Improving Wikipedia Coverage of Computer Science 186
Pickens writes "MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson has an interesting post on how to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theoretical computer science. Aaronson writes what while Wikpedia will never be an ideal venue for academics because 'we're used to (1) putting our names on our stuff, (2) editorializing pretty freely, (3) using "original research" as a compliment and not an accusation, and (4) not having our prose rewritten or deleted by people calling themselves Duduyat, Raul654, and Prokonsul Piotrus,' he identifies twenty basic research areas and terms in theoretical computer science that are not defined on Wikipedia, and invites readers to write some articles about them. Article suggestions include property testing, algorithmic game theory, derandomization, sketching algorithms, propositional proof complexity, arithmetic circuit complexity, discrete harmonic analysis, streaming algorithms, and hardness of approximation. One commenter suggests that professors should encourage students to improve the Wikipedia articles about topics they are studying. 'This will help them understand the topic and at the same time improve Wikipedia.'"
Not the place for original research... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure that Aaronson really gets it regarding original research and putting his name on it.
Surely, it is meant to work this way:
1. Researcher publishes research in reputable peer-grouped journal, and makes this paper available on the Web.
2. Researcher writes nice, easily digestable Wiki page on the topic, citing the peer-reviewed research as a source.
The Wikipedia prohibition on 'original research' is really a polite way of saying: 'don't assert things that could simoly have been pulled out of your butt'. The reliance on peer-reviewed external sources is supposed to get around this problem.
----
Anyone know why my posts recently started appearing with Score 1, despite "excellent" karma? I'd love to know.
Re:Not the place for original research... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Beware of posting your own research... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, they're just following WP:COI [wikipedia.org] (the Conflict of Interest guideline) to its extreme. Of course, depending on the sources, WP:SOURCES [wikipedia.org] (a policy) could also be invoked. On Wikipedia, you're required to cite independent sources in addition to any research when reporting about said research.
Having said all that, I rarely edit articles on Wikipedia any more, as the constants fighting over how articles should look and which Admins are favoring which positions (instead of being neutral) gets really old, really quickly.
Re:Donald Knuth agrees (Score:5, Informative)
He should use Citizendium then.
Re:Removal... (Score:3, Informative)
I've noticed that too. Here's the thing, there are three kinds of articles in Wikipedia today: stubs, mediocre articles, and decent articles. No one is watching the stubs, so you can add stuff to those, though there is a serious problem getting past the deletionists to make a stub in the first place. Mediocre articles on the other hand had some good information in the past, but now paragraph three cuts off halfway through and the references section is screwed up. When you look at the history of the page, you see that basically the only changes made to it in the last year were vandalism and reverts, but the reverts weren't done properly and information was lost. Finally, the decent articles are decent because there are specific people who patrol the page to keep out vandalism. The trouble is, they're assholes and they also keep out new information and revert any improvements to the page. Good luck pointing out that the sections of the page need to be reorganized: you'll just be reverted away.
Re:So show us. (Score:4, Informative)
Give me one reason why this [wikipedia.org] was reverted and you'll be giving me one more reason than the reverter did.
Re:So show us. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Scott (Score:3, Informative)
And somebody's already tagged it {{notability}}. *Sigh*
Aaronson is one of the few CS researchers whose name keeps coming up again & again. He's at least as notable as many of the other CSists who have articles. (Yeah, I know. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.)
Re:Wow... I know nothing about those... (Score:1, Informative)
It's usually after reading Wikipedia that I can go back to my Algorithms textbooks and understand what they're saying.
The mathematics articles are alleged by many to be of higher than average Wikipedia standard, but by fuck are they harder to read than a good textbook.
They aren't clear on definitions of terms. They alternate between results conjured up out of nowhere and a chatty style that appears to reflect some point an undergrad didn't (still doesn't?) quite understand and felt he needed to clarify in the article. They often contain subtle nonsense, occasionally egregious. Frankly, I get more out of Mathworld for a quick mathematical summary, and the Dictionary of Scientific Biography for historical matter.
Re:tagged !encyclopedia (Score:2, Informative)
There's a whole list of "Reasons for Deletion"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy [wikipedia.org], at least one of which (notability) is at best controversial in its application.
A lot of the time, this flexibility in deletion justification is a good thing and it keeps a lot of spam/kooks/PR garbage off Wikipedia. However, sometimes it is mis-wielded as a tool to remove or prevent articles for whatever reason makes sense to some deletion-obsessed editor. (In fact, it looks to me like the exact article you link to about "Blood Angels" was deleted not because of "sources", but for being "cruft" or "non-noteable".)
Re:So show us. (Score:1, Informative)
I see you voted "strong keep" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaucho_theory [wikipedia.org]
I mean no offense in saying thus, but that article was an obvious delete according to the rules of Wikipedia, so I am guessing you are not well versed with the rules. It does take some effort to become familiar with the way things work, and I know from personal experience that editing Wikipedia is an exercise in frustration before you learn the rules.
I have a few suggestions if you want to keep editing Wikipedia:
1. Learn the rules and best practices of Wikipedia. Learning the basic rules should take about 20 minutes, and learning all the nuances can take weeks. 20 minutes should be enough to be an efficient contributor.
2. Don't be hostile. I notice in some of your edits that you attack Wikipedia, which is counter-intuitive. If you hate it so much, who will take your edits seriously?
3. Create an account. Yes, you technically don't need one, but most vandalism comes from anonymous IPs; this is probably why your edit was accidentally reverted.
Wikipedia is a great resource, and (in my opinion) has proven itself to work surprisingly well. I hope you follow my advice and become a regular editor; from your edits, it looks like you have a lot of great contributions to make. I know it can be frustrating, but a little bit of perseverance can get you over the initial learning curve.