Today I Learned

[BillTre]

TIL that the word "zoophytophagous", as in zoophytophagous stink bug, Nesidiocoris tenuis
is used as:

This bug possesses both phytophagous and entomophagous food habits, enabling it to obtain nutrition from both plants and insects. This trait allows us to maintain its population density in agricultural fields by introducing insectary plants, even when the pest prey density is extremely low.
From this wonderful publication.

zoo: has to do with animals
phyto: has to do with plants
phagous: has to do with eating
entomo: has to do with insects

 

[BillTre]

Happy Darwin Day (Darwin's birthday)!

 

[Frabjous]

Mathematics has its roots in numerology, geometry, and physics.

-the first sentence of the introduction to Functional Analysis by Reed and Simon

 

[fresh_42]

-the first sentence of the introduction to Functional Analysis by Reed and Simon

One could as well claim that mathematics has its origin in accounting. Sumerians, Assyrians, and Indians lived long before the Greeks arrived at the scene.

 

[Swamp Thing]

TIL that there was a person called Sophie de Grouchy.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-radical-political-writings-of-sophie-de-grouchy


(only it was probably pronounced "grew she" which is not quite as funny)

 

[Hornbein]

-the first sentence of the introduction to Functional Analysis by Reed and Simon

"Mathematics has its roots in numerology, geometry, and physics."

The ancient Egyptians had mathematical astronomy. But being priests of an esoteric order, they failed to publish and hence perished.

 

[BillTre]

More heat for the New Year:
(NY Times article)

 

[Astronuc]

Westarctica: The micronation with a real-world purpose​

https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/westarctica-the-micronation-with-a-real-world-purpose/
The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 prohibited nations from making new land claims on the continent. But it never mentioned claims from private individuals.

Interesting.

 

[docnet]

Today I learned if you make your cheeks sleeker by shaving, it makes a louder and more articulate sound when you poot.

 

[fresh_42]

TIL that Wikipedia is in fact a commercial website and only money counts. Pure politics behind the scenes. Time to quote nLab instead. nLab has a higher scientific value anyway.

 

[jack action]

Wikipedia is in fact a commercial website and only money counts.

Sources for that statement?

 

[fresh_42]

Sources for that statement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_...c_Enby-20240222143500-Fresh_42-20240222134800

So let me get this straight: you have no problem with listing SE that went for 1.8 billion dollars over the counter (https://tex.co/stackexchange-verkauft/), and no problem with listing physics.org, a commercial popular and science website (https://phys.org/ - note the ads), but you do have a problem with some professional science enthusiasts who teach students for free? Guess, I ran into politics here. We cannot compete with 1.8 billion. Interesting to know. I once joined Wikipedia on the editorial level after I mocked about a tiny but significant error on a mathematical page. Someone, who already contributed to Wikipedia said: "Then sign in and change it instead of complaining about the absence of scientific rigor." So I did. Maybe that was a fault.

 

[jack action]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_...c_Enby-20240222143500-Fresh_42-20240222134800

From your source, the problem is that you are considered potentially biased, not that you do not have money. Have the SE and phys.org pages been written by their members? I think the following response you got was a valid concern for Wikipedia:

Also, I see that multiple accounts connected to Physics Forums have recently edited the page. Please be honest, was there any off-site coordination between you? That is also something that should be disclosed for the sake of transparency.

 

[fresh_42]

From your source, the problem is that you are considered potentially biased, not that you do not have money. Have the SE and phys.org pages been written by their members? I think the following response you got was a valid concern for Wikipedia:

This is BS, sorry. I am not biased. There is actually a) a request pending from another mentor to remove me from staff, so that little "mentor" badge is overestimated, b) who else than a member of PF could write an article about it? Disappointed former members? c) Do you really think those other articles I quoted haven't been written by their staff? Really? We were only honest and they cheated better. You bet they were involved, I mean, $1,800,000,000! That shows were the big donators of Wikipedia are.

As I said: commercial websites are listed (fact) and our website causes problems. QED.

Edit: I saw a typo on Wikipedia today. I won't correct anything like that again for free. I work and they collect the money. Not any longer. I am fed up with politics.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am not biased.

Not about math, true. But about PF, you are--as am I, and pretty much anyone who is going to have sufficient motivation to edit a Wikipedia article about PF (a class which does not include me--I concluded years ago that trying to edit any Wikipedia article was a waste of time; I would rather focus my efforts on a site like this one). Nobody who is truly "neutral" about it (if there are any such people) is going to care what the Wikipedia article says.

From your source, the problem is that you are considered potentially biased

Which is a bogus excuse from Wikipedia, for the reason given above.

 

[fresh_42]

$1,800,000,000

German proverb: An old lady has to knit for a long time to get that.

 

[pinball1970]

$1,800,000,000

German proverb: An old lady has to knit for a long time to get that.

This is nuts
Who on earth do they expect to enter, edit and agree on the info that goes on the page?
Discussing that off site was obviously going to happen.
Greg, members and mentors all had ideas about that and I cannot see any other way of that happening.

 

[Haborix]

To be fair, it sounds like I could edit the page as a mere member, but maybe not. The conflict of interest angle seems a little redundant if statements have to include references to sources. Also, it relies on a user to self-report this conflict (or as in @fresh_42's case, using the same username so it could be discovered). Eh, Wikipedia schmikipedia .

 

[jack action]

@fresh_42 , @PeterDonis , @pinball1970 :

I find it funny that people in a forum that is obsessive about having reliable sources about anything discussed on its website complain about other websites that have the same type of requirements, just like members considered crackpots or conspiracists on PF.

Note that what is important is not who writes the article but what you can show as your sources for notability (emphasis NOT mine):

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

 

[fresh_42]

To be fair, it sounds like I could edit the page as a mere member, but maybe not. The conflict of interest angle seems a little redundant if statements have to include references to sources. Also, it relies on a user to self-report this conflict (or as in @fresh_42's case, using the same username so it could be discovered). Eh, Wikipedia schmikipedia .

As I said there:

1. The existence of a Wikipedia page for PF was a requirement of Wikipedia in order to merely get listed on category pages for internet websites.
2. Fact: They listed (aka promote) a professional website worth $1,800,000,000 ...
3. ... and do not see a conflict of interests.
4. Fact: They listed (aka promote) a commercial online magazine, financed by commercials, ...
5. ... and do not see a conflict of interests.
6. They assume a conflict of interest in a clearly non-profit but nevertheless professional website whose only goal it was to get listed ...
7. ... and did not answer my question about whom they expect to write such a Wikipedia page.

I'm wondering on which side of the table the real corruption sits!

 

[fresh_42]

Anyway. I will find open sources other than Wikipedia to quote. That might require a bit more effort but I'm all of a sudden motivated. There are some red lines I will not cross. Taking part in corruption is one of them. nLab here I come!

 

[gmax137]

nLab here I come!

Thanks! I have never heard of nLab before this thread.

 

[PeterDonis]

a forum that is obsessive about having reliable sources about anything discussed on its website

When what we're discussing is mainstream science, yes. That's because of PF's explicit purpose.

other websites that have the same type of requirements,

Wikipedia's policy under discussion here has nothing whatever to do with "reliability" of sources. It has to do with what they perceive (or claim to perceive) as a conflict of interest. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, the only people who should be writing their articles about anything are people who are not involved in it. Which seems odd, but that appears to be their policy.

what is important is not who writes the article but what you can show as your sources for notability

"Notability" is yet another requirement that has nothing to do with reliability of sources. It's just Wikipedia's (rather vague) policy about what things are worth having articles about. In that regard, @fresh_42's objections seem justified to me: as far as I can tell, PF is just as "notable", by Wikipedia's definition, as the two other sites he asked Wikipedia about, which have articles. So if "notability" is what's important, PF should have an article just as those other two sites do--and if it's not important who writes the article, why is Wikipedia not allowing PF staff to do it?

 

[fresh_42]

Fact is, by imposing the requirement of an existing Wikipedia site in order to be mentioned on very general lists while simultaneously making it impossible (or to cheat: damn I should have asked my Nephews in MI to do the job) to get such an article, and therewith imposing an untakeable hurdle, leads to the question: How did the others manage to get there? And good old money is the only variable left I can think of. Sure, nobody will admit that. However, I read an article about the intransparent policy of Wikipedia in a German magazine (@mfb; Der Spiegel; SPON IIRC) quite some time ago that claimed exactly this: Wikipedia has long stopped being independent. Now I know the price tags. We call that corruption over here.

Too bad I cannot write here what I will call Wikipedia from now on - at least in my German environment.

 

[jack action]

How did the others manage to get there? And good old money is the only variable left I can think of. Sure, nobody will admit that.

I really don't understand your frustration and how you can compare PF with SE. Yes, they are worth 1.8 G$. That is pretty important. People outside SE are watching them and are interested in them. Proof can be found in the SO Wikipedia page references:

• The founder was invited to a Google TechTalks about SO;
• The Wall Street Journal writes about them;
• Other media talks about their policies;
• They are studied under different subjects at different universities:
  • Stanford University
  • Singapore Management University
  • Berkeley University
  • University of Maryland

How can you say that SE has to pay Wikipedia to have a page? They are evidently important to other people than the people who work there and to other people than the ones who wrote the Wikipedia page.

Your arguments are certainly not facts.

 

[collinsmark]

I've read and re-read @fresh_42's User Talk on/with Wikipedia, and I get the impression that ... Let me back up ... not a definite impression, but more of a gut feeling ... I get the impression that the others involved the Wikipedia User Talk in question believe that being a staff member (e.g., "Mentor") of Physics Forums (PF) is a high paying job. As in a position of salaried employment. (As if being a Mentor on PF is something you could do as a financial career.)

Maybe I'm wrong. And if I'm not wrong, maybe it wouldn't make a difference anyway.

But I just can't help but wonder if they would change their tune if they better knew how PF worked.

 

[fresh_42]

I really don't understand your frustration and how you can compare PF with SE. Yes, they are worth 1.8 G$. That is pretty important. People outside SE are watching them and are interested in them. Proof can be found in the SO Wikipedia page references:

• The founder was invited to a Google TechTalks about SO;
• The Wall Street Journal writes about them;
• Other media talks about their policies;
• They are studied under different subjects at different universities:
  • Stanford University
  • Singapore Management University
  • Berkeley University
  • University of Maryland

How can you say that SE has to pay Wikipedia to have a page? They are evidently important to other people than the people who work there and to other people than the ones who wrote the Wikipedia page.

Your arguments are certainly not facts.

I did not claim that SE had to pay Wikipedia. I just assumed that they voluntarily did and that the people who were involved had financial interests, 1,800,000,000 many of them.

I only observed the facts that Wikipedia promotes commercial websites whereas it is de facto impossible for a non-profit page like ours to get just mentioned on their general lists of websites. They achieve this by a subtle trick: The list requires a Wikipedia entry first. The Wikipedia entry cannot be achieved by conflict of interest. But who else than members on that page could have an interest in writing an entry at all? However, they obviously ignore any conflict of interest if money is on the table as my two examples demonstrate.

Facit: Commercial websites and financial interests are promoted, and listing a non-profit organization is inhibited. That is the result. I call that corruption. You can call it whatever you like, I don't care. I'm not deep enough into the internal Wikipedia policies to describe their intransparent structures of power. I only evaluate the results. And this is only about the listing of PF as a Q&A website. I can imagine how far corruption, or capriciousness if you like this better, is involved when it comes to e.g. politicians if already such a minor issue causes so much trouble. I do not trust them anymore and will certainly not participate any longer in their actions. There are alternatives. University servers around the world are full of them.

 

[jack action]

But who else than members on that page could have an interest in writing an entry at all?

You have to show outside sources talking about you. It doesn't matter who writes the actual text. Again:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

What are your secondary sources for PF? (Hint: a PF admin is not one of them.)

They achieve this by a subtle trick: The list requires a Wikipedia entry first.

Wikipedia is not a website directory for anyone to list itself. These types of directories are rather useless and just used to create backlinks. It weakens their values for search engines. The strong policies of Wikipedia are what makes YOU want to be on THEIR website. The Difference between a Good and a Bad Web Directory

You cannot have it all.

 

[fresh_42]

You have to show outside sources talking about you. It doesn't matter who writes the actual text. Again:

I call BS. The entire dialogue started after I added ...

What are your secondary sources for PF? (Hint: a PF admin is not one of them.)

https://aelieve.com/rankings/websites/category/science/best-physics-websites/
... as a reference. (Hint: I am not related in any way to Aelieve.com)

Wikipedia is not a website directory for anyone to list itself.

This is again an idealization that isn't given. As I said: I should have let my nephew in MI write that entry. This would have been dishonest but in compliance with the rules. And that is exactly what I assume to have happened to the other websites.

These types of directories are rather useless and just used to create backlinks. It weakens their values for search engines.

So? Why the fight then?

The strong policies of Wikipedia are ...

... a propaganda lie.

what makes YOU want to be on THEIR website. The Difference between a Good and a Bad Web Directory

There is no transparency at all. Pretending there was is hypocritical.

You cannot have it all.

Au contraire, I cannot have the least!

Once again and for the last time:

We wanted to get listed as a Q&A and physics website.
This requires a separate Wiki page since even red links are impossible on those lists.
A Website cannot be written for "conflict of interests".
Two websites, one commercial and one with a high market value have been written and listed.
Where was then the "conflict of interest"?
The only difference I can see is the factor of money.

 

[gmax137]

I don't understand any of this. I use Wiki to find information, ie, facts. Things like "what is the formula for volume of a sphere?" "Who was Alger Hiss?" Or even "what is the density of lead?"

I didn't consult Wiki to find PF, and neither did anyone else until a week or so ago (whenever you guys created the PF page there.

I understand their rules regarding secondary sources. Otherwise there would be thousands of self-promoting pages of crap cluttering it up. I can imagine the "Trevor Tweed" page: "Trevor Tweed is an aspiring actor who can be reached at trevor.com" What's the point of that?