Re: [math-fun] Wiki article on Circumscribed_circle
Thanks, Robert, for your excellent & helpful suggestions. But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked. In the mean time, a human-readable proof would suffice, because math readers who didn't buy the proof given could request additional details. I would also love for there to be an online version of "Proofs without Words", or "Picture Proofs". (Yes, I know, Bourbaki will be spinning in its/his/her/their grave(s).) I had thought that Wikipedia might be the germ of such a resource, but its current rules make that impossible. Since it doesn't appear that those rules will be changing any time soon, it's probably time to start anew. At 09:54 PM 6/2/2012, Robert Munafo wrote:
Unfortunately, the only effective way to contribute on Wikipedia is to publish it elsewhere and wait for lots of people who happen to also read Wikipedia to think that your stuff is important. Sometimes "wait" means "more than 5 years".
It also helps to think of Wikipedia people as being kind of a niche audience. The real audience is people who use search engines like Google and Bing.
I also think that if you link from your article to other related articles online, the process is quicker. Link to other related content, such as the external links presently used by that Wikipedia article, or be more creative and do your own Google/Bing searches to find other useful articles on circumscription (sic?)
That means turning your .txt into a .html (hint: you can put "<pre>" around most of it) and submit its URL to Google and Bing (see [1] and [2]). You should do that to all of your publshed content, at the very least adding title and keywords tags, which will get your work noticed much more effectively than being linked on Wikipedia.
- Robert
[1] http://www.google.com/submityourcontent/website-owner/
[2] https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/SubmitSitePage.aspx
On 6/2/12, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Does anyone know how to deal with Wikipedia?
I tried this morning to make a very modest edit to the Circumscribed_circle article, and someone else keeps reverting it back. [...]
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/FAQ-circumcircle.txt
[...]
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
Henry, I apologize for trying to tell you how to do HTML. I see now that you've made plenty of HTML pages. This talk of secondary sources and so on reminds me of the (15,000 page printed) encyclopedia I used as a child. After a few years I realized that about 95% of my encyclopedia usage had been of the "learning random stuff because it's fun to learn" category. Only 5 % qualified as "actually finding something I was looking for". Wikipedia is like that, except that maybe by now they've managed to reach 10%. But on those rare, overly optimistic occasions that I actually try to use it for research, I rarely actually find what I want. I suspect your situation is similar. Wikipedia probably serves a purpose, but it's not the "entire library for your home" that the World Book salesman described. -- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
I would also love for there to be an online version of "Proofs without Words", or "Picture Proofs". (Yes, I know, Bourbaki will be spinning in its/his/her/their grave(s).)
My favorite picture proof is the one that shows the area of an 8x8 square is the same as the area of a 5x13 rectangle ;) -- Mike Stay - metaweta@gmail.com http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~mike http://reperiendi.wordpress.com
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked.
Perhaps metamath.org? Of course that's mechanically checked, not just potentially mechanically checked. Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Thanks, Robert, for your excellent & helpful suggestions.
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked. In the mean time, a human-readable proof would suffice, because math readers who didn't buy the proof given could request additional details.
I would also love for there to be an online version of "Proofs without Words", or "Picture Proofs". (Yes, I know, Bourbaki will be spinning in its/his/her/their grave(s).)
I had thought that Wikipedia might be the germ of such a resource, but its current rules make that impossible.
Since it doesn't appear that those rules will be changing any time soon, it's probably time to start anew.
At 09:54 PM 6/2/2012, Robert Munafo wrote:
Unfortunately, the only effective way to contribute on Wikipedia is to publish it elsewhere and wait for lots of people who happen to also read Wikipedia to think that your stuff is important. Sometimes "wait" means "more than 5 years".
It also helps to think of Wikipedia people as being kind of a niche audience. The real audience is people who use search engines like Google and Bing.
I also think that if you link from your article to other related articles online, the process is quicker. Link to other related content, such as the external links presently used by that Wikipedia article, or be more creative and do your own Google/Bing searches to find other useful articles on circumscription (sic?)
That means turning your .txt into a .html (hint: you can put "<pre>" around most of it) and submit its URL to Google and Bing (see [1] and [2]). You should do that to all of your publshed content, at the very least adding title and keywords tags, which will get your work noticed much more effectively than being linked on Wikipedia.
- Robert
[1] http://www.google.com/submityourcontent/website-owner/
[2] https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/SubmitSitePage.aspx
On 6/2/12, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Does anyone know how to deal with Wikipedia?
I tried this morning to make a very modest edit to the Circumscribed_circle article, and someone else keeps reverting it back. [...]
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/FAQ-circumcircle.txt
[...]
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Awhile ago I noticed that someone created this page on the Wikipedia that refers both to a paper I wrote, and a web site I maintain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indistinguishability_quotient However, the page is almost nonsensical and I've been tempted more than once to rewrite it from scratch. But I doubt I'll ever do it, because I couldn't bear to see someone officiously revert my extensive corrections to the original (lame) version that is there now. And I assume that it would raise the suspicions of editors, since I'm the only person whose work is referred to on the page. Has anyone else had an experience like this? I've contributed little to Wikipedia except the current photo of JHC, Elwyn Berlekamp, Vi Hart, and Richard Guy. I'd happily rewrite it if I knew it wouldn't be wiped out. On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse@case.edu> wrote:
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked.
Perhaps metamath.org? Of course that's mechanically checked, not just potentially mechanically checked.
Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Thanks, Robert, for your excellent & helpful suggestions.
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked. In the mean time, a human-readable proof would suffice, because math readers who didn't buy the proof given could request additional details.
I would also love for there to be an online version of "Proofs without Words", or "Picture Proofs". (Yes, I know, Bourbaki will be spinning in its/his/her/their grave(s).)
I had thought that Wikipedia might be the germ of such a resource, but its current rules make that impossible.
Since it doesn't appear that those rules will be changing any time soon, it's probably time to start anew.
At 09:54 PM 6/2/2012, Robert Munafo wrote:
Unfortunately, the only effective way to contribute on Wikipedia is to publish it elsewhere and wait for lots of people who happen to also read Wikipedia to think that your stuff is important. Sometimes "wait" means "more than 5 years".
It also helps to think of Wikipedia people as being kind of a niche audience. The real audience is people who use search engines like Google and Bing.
I also think that if you link from your article to other related articles online, the process is quicker. Link to other related content, such as the external links presently used by that Wikipedia article, or be more creative and do your own Google/Bing searches to find other useful articles on circumscription (sic?)
That means turning your .txt into a .html (hint: you can put "<pre>" around most of it) and submit its URL to Google and Bing (see [1] and [2]). You should do that to all of your publshed content, at the very least adding title and keywords tags, which will get your work noticed much more effectively than being linked on Wikipedia.
- Robert
[1] http://www.google.com/submityourcontent/website-owner/
[2] https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/SubmitSitePage.aspx
On 6/2/12, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Does anyone know how to deal with Wikipedia?
I tried this morning to make a very modest edit to the Circumscribed_circle article, and someone else keeps reverting it back. [...]
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/FAQ-circumcircle.txt
[...]
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://counterwave.com/
I'm sure that it would be OK to rewrite that page, and I doubt the changes would be reverted. You may wish to explain what's wrong and what you're fixing on the Talk page, though. That often helps smooth ruffled feathers. Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Thane Plambeck <tplambeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Awhile ago I noticed that someone created this page on the Wikipedia that refers both to a paper I wrote, and a web site I maintain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indistinguishability_quotient
However, the page is almost nonsensical and I've been tempted more than once to rewrite it from scratch.
But I doubt I'll ever do it, because I couldn't bear to see someone officiously revert my extensive corrections to the original (lame) version that is there now. And I assume that it would raise the suspicions of editors, since I'm the only person whose work is referred to on the page.
Has anyone else had an experience like this? I've contributed little to Wikipedia except the current photo of JHC, Elwyn Berlekamp, Vi Hart, and Richard Guy. I'd happily rewrite it if I knew it wouldn't be wiped out.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Charles Greathouse <charles.greathouse@case.edu> wrote:
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked.
Perhaps metamath.org? Of course that's mechanically checked, not just potentially mechanically checked.
Charles Greathouse Analyst/Programmer Case Western Reserve University
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Thanks, Robert, for your excellent & helpful suggestions.
But I still think there is a place in the world for a WikiProofia, where math results (new or old) can be submitted together with a proof that eventually could be mechanically checked. In the mean time, a human-readable proof would suffice, because math readers who didn't buy the proof given could request additional details.
I would also love for there to be an online version of "Proofs without Words", or "Picture Proofs". (Yes, I know, Bourbaki will be spinning in its/his/her/their grave(s).)
I had thought that Wikipedia might be the germ of such a resource, but its current rules make that impossible.
Since it doesn't appear that those rules will be changing any time soon, it's probably time to start anew.
At 09:54 PM 6/2/2012, Robert Munafo wrote:
Unfortunately, the only effective way to contribute on Wikipedia is to publish it elsewhere and wait for lots of people who happen to also read Wikipedia to think that your stuff is important. Sometimes "wait" means "more than 5 years".
It also helps to think of Wikipedia people as being kind of a niche audience. The real audience is people who use search engines like Google and Bing.
I also think that if you link from your article to other related articles online, the process is quicker. Link to other related content, such as the external links presently used by that Wikipedia article, or be more creative and do your own Google/Bing searches to find other useful articles on circumscription (sic?)
That means turning your .txt into a .html (hint: you can put "<pre>" around most of it) and submit its URL to Google and Bing (see [1] and [2]). You should do that to all of your publshed content, at the very least adding title and keywords tags, which will get your work noticed much more effectively than being linked on Wikipedia.
- Robert
[1] http://www.google.com/submityourcontent/website-owner/
[2] https://ssl.bing.com/webmaster/SubmitSitePage.aspx
On 6/2/12, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Does anyone know how to deal with Wikipedia?
I tried this morning to make a very modest edit to the Circumscribed_circle article, and someone else keeps reverting it back. [...]
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/FAQ-circumcircle.txt
[...]
-- Robert Munafo -- mrob.com Follow me at: gplus.to/mrob - fb.com/mrob27 - twitter.com/mrob_27 - mrob27.wordpress.com - youtube.com/user/mrob143 - rilybot.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://counterwave.com/
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
On Monday 04 June 2012 05:22:36 Charles Greathouse wrote:
I'm sure that it would be OK to rewrite that page, and I doubt the changes would be reverted. You may wish to explain what's wrong and what you're fixing on the Talk page, though. That often helps smooth ruffled feathers.
Before making major and possibly controversial changes to WP, I often put a note on the talk page explaining roughly what I propose to do. Then if someone wants to make an issue of it, we can hash it out on the talk page rather than getting into a revert war over the article itself. If after a few days no one has objected -- which is almost always the case -- I go ahead and change the article. -- g
participants (6)
-
Charles Greathouse -
Gareth McCaughan -
Henry Baker -
Mike Stay -
Robert Munafo -
Thane Plambeck