Suggestion Enhancing Your Science Knowledge: Introducing the Resources Section on PF

[Anti-Meson]

All too often members of this forum are referencing wikipedia and I believe that site does not offer a valid representational view of science. The reason why members quote from wikipedia is that we often type words into google and the first result is wikipedia - no surprise.

I am all for thinking analytically and critically and so I propose a "Resources" section in header section of PF, in between library and staff. This section would pose as a link library to various websites and alternatives to google and wikipedia. This could be expanded by giving it a separate section in the forums where members can post new links and moderators can then decide which ones to add to the resources section. If this went ahead then it would hopefully promote people not to use wikipedia.

Discuss.

 

[radou]

Not a bad idea, but I believe it's already partially present in the "Math & Science Learning Materials" forum.

As for Wikipedia results, well, it depends on the nature of the thread. They can be sufficiently effective for homework helping threads.

 

[Anti-Meson]

As for Wikipedia results, well, it depends on the nature of the thread. They can be sufficiently effective for homework helping threads.

I am not convinced that it should be used by students wishing to learn about a subject nor does wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

Do you think students and researchers should cite Wikipedia?
No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either - the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place.

from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm


Perhaps more useful sites would be http://intute.ac.uk, http://infomine.ucr.edu/ to name a couple.

 

[radou]

It shouldn't be used (and it cannot be used) to "learn a subject", of course. But it can be used as a quick and effective reference. The sites you gave here (I tried them out a bit) give links to different web-sites with lecture notes, etc. which is great stuff - but I still believe Wikipedia can be useful as a very quick reference when you're searching for a definition for something. The purpose of these sites is different - so we can't compare them to Wikipedia and say that they are or are not more useful.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Regardless of wikipedia is used or not we ought to promote alternatives. A point on which we both agree on.

 

[radou]

Of course, we both agree on that one. But it's only the question if such a source is necessary with the "Math & Science Learning Materials" present.

 

[Anti-Meson]

I am suggesting a link library to scientific search engines, databases and electronic journals subscription based and free rather than learning material. Think of it as a reference library of links.

 

[ZapperZ]

1. There is already a resource forum called the Learning Materials forum.

2. Wikipedia should always be used with caution.

3. In most cases, valid websites and peer-reviewed publication trumps over Wikipedia references.

4. Frequent inappropriate references to Wikipedia are often made by those who are using it without understanding the physics.

HOWEVER...

5. The use of Wikpedia as a reference by those who DO know the physics is perfectly valid and often useful.

There are enough physics Mentors and Science Advisors on this forum that the proper and appropriate use of any references, including Wikipedia, are closely monitored. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any incidents (or there aren't that many of them) where the inappropriate usage were allowed, or went unchallenged.

So from my point of view, I don't think this is even an issue.

Zz.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Ok I see what you are getting at Zz, forget the name resources or reference. All I am stating is that there ought to be somewhere on PF that is easily accessible and provides links to scientific search engines and databases independent of textbook material which belongs in learning material.

Learning materials on PF provides what a textbook does it tutors you on concepts. By idea is that we compile a list of search engines so when arguing in PF you can quote from a paper or so on with confidence.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok I see what you are getting at Zz, forget the name resources or reference. All I am stating is that there ought to be somewhere on PF that is easily accessible and provides links to scientific search engines and databases independent of textbook material which belongs in learning material.

Learning materials on PF provides what a textbook does it tutors you on concepts. By idea is that we compile a list of search engines so when arguing in PF you can quote from a paper or so on with confidence.

This is a bit puzzling. Most of peer-reviewed papers can't be found using a "search engine", since they are usually accessed via subscriptions.

Again, you are proposing something to solve for what I think is a non-existent problem. I believe that we have always tried to maintain a large signal-to-noise ratio in the physics subforums, and have always insisted on proper and valid sources as citations. So I'm not sure why this issue is being discussed here. Do you see something that I don't see going on here?

Zz.

 

[Anti-Meson]

This is a bit puzzling. Most of peer-reviewed papers can't be found using a "search engine", since they are usually accessed via subscriptions.

I agree with you on that most peer-reviewed papers can't be accessed for free. However links such as intute and infomine are free.

Again, you are proposing something to solve for what I think is a non-existent problem. I believe that we have always tried to maintain a large signal-to-noise ratio in the physics subforums, and have always insisted on proper and valid sources as citations. So I'm not sure why this issue is being discussed here. Do you see something that I don't see going on here?
Zz.

Unfortunately I see too often PF staff quoting unreliable and dubious sources, such as wikipedia more frequently than I should.

Maybe a sticky can be identically posted in each subforum outlining good links and such.

 

[ZapperZ]

Unfortunately I see too often PF staff quoting unreliable and dubious sources, such as wikipedia more frequently than I should.

Again, one of the points I brought up above is that, if used by knowledgeable people, in the right context, I don't see anything wrong with it. We have plenty of people here that will monitor such usage. I don't see such rampant misuse of it in the physics subforum.

So why is this a problem with you?

Zz.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is nothing wrong with offering Wiki articles as a first line, to encourage further reading. Wiki articles list resources at the bottom for this. This is one way of allowing members to do their own homework, rather than us having to "educate" them.

But Wiki should not, and rarely is, used as any kind of authority.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Again, one of the points I brought up above is that, if used by knowledgeable people, in the right context, I don't see anything wrong with it. We have plenty of people here that will monitor such usage. I don't see such rampant misuse of it in the physics subforum.

So why is this a problem with you?

Zz.

The problem is knowledgeable people using wikipedia. They ought not to, instead draw upon their knowledge and provide authoritative facts from other websites. Wikipedia has no accountability and as such ought not to be used.

There is nothing wrong with offering Wiki articles as a first line, to encourage further reading. Wiki articles list resources at the bottom for this. This is one way of allowing members to do their own homework, rather than us having to "educate" them.

But Wiki should not, and rarely is, used as any kind of authority.

If this isn't hypocrisy, then I don't what is. DaveC426913, I have seen you on more than one occasion draw upon wikipedia for authority.

I do not believe in spoon-feeding people knowledge. I would rather point them into a direction where they can teach themselves as that is the only way to true understanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

If this isn't hypocrisy, then I don't what is. DaveC426913, I have seen you on more than one occasion draw upon wikipedia for authority.

Your reaction confirms my suspicion that this thread was catalyzed https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577641&postcount=16".

This thread is an oblique attempt to continue to defend yourself.

You've pretty much gotten your answer in both threads.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Your reaction confirms my suspicion that this thread was catalyzed https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577641&postcount=16".

This thread is an oblique attempt to continue to defend yourself.

You've pretty much gotten your answer in both threads.

This thread is a suggestion thread. I see you show balance by giving just your view...


Anyway, back on track. Perhaps a sticky ought to be in every subforum highlighting the problem with wikipedia as a source and list some alternatives to use as citations.

 

[Fredrik]

I have the opposite opinion. We have a "PF library" here, with articles written by members of this forum, but the articles are usually not as good as the ones at Wikipedia. People often link to other web sites, and on average, their quality is far below Wikipedia standard as well. I think Wikipedia is (usually) a great reference, at least for definitions of mathematical terms and proofs of simple theorems.

Yes, there are bad articles there as well, but seriously, I'm sure I've seen more garbage claims and terrible explanations in peer reviewed journals than at Wikipedia.

The problem is knowledgeable people using wikipedia. They ought not to, instead draw upon their knowledge and provide authoritative facts from other websites. Wikipedia has no accountability and as such ought not to be used.

It makes no sense to reinvent the wheel every time. If there's a good article at Wikipedia, why not use it? And those that do have accountability (peer reviewed journals) don't ever correct their mistakes. Sure, other articles can be published that point out the flaws, but they sometimes go unnoticed while people keep using the bad article as a reference 40 years later.

 

[Anti-Meson]

I think Wikipedia is (usually) a great reference

Can you explain to me what is great about an unauthoritative, unaccountable site such as wikipedia that leads to unreliability and inaccuracy?

 

[ZapperZ]

The problem is knowledgeable people using wikipedia. They ought not to, instead draw upon their knowledge and provide authoritative facts from other websites. Wikipedia has no accountability and as such ought not to be used.

It is no different than your citation for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why would you do such a thing when your "knowledge" should have been sufficient? Furthermore, your use of this "authoritative facts" was not relevant to the thread on hand.

Again, it is not just the source, it how it is used. I've seen people bastardized even valid sources and peer-reviewed journals. We monitored for those as well, not just the use of Wikipedia. You are fixated on only the source, without giving due consideration on how the source is used. I do not recommend the use of Wikipedia, and in fact, I don't remember ever using it as a source in all of my post on PF. However, there are many items in which knowledgeable people have used in which the information provided have been accurate.

As of now, I still have not seen ample evidence and convincing argument that support what you are proposing. So I would not be in favor of having such "resource section".

Zz.

 

[Anti-Meson]

It is no different than your citation for the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why would you do such a thing when your "knowledge" should have been sufficient? Furthermore, your use of this "authoritative facts" was not relevant to the thread on hand.

If only this was valid what a simpler world we would live in. The "trust me I know it" or the "just take my word for it" argument sadly doesn't stack up that is why we reference, we supplement our argument through citations and by doing this provides evidence.

Again, it is not just the source, it how it is used. I've seen people bastardized even valid sources and peer-reviewed journals. We monitored for those as well, not just the use of Wikipedia.

Couldn't agree with you more. We should be careful on how we use sources. Where my argument is against wikipedia, is primarily, its accountability, you simply do not know who wrote it. This is a problem because if you do quote wikipedia and by doing so get your facts wrong you cannot hold anyone to account for producing inaccurate material and maybe ridiculed for getting it wrong. Other sites for example usually print their authors and so when you do quote from these and get it wrong then at least you will be able to second thought other information given by this author elsewhere on the internet. With wikipedia, if you get it wrong you can argue that the whole site is inaccurate as you cannot pinpoint the inaccurate information that you did receive on anyone or group of people.

 

[ZapperZ]

If only this was valid what a simpler world we would live in. The "trust me I know it" or the "just take my word for it" argument sadly doesn't stack up that is why we reference, we supplement our argument through citations and by doing this provide evidence.

Then you are more than welcome to stick to the references that you know to be valid.

Couldn't agree with you more. We should be careful on how we use sources. Where my argument is against wikipedia, is primarily, its accountability, you simply do not know who wrote it. This is a problem because if you do quote wikipedia and by doing so get your facts wrong you cannot hold anyone to account for producing inaccurate material and maybe ridiculed for getting it wrong. Other sites for example usually print their authors and so when you do quote from these and get it wrong then at least you will be able to second thought other information given by this author elsewhere on the internet. With wikipedia, if you get it wrong you can argue that the whole site is inaccurate as you cannot pinpoint the inaccurate information that you did receive on anyone or group of people.

.. and that's why we have a lot of quality control on here. You have been here for... er.. how long? We have had to remove many references to Wikipedia, and other sources, in which (i) the sources were wrong and/or (ii) the sources were used for the wrong reasons/conclusions.

If you see Wikipedia article that is faulty, or being used in the wrong manner, report it. Other members certainly did, and will continue to do so. It is why we have quality control in this forum. It is also why the reason given to create such a resource section is weak.

Zz.

 

[Anti-Meson]

It is also why the reason given to create such a resource section is weak.

Zz.

Forget about your perceivance of my original suggestion. What I am suggesting now is that PF creates a sticky or page of links to sources on the web which can be cited, think of it as a link library.

 

[DaveC426913]

What I am suggesting now is that PF creates a sticky or page of links to sources on the web which can be cited, think of it as a link library.

Say we do as you suggest. What happens when someone references a link that is not on that list? Is their link trumped by an officially-condoned PF link?

 

[Anti-Meson]

Say we do as you suggest. What happens when someone references a link that is not on that list? Is their link trumped by an officially-condoned PF link?

No the link library, as with any library, is not set in stone, it would be dynamical and need constant updating. If a new link arises a moderator would have to check of whether it is worthy of being in said library.

 

[DaveC426913]

No the link library, as with any library, is not set in stone, it would be dynamical and need constant updating. If a new link arises a moderator would have to check of whether it is worthy of being in said library.

You misunderstand.

Say the library currently has 481 links in it. A member comes along making a claim - and supports it by linking to a site that is not in the list of 481 accepted links.

How is that member's claim treated? Is his claim considered just as valid despite not referencing an "approved" link?

In other words, are you proposing that PF move to a system where claims must reference approved sites to be accepted?

 

[Anti-Meson]

You misunderstand.

Say the library currently has 481 links in it. A member comes along making a claim - and supports it by linking to a site that is not in the list of 481 accepted links.

How is that member's claim treated? Is his claim considered just as valid despite not referencing an "approved" link?

His link, as with every source should be evaluated, if it is credible enough then it ought to be added to said link library. There would of course have to be some guidelines in the link library so as to encompass similar sites such as journals.

For example, instead of providing the links to all the know scientific journals, it would be treated like this or to this effect:

Scientific Journals such as Nature, Physical Review would all come under the header "Physics Journals".

 

[DaveC426913]

His link, as with every source should be evaluated, if it iscredible enough then it ought to be added to said link library.

OK but what happens to his post in the meantime? Is he simply told "Your post references an unapproved link.This thread will be locked while the link is evaluated by our approval committtee. If found acceptable, it will be added to our library. Once that is done, we will unlock this thread."

 

[Anti-Meson]

OK so what happens to his post in the meantime? Is he simply told "Your post references an unapproved link.This thread will be locked while the link is evaluated by our approval committtee. If found acceptable, it will be added to our library. Once that is done, we will unlock this thread."

I don't think locking the threading would be constructive. Perhaps flagging the post up with a comment such as "post in evaluation process" or something to that effect. So something like a flagging option would highlight to future posts that this post currently should be taken with a pinch of salt, until evaluated.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think locking the threading would be constructive. Perhaps flagging the post up with a comment such as "post in evaluation process" or something to that effect. So something like a flagging option would highlight to future posts that this post currently should be taken with a pinch of salt, until evaluated.

So PF becomes, rather than an open forum inviting new ideas that are not already here, a closed forum where the only things being discussed are things that have been approved?

I keep thinking of Wells' Animal Farm.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Woah! Hold it there. You are going down a slippery slope. I haven't mentioned nor proposed a closed forum, I enjoy PF being open to new ideas. What I am proposing is that a link library be established with a list of credible sources to use in arguments. Original thought does not necessarily require citations.

On a side note, don't you mean Orwell's Animal Farm?

 

[DaveC426913]

Woah! Hold it there. You are going down a slippery slope. I haven't mentioned nor proposed a closed forum,

This is why I'm asking what happens to the poster's threads.
Your proposal is thus:

PF members may and back up their claims with their own sources, however, until the sources have been evaluated, approved and put in our library, those posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

i.e. your post is not taken seriously until it references one of our approved sites.

You're not suggesting this, no. It is an emergent behaviour of what you're suggesting. You haven't thought through the ways this can go awry or be abused.

 

[Anti-Meson]

This is why I'm asking what happens to the poster's threads.
Your proposal is thus:

PF members may and back up their claims with their own sources, however, until the sources have been evaluated, approved and put in our library, those posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

i.e. your post is not taken seriously until it references one of our approved sites.

I am not saying that your post would not be taken seriously until you reference one of the approved sites. I am stating that it should be noted that his claims have yet to be evaluated. Think of it as the process that academics go through when submitting a paper, their paper is first refereed and then vetted.

You're not suggesting this, no. It is an emergent behaviour of what you're suggesting.

Who cares if this isn't exactly what I suggested in my first post, this is why we are having this discussion to allow space for an idea to evolve.

You haven't thought through the ways this can go awry or be abused.

Again, I reiterate, this is why we are having this discussion so that all possibilities of what can go wrong and how to prevent this can be considered.

 

[Wallace]

AM, you seemed to be proposing a seriously over-engineer solution (that would eat a lot a staff time) to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The use of sources (if something has been claimed to be controversial) is always something that needs to be determined on a case by case basis, i.e at the discretion of the moderators. In my experience the moderators do this task very well, and I've rarely if ever seen a problem in this area.

As for wikipedia, professional scientists use it all the time as a reference source. If it's good enough in that context it's well and truly sufficient for the purposes of PF.

 

[DaveC426913]

As for wikipedia, professional scientists use it all the time as a reference source.

Yeah... they shouldn't. Wikipedia is not appropriate in that context.

 

[DaveC426913]

Think of it as the process that academics go through when submitting a paper, their paper is first refereed and then vetted.

And you don't think that would be a serious impediment to discussion in an open forum?

Who cares if this isn't exactly what I suggested in my first post, this is why we are having this discussion to allow space for an idea to evolve.

Why do you respond with a meta-argument?

I've posited a serious flaw in your proposal. Evolve it.

Again, I reiterate, this is why we are having this discussion so that all possibilities of what can go wrong and how to prevent this can be considered.

OK, I get it. So do so.

I wonder if you were expecting more support from other people jumping in.

 

[Anti-Meson]

AM, you seemed to be proposing a seriously over-engineer solution

I don't believe it is over engineering. A simple link library that is approved by moderators.

And you don't think that would be a serious impediment to discussion in an open forum?

Not if we allow the thread to continue its course, which we would. Closing it would be a serious impediment to discussion.

Why do you respond with a meta-argument?

Why? Because you do not seem to understand my point and instead you seem fixated on wandering off topic.

I've posited a serious flaw in your proposal. Evolve it.

Would you care to clarify what you believe is a serious flaw in my proposal? Then I would be happy to comment further.

I wonder if you were expecting more support from other people jumping in.

Maybe we should spread this idea into the other subforums as a way of "spreading the word".

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe it is over engineering. A simple link library that is approved by moderators.

Over-engineering doesn't mean simply programming or configuring; it means all the added processes: writing new rules, establishing the approval process, but most notably: the extra burden placed on Moderators to evaluate, approve and add links.

This last process alone will surely be the ultimate demise of the idea.

Why? Because you do not seem to understand my point and instead you seem fixated on wandering off topic.

Don't be silly. Nothing I've said is off-topic. (Unless your definition of "off-topic" is: anything you disagree with.)

Would you care to clarify what you believe is a serious flaw in my proposal? Then I would be happy to comment further.

I'm not sure how much more succinctly I can put it. I'll elaborate instead.

The proposal is rife with potential for abuse.

The existence of an approved list of links makes the implication that the "set of all unapproved links" is second-class. Not directly, but posters will discover it to be so.

Any poster's claim can easily be dismissed with a simple "You have not backed up your claim with a reference from PF's Approved list. Until then, your claim does not need to be taken seriously. My claim on the other hand is approved. So, as I was saying..."

What you are in effect doing is allowing for the creation of an auto-endorsement system. Claim A has more weight than claim B - not based on evaluating the claims themselves, but based on simply checking if they reference an endorsed link.

 

[Fredrik]

Can you explain to me what is great about an unauthoritative, unaccountable site such as wikipedia that leads to unreliability and inaccuracy?

Uh, you're saying this in response to the post where I answered the question you're asking now. Are we in one of those science fiction time loops?

Please explain to me why it would be a bad idea to refer someone who asks about the "Schwartz inequality" to this page, where he/she can read the correct statement of the theorem, the standard proof that appears in all the textbooks, the history behind it, find out about what other names the inequality goes by, and learn about some of the things it can be used for.

What sources do you consider "authoritative" and "accountable", and why do you incorrectly believe that they are more reliable than Wikipedia? (Yes, I can ask questions in a really annoying way too). Do you know any other source that corrects its mistakes?

Are you suggesting that we only allow links to peer reviewed journals? Do you realize that a lot of stuff in peer reviewed journals is far below Wikipedia quality, and that they never correct their mistakes?

Should we also allow links to certain web sites? Do you realize that Wikipedia is a web site? What procedure would we use to determine if a website is to be considered "authoritative" and "accountable"?

 

[Anti-Meson]

Over-engineering doesn't mean simply programming or configuring; it means all the added processes: writing new rules, establishing the approval process, but most notably: the extra burden placed on Moderators to evaluate, approve and add links.

This last process alone will surely be the ultimate demise of the idea.


Don't be silly. Nothing I've said is off-topic. (Unless your definition of "off-topic" is: anything you disagree with.)


I'm not sure how much more succinctly I can put it. I'll elaborate instead.

The proposal is rife with potential for abuse.

The existence of an approved list of links makes the implication that the "set of all unapproved links" is second-class. Not directly, but posters will discover it to be so.

Any poster's claim can easily be dismissed with a simple "You have not backed up your claim with a reference from PF's Approved list. Until then, your claim does not need to be taken seriously. My claim on the other hand is approved. So, as I was saying..."

What you are in effect doing is allowing for the creation of an auto-endorsement system. Claim A has more weight than claim B - not based on evaluating the claims themselves, but based on simply checking if they reference an endorsed link.

You seem hell-bent of turning this into what it isnt, an approved link library. My suggestion, from the start, was to propose a link library of helpful sources that can members can choose to cite from. Think of it as a page informing the members of alternatives to wikipedia. This suggestion only seeks to inform not impose.

What sources do you consider "authoritative" and "accountable", and why do you incorrectly believe that they are more reliable than Wikipedia? (Yes, I can ask questions in a really annoying way too). Do you know any other source that corrects its mistakes?

Authoritative and accountable websites are those in which the material published is not anonymous and comes from experts.

Are you suggesting that we only allow links to peer reviewed journals? Do you realize that a lot of stuff in peer reviewed journals is far below Wikipedia quality, and that they never correct their mistakes?

No, peer-reviewed journals would only be a section of the links to be published. Yes, I do realize that there are mistakes in journals, that is why we should not just cite from them but also other websites.

 

[radou]

Authoritative and accountable websites are those in which the material published is not anonymous and comes from experts.

Well, in an indirect manner the stuff one finds on Wiki comes from experts, since you can usually find a list of references at the bottom of an article.

 

[Mapes]

Anti-Meson, I'm not convinced that a problem even exists. Can you provide a few examples where a Wikipedia link was provided, contained information that led someone astray, and would have been better replaced by one of the links you're describing?

Just declaring that Wikipedia contains errors doesn't convince me; many scientific and engineering publications, even esteemed ones, contain errors. This disadvantage is considerably offset by the availability and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. And when I refer someone there, it's because I approve of the contents of that page and think the information will be useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

You seem hell-bent of turning this into what it isnt, an approved link library.

This is the danger:
"...a flagging option would highlight to future posts that this post currently should be taken with a pinch of salt, until evaluated..."
"...it should be noted that his claims have yet to be evaluated."
I'm "hellbent" because you are not seeing it.

My suggestion, from the start, was to propose a link library of helpful sources that can members can choose to cite from. Think of it as a page informing the members of alternatives to wikipedia. This suggestion only seeks to inform not impose.

We may be able to simplify this whole thing dramatically: Is Wikipedia the only site you object to? So far it is the only one you have mentioned, and you have mentioned it a half-dozen times.

It would be vastly simpler on you and on the Mentors to merely add a rule that Wikipedia be disallowed as a source to reference, would it not?

 

[Gokul43201]

You seem hell-bent of turning this into what it isnt, an approved link library. My suggestion, from the start, was to propose a link library of helpful sources that can members can choose to cite from. Think of it as a page informing the members of alternatives to wikipedia. This suggestion only seeks to inform not impose.

No one's brought this up yet, so I shall. We used to have a fairly extensive library of references before (I think it was finally jettisoned 2-3 years ago). And it had a prominent place on the top bar. Nevertheless, it was rarely used by members, and more importantly, it was not easy work to retain it across major software upgrades. As a result, it was dropped during one of the big upgrades we had a few years ago.

 

[Anti-Meson]

It would be vastly simpler on you and on the Mentors to merely add a rule that Wikipedia be disallowed as a source to reference, would it not?

Yes, instead of linking and quoting wikipedia, use the references that wikipedia use.

 

[Evo]

Wikipedia is acceptable as a reference in some cases. We have had cases where a crackpot vandalized a wiki article to support their 'theory" and posted a link to it. Since you can see the history of changes in wiki articles, it's usually easy to see if something has just been altered and what the previous version was.

It's easier for the mentors to judge the validity of a link in a post than to keep up with a large database that the majority of members would never read anyway.

Basically, if a member posts a link that is questionable, report it to the mentors so we can evaluate it.

 

[MotoH]

Anti-meson, why don't you become the new link patrol? It is now your official job to patrol every single new post and see if their link is valid. If it is, the post will get the AM stamp of approval. Of course this will take time, which you won't be compensated for. Because to the best of my knowledge the mentors are not compensated either.

So get your fingers taped up, because there are a whole bunch of posts that might have a bad reference in them, and it is your job to report them!

 

[Fredrik]

It would be vastly simpler on you and on the Mentors to merely add a rule that Wikipedia be disallowed as a source to reference, would it not?

I realize that you're not actually suggesting this, but Anti-meson is. I would seriously prefer to disallow links to all other resources than disallow links to Wikipedia. (But I'm obviously not suggesting that that would be a good idea).

Anti-meson, can you please explain why the post I'm quoting below is unacceptable to you?

I like the definition in terms of the Levi-Civita symbol. In every expression below, there's a sum over all indices that appear exactly twice, but I will not write any summation sigmas for those. (Einstein's summation convention).

(x\times y)_i=\varepsilon_{ijk}x_jy_k

This definition makes it extremely easy to prove the orthogonality:

x_i(x\times y)_i=\varepsilon_{ijk}x_ix_jy_k=0[/itex]<br /> <br /> The last step is based on this extremely useful result (excercise): If S_{ij}=S_{ji} and A_{ij}=-A_{ji}, then S_{ij}A_{ij}=0.

<br /> Let me guess. The small chance that someone might find my post during the short period of time after this particular Wikipedia article has been vandalized in a non-obvious way, and before it&#039;s been fixed, combined with the tiny consequences that this could have on this individual, far outweighs the fact that the definition I linked to will be will be perfectly correct 99.999% of the time?<br /> <br /> You really don&#039;t seem to have any good reasons for your attitude towards Wikipedia.

 

[Wallace]

I'm with Frederick, professional scientists refer each other to Wiki all the time and if errors exist they are corrected by those same pro's. Maybe for a controversial topic there might be some issues, but for basic physics Wiki is generally of a higher standard of accuracy than any other website that could be linked to from a forum like this. A naive anti-wiki attitude 'because it's anonymous' is about a decade behind the times.

As I've said previously, wiki is good enough for the pros to use, and it's an entirely appropriate use. It is therefore well and truly sufficient for PF's purposes (with the caveat in the case of clearly controversial topics, especially if the sources themselves are a subject of a wider debate going on outside of PF).

 

[George Jones]

I'm with Frederick, professional scientists refer each other to Wiki all the time

Not just scientists. I know academic psychologists, historians, business profs, etc., who also do this regularly.

 

[Anti-Meson]

Anti-meson, why don't you become the new link patrol? It is now your official job to patrol every single new post and see if their link is valid. If it is, the post will get the AM stamp of approval. Of course this will take time, which you won't be compensated for. Because to the best of my knowledge the mentors are not compensated either.

So get your fingers taped up, because there are a whole bunch of posts that might have a bad reference in them, and it is your job to report them!

I would welcome this position and responsibility that it carries. However, if I were to carry out the position correctly I would need to have the same privileges as a PF mentor. My position would be similar to quality control.

I realize that you're not actually suggesting this, but Anti-meson is. I would seriously prefer to disallow links to all other resources than disallow links to Wikipedia. (But I'm obviously not suggesting that that would be a good idea).

Anti-meson, can you please explain why the post I'm quoting below is unacceptable to you?

Let me guess. The small chance that someone might find my post during the short period of time after this particular Wikipedia article has been vandalized in a non-obvious way, and before it's been fixed, combined with the tiny consequences that this could have on this individual, far outweighs the fact that the definition I linked to will be will be perfectly correct 99.999% of the time?

You really don't seem to have any good reasons for your attitude towards Wikipedia.

With you wild generalisations to one side. I have no qualms with wikipedia being used to direct someone to introduce them to a subject, what I do object to however, is sourcing wikipedia to substantiate an argument. I hope you can understand my position as to why I oppose wikipedia being sourced.

I'm with Frederick, professional scientists refer each other to Wiki all the time and if errors exist they are corrected by those same pro's. Maybe for a controversial topic there might be some issues, but for basic physics Wiki is generally of a higher standard of accuracy than any other website that could be linked to from a forum like this. A naive anti-wiki attitude 'because it's anonymous' is about a decade behind the times.

As I've said previously, wiki is good enough for the pros to use, and it's an entirely appropriate use. It is therefore well and truly sufficient for PF's purposes (with the caveat in the case of clearly controversial topics, especially if the sources themselves are a subject of a wider debate going on outside of PF).

Unfortunately wikipedia is an oligarchy, it is run by the few, if one member disagrees with an edit no matter how experted the author of the edit is, the member's seniority and membership to the site means he is able to disqualify the edit based purely on motivation and not on fact. This is one of the many flaws of wikipedia.