Suggestion How about starting a dictionary TAB for the Forum?

[SciencewithDrJ]

Many times for easy and quick reference, a forum dictionary may be handy. I just joined in recently, so I am not sure if PF ever considered this before.

The dictionary can be by open contribution (Wiki style), but should have only brief definitions and even diagrams or images if possible. All members can contribute, so it will be open source, but a committee of 20 members can perhaps oversea all entries to ensure quality. Definitions may be restricted to only Physics-Astronomy-Cosmology, not other sciences, otherwise it will be far too large.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Many times for easy and quick reference, a forum dictionary may be handy. I just joined in recently, so I am not sure if PF ever considered this before.

We long considered this, but in the end, wikipedia is already very extensive and with reasonable quality. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[fresh_42]

We long considered this, but in the end, wikipedia is already very extensive and with reasonable quality. Why reinvent the wheel?

And nLab, or Scholarpedia. As quick reference guides they are pretty good. And if nothing helps, there is still one of my favorite tricks on Wikipedia: change language! The English, German, French and Spanish versions are quite complete. Often it doesn't really matter what the words are, e.g. to look up formulas (series, integrals, major functions, lists, e.g. small groups, etc.) and I even partially found proofs of these formulas in one but not the other language version.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

We long considered this, but in the end, wikipedia is already very extensive and with reasonable quality. Why reinvent the wheel?

Yes, indeed. But many times, when in search of only a concise definition, Wikipedia offers an extensive coverage. I know this will be a big undertaking. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

nLab, or Scholarpedia.

I was not aware of those two sources. Thanks for the tip.

 

[mfb]

Wikipedia articles always start with an introduction. I don’t see how separate short articles would be better just because they would be short, even if we ignore the point that they would have to be written first.

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

I know, Wikipedia has become a quite reliable source, and they have extensive references on many entries.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know, Wikipedia has become a quite reliable source,

{ZapperZ chokes on his drink}

 

[SciencewithDrJ]

{ZapperZ chokes on his drink}

1. Quite a few responses posted on PF were sourced from Wikipedia, and by people who seem to know what they are doing.

2. I have checked many subjects in my own field lately and I noticed that the information is quite accurate and several references were cited that were sourced from recognized journals in the field.

3. Oxford University conducted a study on this and found the results concerning Wikipedia articles to be quite accurate, even more so than Encyclopedia Britannica. A pilot study conducted by Epic, an e-learning consultancy, in partnership with Oxford University – “Assessing the Accuracy and Quality of Wikipedia Entries Compared to Popular Online Alternative Encyclopaedias: A Preliminary Comparative Study Across Disciplines in English, Spanish and Arabic.”

4. I always check the references when I look at Wikipedia information.

 

[ZapperZ]

1. Quite a few responses posted on PF were sourced from Wikipedia, and by people who seem to know what they are doing.

2. I have checked many subjects in my own field lately and I noticed that the information is quite accurate and several references were cited that were sourced from recognized journals in the field.

3. Oxford University conducted a study on this and found the results concerning Wikipedia articles to be quite accurate, even more so than Encyclopedia Britannica. A pilot study conducted by Epic, an e-learning consultancy, in partnership with Oxford University – “Assessing the Accuracy and Quality of Wikipedia Entries Compared to Popular Online Alternative Encyclopaedias: A Preliminary Comparative Study Across Disciplines in English, Spanish and Arabic.”

4. I always check the references when I look at Wikipedia information.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/why-you-should-not-use-wikipedia-as-your-primary-source/

And somewhere in the history of PF, I had posted a response to that study. Wish I could dine it again.

Zz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think we can all agree wikipedia for general purpose knowledge of subjects is pretty good. Not primary source good, but pretty good. Let's leave it at that.