Gill110951 (talk | contribs) |
Rick Block (talk | contribs) →Original research: adding my thoughts |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
It is meant to be universal common human logic! Common sense! How can you give authoritative sources to common sense? I hoped that the common sense would be recognised and adopted by the other editors. If it wouldn't be adopted, they'ld edit it away again. Fine by me. It's a dialectic process, looking for the truth together. |
It is meant to be universal common human logic! Common sense! How can you give authoritative sources to common sense? I hoped that the common sense would be recognised and adopted by the other editors. If it wouldn't be adopted, they'ld edit it away again. Fine by me. It's a dialectic process, looking for the truth together. |
||
[[User:Gill110951|Gill110951]] ([[User talk:Gill110951#top|talk]]) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Gill110951|Gill110951]] ([[User talk:Gill110951#top|talk]]) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I came here to make roughly the same point and see that Andrevan has already broached the topic. I hope you don't mind if I add my own thoughts about this. First, let me make it perfectly clear that I think Wikipedia is extremely fortunate that experts such as yourself choose to do any editing here. Wikipedia's good fortune extends to the efforts of not just experts but to all of Wikipedia's volunteers including editors, administrators, bureaucrats, mediators, arbcom members, and even developers (!). However, there's a particular danger experts editing Wikipedia need to be aware of relating to the fundamental content policy of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] which is that all content must be verifiable according to a reliable published source. This is the same danger encountered in editing an article about yourself - see [[WP:AUTO]] - and amounts to the difference between adding or changing content based on ''what you know'' as opposed to ''what you can reference'' (to a reliable source). I believe this particular issue is one of the basic problems creating difficulty with the article on the MHP. Lots of people (not just experts!) think they know with absolute certainty [[WP:The Truth|The Truth]] (a humorous essay, but not without a point) about the Monty Hall problem - and, once again, to be absolutely clear I'm not in any way implying I disagree with the correctness of anything you've said about the MHP (or anything else). |
|||
:I've suggested to Nijdam the analogy that Wikipedia articles should be considered to be what in the academic world would be more like comprehensive literature surveys (what you might put in the first chapter of a thesis) than an article you might write for publication. Articles here should say what others have said about the topic, and why, and then stop - with no value judgment implied. |
|||
:As an expert, one of the main things you can contribute here is your knowledge of the ''sources'' (as opposed to your knowledge of the topic itself). Articles here are not meant to be "correct" or "incorrect" - they're meant to be a neutral accounting of what the sources say, fairly representing the prevalence of opposing views if there are opposing views. In math, I don't think the notion of equally valid opposing views comes up very often (I mean, one or the other must be correct, right?) so I suspect deferring to what the sources say is not a natural impulse for a mathematician. This comes up more in other sciences, and comes up constantly in non-scientific fields - but from Wikipedia's viewpoint the solution is always the same, i.e. say what the sources say. One point of this is to avoid any necessity for choosing sides where there are conflicts. Both sides can (should) be able to agree what the sources say. |
|||
:If you already knew all of this already, my apologizes for belaboring the point. I know you're not a newcomer, but the first bullet point on my user page under "what I think" has for a very long time been |
|||
:*Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|newcomers]] are undoubtedly ignorant of many local [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines|rules and conventions]], but some of them are experts and we [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 desperately need them]. Don't [[WP:BITE|piss them off]]. Most of them [[WP:FAITH|mean well]]. |
|||
:-- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:00, 7 February 2010
License tagging for Image:RDG110951.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RDG110951.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Caroline Thompson
Hi Gill! You recently added a link to the article Caroline Thompson. The linked website belonged to another Caroline Thompson, who is listed in Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. I'm a bit puzzled by this edit. Why would an article need an external link to the website of another person with the same name? AecisBrievenbus 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think I understand your answer. You mean to say that you have added the link to clarify to readers that the Caroline Thompson of the article is not the Caroline Thompson of Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians? I think the link only creates confusion, instead of preventing/solving it. AecisBrievenbus 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) PS. Kunnen we niet beter gewoon in het Nederlands praten? ;)
Ja we kunnen best in het Hollands verder... Kijk: vele mensen zoals ik willen meer weten over Caroline Thompson (Scientist) en zoeker haar op in Wikipedia. Daar vinden ze iemand anders. Het is toch aardig om ze te vertellen waar ze moeten zijn? En zeker als er een wikipedia bladzijde komt, een deze dagen, over "mijn" Caroline Thompson. Die wil ik een deze dagen wel opzetten ... Als die er is, hebben we een "disambiguation page" nodig. Dus: ik vind niet dat een verwijzing naar een andere Caroline Thompson, op een bescheiden plek in het artikel, enige verwarring saait. Het is toch niet zo gek dat er nog meer mensen zijn die zo heten en dat als je een andere opzoekt dat je vriendelijk doorverwezen wordt? Gill110951
- Sorry dat ik nu pas weer reageer. Ik ben het niet helemaal met je/uw redenering eens. Het punt is namelijk dat de Wikipedia:External links guideline zegt dat de link moet linken "to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject." Verder staat er bij de Links normally to be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and reciprocally related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website." De Caroline Thompson van het artikel is niet de Caroline Thompson van de link, maar een toevallige naamgenoot. AecisBrievenbus 00:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
What should be linked: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". Ik zie niet dat er staat dat ELKE link MOET linken naar "a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject"Gill110951 02:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Geachte Dr. Gill, Ik denk dat iemand een keer forensic statistics moet schrijven. Het is vreemd dat er wel een kategorie bestaat, maar geen hoofartikel. Zie category:forensic statistics. Misschien wilt u dat doen als u tijd hebt, want ik denk dat u, in tegenstelling tot ik, er voldoende van afweet en wellicht ook toegang hebt tot goede bronnen. Bij voorbaat dank. Andries (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Reflist newuser--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Miscarriages of justice
Ha! Ik zie dat je op precies dezelfde pagina's actief bent als ik... Misschien kunnen we een edit-war beginnen? :-D --Hippalus (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Waarom maak je geen wiki voor Ton Derksen? Er wordt al veel naar hem verwezen. Dat versterkt het net van links rondom Kevin, Lucia, etc. --Hippalus (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.
On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.
If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: answer on de Berk
A more appropriate place for your note is the article talk page, not my user talk page. Thanks, mo talk 01:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
de Berk
Thanks for your answers. Often on Wikipedia, a controversial article will draw a variety of people with, to put it kindly, very strong opinions on the matter. They also draw conspiracy theorists (Jonestown comes to mind - there is an anonymous editor who regularly inserts that the entire Jonestown event was a US CIA assssination), "nutjobs", people with particular extreme biases and those that "climb on their soapbox" and deliver a new and contrary viewpoint about the topic. In some cases, "soapies" are extremists (Charles Manson shouldn't be in prison, he didn't kill anyone) whose basis of reference isn't productive or even in some cases, unsupportable. Wikipedia draws them all. Most often, they are operating from no basis of knowledge.
Unfortunately, this has led to a healthy dose of skepticism in most regular editors when someone brings in material of a new or controversial nature or is contrary to what leading sources say. What complicates the de Berk case is the unfamiliarity editors have with the justice system in your country and the language difference. Which leads us to now. I want to apologize if anything that was said or assumed offended you, it wasn't the intention. We were just working from a skeptic's viewpoint based on past experience with controversial material. Hopefully, all the issues in the de Berk case will be resolved. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Monty Hall problem
I found your comments on the Monty Hall problem article very interesting. I been arguing that the paper by Morgan et al, on which much of the structure of the article is based, is seriously flawed and that it generates a result that does not reflect any likely real scenario. I, with help from Nijdam, have been trying to do better myself on this page [[1]]and wonder if you would mind taking a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Like Nijdam and Rick, I am familiar with the Paper by Morgan et al and I fully understand its conclusions, which are what you state in your conditional answer to the problem. Where I disagree with Rick and Nijdam is that I believe that, although not actually wrong, the Morgan paper is seriously flawed in many ways resulting in its being next to useless as a basis for an explanation of the Monty Hall problem. I am very happy to discuss this if you have time. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
radical alterations to the intro to quantum mechanics article
Hi,
A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk)
I saw your message. Since I wrote the message above a couple of other users have reverted the wholesale dumping of the own article, the new editor put his own stuff back twice. There was more intervention and the guy took his stuff off and made a fork out of it.
I have been working on the article for about 3 years, but I never got beyond Heisenberg because I hit a snag that I have only just unraveled. If you are still interested, take a look at the article again in a couple of weeks. I hope that by that time I will have cut out a lot of stuff that has turned out to reflect little side trips. When I figured out what Heisenberg had actually done it indicated that some things that looked trivial in the beginning are actually very important. The rest can safely be cut without misleading the inquiring reader. P0M (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggested changes to Monty Hall problem
You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter. Rick Block (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})
Mediation of Monty Hall problem
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
Thank you, Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Original research
Hi. I think your contributions to the Monty Hall problem are really well-written, mathematically correct, and interesting. But I want to make sure you are aware that everything must be sourced. This edit for example seems to be original research and lacks references. Are we on the same page about this? Wikipedia, unlike arXiv, does not publish original thought. Andrevan@ 04:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I edit bits of wikipedia often meaning to come back and add references later. I absolutely agree with you on the basic principles here. I see myself as a self-invited guest on the wonderful wikipedia show, and of course I try to behave properly in my host's public forum. I'm also human, forgetful, change my mind from time to time, love arguing, have strong personal points of view, get annoyed by what I perceive as stupidity, ignorance etc etc...
The edit you refer to is a nice point. It is not original research. I learnt it on wikipedia from Boris Tsirelson. It is common knowledge under mathematicians. It's plain simple logic. One cannot give a reference. One can say "a professional mathematician would argue as follows" and refer to wikipedia talk.
I put in the text there hoping that the other editors would a) understand it, b) improve the text.
It is meant to be universal common human logic! Common sense! How can you give authoritative sources to common sense? I hoped that the common sense would be recognised and adopted by the other editors. If it wouldn't be adopted, they'ld edit it away again. Fine by me. It's a dialectic process, looking for the truth together. Gill110951 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I came here to make roughly the same point and see that Andrevan has already broached the topic. I hope you don't mind if I add my own thoughts about this. First, let me make it perfectly clear that I think Wikipedia is extremely fortunate that experts such as yourself choose to do any editing here. Wikipedia's good fortune extends to the efforts of not just experts but to all of Wikipedia's volunteers including editors, administrators, bureaucrats, mediators, arbcom members, and even developers (!). However, there's a particular danger experts editing Wikipedia need to be aware of relating to the fundamental content policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability which is that all content must be verifiable according to a reliable published source. This is the same danger encountered in editing an article about yourself - see WP:AUTO - and amounts to the difference between adding or changing content based on what you know as opposed to what you can reference (to a reliable source). I believe this particular issue is one of the basic problems creating difficulty with the article on the MHP. Lots of people (not just experts!) think they know with absolute certainty The Truth (a humorous essay, but not without a point) about the Monty Hall problem - and, once again, to be absolutely clear I'm not in any way implying I disagree with the correctness of anything you've said about the MHP (or anything else).
- I've suggested to Nijdam the analogy that Wikipedia articles should be considered to be what in the academic world would be more like comprehensive literature surveys (what you might put in the first chapter of a thesis) than an article you might write for publication. Articles here should say what others have said about the topic, and why, and then stop - with no value judgment implied.
- As an expert, one of the main things you can contribute here is your knowledge of the sources (as opposed to your knowledge of the topic itself). Articles here are not meant to be "correct" or "incorrect" - they're meant to be a neutral accounting of what the sources say, fairly representing the prevalence of opposing views if there are opposing views. In math, I don't think the notion of equally valid opposing views comes up very often (I mean, one or the other must be correct, right?) so I suspect deferring to what the sources say is not a natural impulse for a mathematician. This comes up more in other sciences, and comes up constantly in non-scientific fields - but from Wikipedia's viewpoint the solution is always the same, i.e. say what the sources say. One point of this is to avoid any necessity for choosing sides where there are conflicts. Both sides can (should) be able to agree what the sources say.
- If you already knew all of this already, my apologizes for belaboring the point. I know you're not a newcomer, but the first bullet point on my user page under "what I think" has for a very long time been
- Wikipedia's newcomers are undoubtedly ignorant of many local rules and conventions, but some of them are experts and we desperately need them. Don't piss them off. Most of them mean well.
- -- Rick Block (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)