Enhancing Your Science Knowledge: Introducing the Resources Section on PF

[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:

[tex]x_i(x\times y)_i=\varepsilon_{ijk}x_ix_jy_k=0[/itex]

The last step is based on this extremely useful result (excercise): If $S_{ij}=S_{ji}$ and $A_{ij}=-A_{ji}$, then $S_{ij}A_{ij}=0$.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Wallace]

AM, this is a theorist/empiricist argument. You are pointing out how your theory of Wikipedia management would make it unsuitable, others argue that from observation, Wikipedia is in wide spread use a well trusted for this kinds of things we'd like to be able to use it for at PF. When the theory doesn't fit the evidence, you need a new theory...

 

[Anti-Meson]

AM, this is a theorist/empiricist argument. You are pointing out how your theory of Wikipedia management would make it unsuitable, others argue that from observation, Wikipedia is in wide spread use a well trusted for this kinds of things we'd like to be able to use it for at PF. When the theory doesn't fit the evidence, you need a new theory...

Would you care to quantify "wide spread" with supporting evidence as it is harder for you to substantiate your claims that wikipedia is a reliable source than it is for me to prove otherwise.

 

[Wallace]

I work in cosmology. When working with collaborators etc it is routine to check a wiki page to answer some question, and then go for a textbook etc if more detail is needed (or if it is too niche to be covered by wiki, which is of course pretty common). I've never heard anyone in the field complain that wiki is inappropriate for this purpose, or that it is inaccurate, an oligarchy or any other issues. If you find an error (not very common these days) you simply correct it.

Now, for the purposes of cosmology discussions on PF then, it would be foolish to reject the use of wiki when the people working in the field use it on a daily basis. Now, beyond that field, when I talk to people in other areas I hear basically the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no qualms with wikipedia being used to direct someone to introduce them to a subject,...

See now, it is so strange that you would say that.

I used Wiki to introduce you to further reading on the subject of antimatter. You'll note that I worded it - not as a source of authority - but specifically to introduce you to the subject. My exact words were:

Feel free to start here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577662&postcount=20", casting aspersions upon me and upon PF:

Dave, you are a PF contributor and supposed science advisor. I thought PF was a serious site promoting education. If you believe this you should stop referencing unregulated WIKIPEDIA and start referencing papers from scientific authority.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This suggestion has been resolved. thanks