Dear Ruslan,
please reply to my questions below. I've been waiting all along.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:55:04 +0200 Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi Ruslan,
sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300 Ruslan ruslik00@gmail.com wrote:
Answering your questions:
- Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be
included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not matter.) The full reference is http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836 2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be included.
I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts, that will be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that can solve 31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions as legal ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or someone else) prepare a small public research document, which won't be an academic paper but will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere (with sources on GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML site) and then cite that
- will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy?
Thanks in advance,
-- Shlomi Fish