Wikipedia - "I made it up"

[geni]

Another thing I hate about wikipedia is that they break their own rules ALL THE TIME. the article for GNAA has been up for deletion way more times than allowed by wikipedias own rules,

There is not actual rule limiting the number of times something can be listed for deletion.

its just that GNAA is a trolling group that hates wikipedia.

Not quite true. There are some GNAA memebers who are very productive wikipedians. Just won't shut up about nameing policy with repect to roads.

They have done some seriously famous trolls and so people keep voting to keep it because of that, but mods dont care.

It isn't that simple.

encyclopedia dramatica chronicles a lot of stuff on wikipedia that people arent supposed to see.

Not really. ED has a lot of errors and most of the stuff that is true can be found on wikipedia if you know where to look (mind you burying things in the paperwork has been raised to an artform). Mostly wikipedia is pretty open. It certianly is compared to say this forum. Exceptions would be stuff involveing personal details and copyvios.

there is the problem of making tons of sock puppets to do whatever you want to wikipedia as well.

Sock pupets can be delt with.

 

[JJM]

Would be more logical to go to a primiary or perhaps secondary source for that information.

Your "logic" escapes me.

Never seen a paper calculating the charge on an electron. Generaly I use data tables for that kind of thing.

We could have a problem with definitions- how are your tables different from an encyclopedia? If you ever publish an article centered on determining electronic charge, you would do well to cite Millikan; or an article that directly brings readers to his work.

You cite the version (which is what the cite tool I linked to does for you) Wikipedia keeps pretty much every version of every article that has ever existed.

I remain confused how that is done. I know Wiki keeps all edits in memory (for now); but how does one cite the current page such that it comes-up after being supplanted?

 

[geni]

Your "logic" escapes me.

Primary and secondary sources are generaly more reliable than tertiary sources. They are also more likely to have been peer reviewed.

We could have a problem with definitions- how are your tables different from an encyclopedia?

Because they are a secondart source not a tertiary source

If you ever publish an article centered on determining electronic charge, you would do well to cite Millikan; or an article that directly brings readers to his work.I remain confused how that is done.

e may well be centeral to the calculations I would want to do in a paper even if the paper has nothing to do with working out it's value. I'm not however going to cite a 97 year old paper. I'll just pull the values from CODATA or just pull the figures from Atkin's physical chemistry.

I know Wiki keeps all edits in memory (for now)

There are complete database dumps made availible from time to time.

[qupte]
; but how does one cite the current page such that it comes-up after being supplanted?

Well in link format like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolle_Canal&oldid=65133875

For full citation format useing one of the methods shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite?page=Rolle+Canal

(basicaly go to [[special:cite]] and type in the article name)

 

[pgwenthold]

e may well be centeral to the calculations I would want to do in a paper even if the paper has nothing to do with working out it's value. I'm not however going to cite a 97 year old paper. I'll just pull the values from CODATA or just pull the figures from Atkin's physical chemistry.

If you are pulling the charge out of Atkins, then apparently it must not be too crucial for it to be accurate.

If you really want to know it accurately, you would at least look up NIST's current recommended version, wouldn't you?

 

[JJM]

Primary and secondary sources are generaly more reliable than tertiary sources. They are also more likely to have been peer reviewed.

"More likely" is no assurance.

Because they are a secondart source not a tertiary source

Tables can be tertiary, that is why I said we may have a problem with definitions.

e may well be centeral to the calculations I would want to do in a paper even if the paper has nothing to do with working out it's value. I'm not however going to cite a 97 year old paper. I'll just pull the values from CODATA or just pull the figures from Atkin's physical chemistry.

Atkin's is, at best, a tertiary source; like an encyclopedia.

By the way, A 97-year-old paper that settles a matter is not out of date. Maybe you misunderstood me, if you are going to publish something new on Millikan's work- you need to refer very directly to it, no matter how old. That is just the standard in science.

Well in link format like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolle_Canal&oldid=65133875

For full citation format useing one of the methods shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite?page=Rolle+Canal

(basicaly go to [[special:cite]] and type in the article name)

I will look into this.

 

[JJM]

If you are pulling the charge out of Atkins, then apparently it must not be too crucial for it to be accurate.

If you really want to know it accurately, you would at least look up NIST's current recommended version, wouldn't you?

My point, thanks.

 

[geni]

If you are pulling the charge out of Atkins, then apparently it must not be too crucial for it to be accurate.

I think I would have heard if atkins had screwed up something that basic.

If you really want to know it accurately, you would at least look up NIST's current recommended version, wouldn't you?

That would be the 2002 CODATA values.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think I would have heard if atkins had screwed up something that basic.

Well, considering the Faraday constant is fairly standard, it's not going to vary too much. OTOH, if you need accuracy beyond 96487 coulombs/mole, I would not look to a text book.

Of course, what is there to wonder about in charge of an electron? It's 1 e.

 

[geni]

"More likely" is no assurance.Tables can be tertiary, that is why I said we may have a problem with definitions.

Most are not. It would be quite difficult to get Tertiary tables since in most cases you want to work from the data in it's raw form thus back to the original papers

Atkin's is, at best, a tertiary source; like an encyclopedia.

The tables are likely striaght coppies of CODATA.

By the way, A 97-year-old paper that settles a matter is not out of date. Maybe you misunderstood me, if you are going to publish something new on Millikan's work- you need to refer very directly to it, no matter how old. That is just the standard in science.

Most people useing e (it turns up in a lot of equations) are not talking about stuff that has anything to do with Millikan's work.

Mind you in the case of the Oil-drop experiment people might have been better not to cite the original work. See:

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

For the problems doing that caused.

 

[JJM]

I think I would have heard if atkins had screwed up something that basic.

Maybe, maybe not. What are the odds there, eh? The Am. Chem. Soc. J. of Chem. Ed. requires mistakes in a certain number texts before they will publish a correction. What are your sources? A negative result is inconclusive.

ETA: the bottom line remains- Atkins is, at best, a tertiary resource.

 

[SirPhilip]

But then again, Hans, peer reviews can easily be based on peer pressure, and telling your peers what they want to hear, such as happens in universities where peer pressure determines most subjects. But true skeptics can slice through the bogus to find facts upon which to build foundations of truths, whereas the false skeptics only want what is fed to them and that is acceptable in their peer groups as as to remain groupies within the group and continue in their group faith.

Thankfully we have Christian memes, which you know, aren't invented, and psychologically balanced people like you who do for that tired assortment of cliches what Anna Nicole does for the glory of female beauty and Michael Jackson does for male edginess.

 

[PixyMisa]

The Wiki is really peer review taken to totality. We share information, and it gets criticized, modified by our peers. Poorly supported information is weeded out, well supported information persists and enters our knowledge base.

The thing is, poorly-supported information is inserted continually. Only if the rate of weeding exceeds the rate of, um, seeding, will Wikipedia converge on a useful approximation of the truth.

Now, I admire the Wikians for performing the experiment to find this out, but the results of that experiment aren't certain yet. (And the indications are that for certain topics there is no convergence.)

 

[SirPhilip]

Anna Nicole does for the..

Did..

Amen.

 

[geni]

Maybe, maybe not. What are the odds there, eh? The Am. Chem. Soc. J. of Chem. Ed. requires mistakes in a certain number texts before they will publish a correction. What are your sources? A negative result is inconclusive.

It is a major phys chem text book.

ETA: the bottom line remains- Atkins is, at best, a tertiary resource.

Mostly yes. But would you argue that this is secondary or tertiary:

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

 

[luchog]

I don't know what anyone's issue with Wikipedia.

It's not perfect, but on the whole I've found it to be impressively reliable, accurate and fair.

I haven't.

I did an experiment nearly a year ago, some may remember it. I either found or deliberately inserted a number of factually inaccurate statements into a number of articles, including creating an entirely bogus article. This was done in reaction to an argument with Geni shortly after the Nature article critiqueing Wikipedia was published. His assertion was that, while errors can be introduced, they are typically corrected rapidly; and used that as basis for his assertion that Wiki is superior to, say, the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

I monitored the alterations for three months. Only one was corrected during that time, and it was a scientific article. I have recently (in the last two weeks) had reason to revisit several of my previously altered articles. Not one had corrected my errors. In fact, one of my errors (in a history article) was so particularly glaring, not only factually but grammatically as well, that I was sure it would be dealt with almost immediately. It's still there.

 

[geni]

I monitored the alterations for three months. Only one was corrected during that time, and it was a scientific article. I have recently (in the last two weeks) had reason to revisit several of my previously altered articles. Not one had corrected my errors. In fact, one of my errors (in a history article) was so particularly glaring, not only factually but grammatically as well, that I was sure it would be dealt with almost immediately. It's still there.

So you managed to find artiucles no one cares about. Do you enjoy lieing to people?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm with everyone else who is concerned about the open source nature of Wiki. I do agree that it's a decent resource for a. a quick cite and b. a good starting point. I generally find Google and choice keywords to be just as good though.

 

[Earthborn]

It's still there.

So which articles are you talking about?

 

[JJM]

It is a major phys chem text book.

Yes, a terrtiary or quaternary source for undergraduates, much like a good encyclopedia. What are you arguing about? If you have a casual interest in the value of a constant, an undergrad text is fine. If you need to be certain of the currently accepted value, you would be wise to find a more authoritative publication.

... But would you argue that this is secondary or tertiary:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

"published in Rev. Mod. Phys. vol. 77(1) 1-107 (2005)." I believe it is secondary, and expertly compiled.

 

[geni]

If you need to be certain of the currently accepted value, you would be wise to find a more authoritative publication."published in Rev. Mod. Phys. vol. 77(1) 1-107 (2005)." I believe it is secondary, and expertly compiled.

No that is their source. I was asking about the website itself.