapter.

And, if that's the type of information you want, that's where it can be found...in textbooks. For higher level information, there are edited, peer-reviewed books containing collections of related review articles as well that are good starting places to get an overview of a field. It takes months to years to write those, going back and forth between authors, editors, and peer-reviewers, but when it's done, it's printed in permanent form. Why would you do all that work only to have someone with an overinflated ego think they can do better than the experts and start changing things? Or worse, to keep having them insert their two cents in while you're trying to make your own revisions?

I think if you're looking for some tidbit of trivia, wikipedia is as good a place as any to start, but if you're looking to learn something serious, get a textbook or take a class.

 

[Danger]

The owner of Wikipedia has just announced that he is starting a new site in competition to the old one. This will be contributed to by experts only, and will be peer-reviewed. No more guesswork.

 

[arildno]

It should be said that wikipedia is quite accurate on non-controversial issues of a non-difficult type. For example in biographies of long forgotten individuals like Hannibal Sehested.

 

[Evo]

The owner of Wikipedia has just announced that he is starting a new site in competition to the old one. This will be contributed to by experts only, and will be peer-reviewed. No more guesswork.

Actually, it's a fight between the original developers. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=132272

 

[Danger]

Well, hi Sweetie. Long time, no read.
I have actually never seen the link that you provided. What I was referring to was on either CTV Hello Canada or How Stuff Works. It is to be a totally new site, with no link to the current one. (Well, that's as of yesterday morning; who knows about now... )

 

[slugcountry]

Good luck with that. In my opinion, it is a good solution to the wrong problem. The whole open source, any-one-can-edit-contribute-change system seems to be an incorrect way of doing such a large scale production with so many areas and people involved.

Don't get me wrong - I use Wikipedia to read about some of the old TV shows I never saw all the episodes off when I got nothing else to do. It may not be that super reliable on the events or cast members, but I do not really care. However, encompassing such as serious subject as science provides a bad contrast.

'Wikipedia - the frontier of science' just doesn't make much sense at all.

Wikipedia is the first place I go when i need to research something - whether it is something personal or something for school. Why? Because 9 times out of 10 I'll find a huge wealth of useful information on the subject in question along with well cited (and usually very reputable) sources.

People bash it because they simply don't understand a damn thing about it and just go with what they hear through the media or word of mouth or whatever - by and large the majority of criticism leveled against wiki is completely unwarranted.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wikipedia is the first place I go when i need to research something - whether it is something personal or something for school. Why? Because 9 times out of 10 I'll find a huge wealth of useful information on the subject in question along with well cited (and usually very reputable) sources.

People bash it because they simply don't understand a damn thing about it and just go with what they hear through the media or word of mouth or whatever - by and large the majority of criticism leveled against wiki is completely unwarranted.

Then may you never have to depend on the information you get from the Accelerator Physics topic, or even UV photoemisson, because you'll be up the creek if you rely on it.

Zz.