Hi all,
in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a single-player card game, that became popular after being included in some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it. However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or "non-Encyclopaedic".
Right now there's only this section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
* http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasa...
* There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the fc-solve-discuss Yahoo Group:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/...
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4 minutes.[Verification]
===========
Now my questions are:
1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic source that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there are hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question does not mention them at all.
===========
Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
[Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq , so there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I did write some automated tests for them.
Hi Shlomi,
I would suggest posting those questions on the talk page of the article, and/or at WP:RSN.
Pine
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hi all,
in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a single-player card game, that became popular after being included in some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it. However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or "non-Encyclopaedic".
Right now there's only this section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasa...
- There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
fc-solve-discuss Yahoo Group:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/...
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4 minutes.[Verification]
===========
Now my questions are:
- Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
source that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
- Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
are hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question does not mention them at all.
===========
Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish[Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq , so there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I did write some automated tests for them.
--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ What Makes Software Apps High Quality - http://shlom.in/sw-quality
The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Pine,
sorry for the late reply.
On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:31:31 -0800 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Shlomi,
I would suggest posting those questions on the talk page of the article, and/or at WP:RSN.
I've posted it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive... , which is something I try to avoid because the MediaWiki talk pages' interface lacks usability, and got no reply. However, someone replied on the thread here.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Answering your questions:
1. 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.
Ruslan
2015-12-28 19:50 GMT+03:00 Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org:
Hi all,
in case you don't know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell is a single-player card game, that became popular after being included in some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it. However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or "non-Encyclopaedic".
Right now there's only this section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the fact that FreeCell was proved to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
http://www.genetic-programming.org/hc2011/06-Elyasaf-Hauptmann-Sipper/Elyasa...
- There's some analysis of this paper in this thread in the
fc-solve-discuss Yahoo Group:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fc-solve-discuss/conversations/messages/...
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4 minutes.[Verification]
===========
Now my questions are:
- Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic
source that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
- Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there
are hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question does not mention them at all.
===========
Sorry this E-mail was quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish[Verification] - one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved as correct by a proof verifier such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq , so there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I did write some automated tests for them.
--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ What Makes Software Apps High Quality - http://shlom.in/sw-quality
The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris. — http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
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
Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English Wikipedia.
Joe
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Dear Ruslan,
please reply to my questions below. I've been waiting all along.
Regards,
Shlomi FishOn Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:55:04 +0200 Shlomi Fish <shlomif@shlomifish.org javascript:;> wrote:
Hi Ruslan,
sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300 Ruslan <ruslik00@gmail.com javascript:;> 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--
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Emma-Watson/
Chuck Norris does not code; when he sits at a computer, it just does whatever he wants. (By: Kattana.) — http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; ?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi Joe,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:29:12 +0000 Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English Wikipedia.
I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.
Wikipedia has so many rules that you can think it's a small country instead of an open-content project. :-(.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Hi,
I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.
You should mention this information on the talk page of the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCell
My two cents.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 16:08:17 +0100 "Lionel Allorge (lionel.allorge@lunerouge.org)" lionel.allorge@lunerouge.org wrote:
Hi,
I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.
You should mention this information on the talk page of the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCell
which information?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
My two cents.
If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone else can mention it on Wikipedia Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Shlomi Fish Sent: Tuesday, 08 March 2016 2:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] “Reliable”, “Notable”, and “Encyclopaedic” Sources for Automated Solvers for FreeCell
Hi Joe,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:29:12 +0000 Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that would be original research and not permitted on the English Wikipedia.
I see. Thanks for the information (though I'm still frustrated it took this list so long to give me a reply). I guess I won't be adding information about the solvers to the FreeCell article after all. It's your loss, really.
Wikipedia has so many rules that you can think it's a small country instead of an open-content project. :-(.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Can-I-SCO-Now/ - “Can I SCO Now?”
If you have to ask what Jazz is, you'll never know. — Attributed to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7442 / Virus Database: 4540/11775 - Release Date: 03/08/16
Hello Peter,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:02 +0200 "Peter Southwood" peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone else can mention it on Wikipedia
Published where , how, why, what, and when? What forms of publishing are acceptable for using as a Wikipedia reference?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Cheers, Peter
On 10 March 2016 at 12:22, Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:
Hello Peter,
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:36:02 +0200 "Peter Southwood" peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
If you get it published off Wikipedia then it becomes a reference and someone else can mention it on Wikipedia
Published where , how, why, what, and when? What forms of publishing are acceptable for using as a Wikipedia reference?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Anything that meets the requirements of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
In your case you would be looking at peer reviewed journals, retro game magazines or perhaps someone publishing a book through a reputable publisher on microsoft's games.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org