I've opened an AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.99... because the article is unenclopedic. WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, which means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary mathematical nuggets. Shall I proceed to publish Prof that 1+1 = 2. Bertrand Russel proved it in 260 pages, but it could be shortened. If this is deleted it will also open up the avenue to delete many other proof articles. It's a shame that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of proffessors and sportspersons while content like this is allowed to stay on.
Molu
--------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
On 5/5/06, Molu loom91@yahoo.com wrote:
I've opened an AfD at >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.99... >because the article is unenclopedic.
We appearing to be haveing a n. Keep~~~ "pile-on"
It's a shame >that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of
proffessors and >sportspersons while content like this is allowed to stay on.
Are we still deleting articles on full proffessors (aside from all the copyvios)?
-- geni
On Fri, 5 May 2006 13:58:48 +0100, you wrote:
Are we still deleting articles on full proffessors (aside from all the copyvios)?
I have seen one or two, I think, for academics who show no distinguishing features. Equally I've seen surprising resistance to removal of associate professors with two publications because both are listed on Google Scholar.
Guy (JzG)
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
Fred
On May 5, 2006, at 6:45 AM, Molu wrote:
I've opened an AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 because the article is unenclopedic. WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, which means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary mathematical nuggets. Shall I proceed to publish Prof that 1+1 = 2. Bertrand Russel proved it in 260 pages, but it could be shortened. If this is deleted it will also open up the avenue to delete many other proof articles. It's a shame that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of proffessors and sportspersons while content like this is allowed to stay on.
Molu
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
Fred
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover it) would be on wikisource.
-- geni
Short and elegant
Fred
On May 5, 2006, at 7:20 AM, geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
Fred
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover it) would be on wikisource.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It doesn't seem like a question of whether it's encyclopedic. Unless we need a consensus to agree first, math is encyclopedic. The questions seem to be:
1. Is it notable. 2. Does it meet verifiability (in this case, other peer reviewed math publications than the one it was pulished in). 3. Is it a stub that will almost certainly remain a stub that might be better merged with a collection of other related mathematical proofs (assuming it does in fact qualify as a proof). 4. Presentation is an issue of deciding copyvio and NPOV, not whether it's encyclopedic. There are plenty of tags for dealing with presentation issues and plenty of long-existing articles with presentation issues that have no impact on whether they will continue to be in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates ~~~Pro-Lick
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Short and elegant
On May 5, 2006, at 7:20 AM, geni wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items >> which we regularly include. >> >> > That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the > proof of the [[Taniyama�Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover > it) would be on wikisource.
--------------------------------- Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover it) would be on wikisource.
The actual proof itself, yes.
I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.
I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me...
On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
geni wrote:
On 5/5/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Generally proofs are encyclopedic. Much more so than many other items which we regularly include.
That would depend on how the article is presented. For example the proof of the [[Taniyama–Shimura theorem]] (if copyright doesn't cover it) would be on wikisource.
The actual proof itself, yes.
I would hope that an explanation for mathematical peons like myself would also be forthcoming. Whether that would be more appropriate to Wikipedia or Wikibooks is a matter for conjecture.
That could be a problem since I suspect any explantion would first require teching the person something that amounts to a maths degree
Generaly I would assume a good article on a mathmatical proof would include it's history, why it matters, the proof itself if it is short enough, a summery if not and if required a summery that makes sense to people without a Phd in the subject.
I assume a pop culture section would take care of its self.
I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me... -- Phil --
It is meant to be for text books and instruction manuals
-- geni
geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell wrote: > I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is > supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some > of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of > "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me... > -- > Phil > --
It is meant to be for text books and instruction manuals
From the top of the page http://en.wikibooks.org:
"Wikibooks is a collection of free, open-content textbooks that you can edit."
There is no NPOV or verifiability policy, and it can be about anything. When you click edit you get this message (which presumably summarizes the most important aspects of Wikibooks policy): "Please note that all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (see Wikibooks:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"
Apparently it's the place for fringe people to go that want to publish the memoirs and photos of their toenail clipping or a book on why having 50 million micro-policies with lots of inherent ambiguity, a team of lawyers, a team of advocates, and 10 internal courts is better than 3 well-defined major policies with limited ambiguity that can be implemented entirely by volunteers.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase
On May 5, 2006, at 5:45 AM, Molu wrote:
I've opened an AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.999..._equals_1 because the article is unenclopedic. WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, which means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary mathematical nuggets. Shall I proceed to publish Prof that 1+1 = 2. Bertrand Russel proved it in 260 pages, but it could be shortened. If this is deleted it will also open up the avenue to delete many other proof articles. It's a shame that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of proffessors and sportspersons while content like this is allowed to stay on.
Good job. You've disrupted Wikipedia to make a point.