Physicist. Overbooked. Aren't we all?
Articles created or substantially improvedEdit
|A bad way to advertise a casino|
I didn't think starting new pages would be my thing here, but I did create the page Ibn al-Samh, because there were multiple redlinks pointing to where it should be. In a similar vein, I happened to be looking over the WikiProject Physics quality scale, and I saw that one of its examples of mid-importance physics publications was actually a redlink. So, I created the page for Classical Electrodynamics, a.k.a. Jackson. Likewise, I started the page for Mike and Ike.
I put a little work into expanding and clarifying Gleason's theorem, and in the process, I found that we didn't yet have an article on Solèr's theorem, so I started one. I've also episodically worked on improving the article about the Bogdanov affair and the List of unsolved problems in mathematics. Finding illustrations for these was particularly fun.
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (list of math draft pages)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics
- I have grown to dislike the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS guideline, or at least, to find its invocation distasteful more often than not. "Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs!" goes the refrain, in one backroom after another. But is ignorance not a "great wrong"? Is the restriction of knowledge to the rich or the leisured not a "great wrong"? Is the perpetuation of superficialities and stereotypes at the expense of hard-won specialist expertise not a "great wrong"? In short, isn't the point of this whole project to "right a great wrong"? The words of the guideline themselves admit that it is redundant: our policies mean that "we can't ride the crest of the wave". NPOV, NOR and V already imply that "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." Having a capitalized shortcut that nominally just states this over again has created, probably unintentionally, a way to yell at anyone who cares too much. Are you honest about your passion for any topic that strays beyond a line of decorum that exists only in your critic's head? You're here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS!
- Being "the first X to do Y", where X is a historically marginalized group, is itself an argument for notability, because such individuals matter for understanding the history of Y. Individuals A and B might be documented to the same extent and have accomplishments that nominally look the same on paper, but B can be more noteworthy than A if A's attaining that level is ordinary while B's doing so is part of a larger social change.
- I think WP:PROF has been a very good thing for the encyclopedia. Being able to write about people because their work is important helps us be a better reference. That said, I have slowly become more convinced that the "WP:PROF is too strict" argument has substantial merit. It does rather come across that, say, an average professional actor is wiki-notable while an average professional scientist is not. (None of the proposals I have seen to address this, like granting wiki-notability to all tenured faculty at major institutions, would make me, personally, notable. I'm fine with that.)
- When people complain about "canvassing", quite often one or more of the following applies: (a) they sound upset that their kingdom is being invaded; (b) they appear to have no sense of how social media is used, and has been used for many years, in the relevant outside community; (c) they'e never been on the other side of a "canvassing" request and have no sense of how reluctant people can be to start editing here. SPA's, easily tagged and ignored, just aren't a problem I can get upset about.
On writing academic biographiesEdit
- Sources affiliated with an article's subject, like the university where they are employed, are generally acceptable for information that is not likely to be challenged, or for which a challenge would constitute a serious effort in investigative journalism. For example, it's fine to cite a department's own website for the year in which a faculty member was hired, and it's no problem to cite a person's own CV for the date they earned their PhD. Fraud on such documents is always possible, but we should assume them reliable unless substantial evidence exists to the contrary (e.g., if a CV lists membership in "honorary societies" that don't actually exist). Rooting out that kind of deception is (usually) not our job, and the encyclopedia as a whole benefits by our being able to write about people who don't have lengthy biographical profiles in secondary sources.
- That said, we're not a CV host. Lists of every grant won, every student mentored, every abstract for a conference talk — no, that's not what we do. A CV is typically list-based and all-inclusive, while we write prose and exercise a degree of editorial judgment.
- It can be pretty obvious when a biography is written by somebody who doesn't really know how academia works on the inside.
- The data points that can tip the balance towards passing WP:PROF might only deserve a brief mention in an actual article. It takes a sentence to state that a person won a major award or was Editor-in-Chief of a prestigious journal, while describing their work could take many paragraphs. The former establishes wiki-notability, but the latter is why the article would be worth reading.
- It is usually a bad idea to make a big deal out of research that hasn't been cited by anyone other than the original authors, even if it has technically been peer-reviewed. Remember, peer review is the opinion of a couple people, while citations are the opinion of a community. This matters both when evaluating wiki-notability to see whether an article should exist or not, and when deciding how much weight to give a topic within an article. The number of marginal ideas that the scientific community has not found interesting enough to criticize is far higher than outsiders realize.
Articles for DeletionatingEdit
I started skimming the daily "Articles for Deletion" log in order to broaden my horizons at least a little. Sometimes, I end up participating. The happy outcomes are when I can help improve a page to the point where it should plainly be kept. Instances of that general nature have included the following.
- Michael Perfit
- Ashley C. Ford
- Sarah Tuttle
- Nia Imara
- Witch hat
- Fermat's Last Theorem in fiction
- The Internet of Garbage
- Project Euler
- Ruth Currie-McDaniel
- Jay Gambetta
- Patricia Cheng
- Susan M. Dray
- Sabine Hossenfelder
- Online Etymology Dictionary
- Kyriacos A. Athanasiou
- Emily Riehl
- Nicholas Ingolia
- Tropical compactification
- Macaulay representation of an integer
- Sphere bundle
- Grae Worster
- Janet Asimov
- Dana Schwartz
- Hannah Gavron
- Murderous Maths
- UK Molecular R-matrix Codes
- Heather Joan Ross
- Tropical marine climate — amusingly, kept per WP:SNOW.
- Cine film
- Rejecta Mathematica
- Stanford Achievement Test Series
- Out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom
- Turing College, Kent
- Po-Shen Loh
- Victoria Arbour
- Patricia Louise Dudley
- p-adic quantum mechanics — discussion here
- Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
- Critical data studies
- Essentially unique
- Samantha Hall
- World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology — is it "Original Research" to say that this organization has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, meaning that links to it are regarded as spam?
- Wellington College of Education
- Seventh power — Is the smallest power for which Wikipedia does not have an article unusual, and therefore notable?
- Nakano's vanishing theorem
- Adjoint filter
- List of scattering experiments
- Gesine Manuwald
- Rachel Rosen
- Rosalind Thomas
Here are various other assorted discussions I took part in — some were kept and some deleted, but I didn't have much of a hand in the article text itself. This list is not exhaustive, only recording those items which I felt at the time I might have reason to refer to later.
- Anne Merwin
- Meredith Jones (author)
- Gertrud Schiller
- Andrew Chael
- Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics
- E. Michael Jones — Were I a mean(er)-spirited person, I would have advised keeping this article; his books received very few reviews, but they were quite entertainingly harsh.
- Postmodern mathematics
- Espen Gaarder Haug
- Judith Bailey
- Mike's Hard Lemonade Co.
- Quantum field of magnet
- Advanced wave/Mutual energy
- Feminist rhetoric
- Ujjawal Krishnam — Lots of text, with a passingly interesting bit where someone tries to use the ADS copy of an arXiv abstract as an "independent source from Harvard"
- Gish gallop
- Enlightenment in Western secular tradition
- List of powers of two
- Journal of Social & Psychological Sciences
- Identity and change
- Suppression of dissent — "Help, help, I'm being redirected!"
- Deborah Bial
- Parent–Rogic theorem
- Gina Barreca
- Belinda Ferrari
- Greg J. Marchand
- Mathematical constant Psi
- Multivariate quadratic random number generator
- List of cult films
- Spiral galaxy dynamics
- Invariance mechanics — kind of remarkable how long this one lasted without anybody noticing
- Jorja Leap
- Arthur Riedacker
- Emergent Communication
- Robert Vancina
- David Gordeziani
- Resistance force
- Los Angeles in popular culture
- Murray polygon
- Public domain film
- John Palmer (psychologist)
- Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute
- Detrended correspondence analysis
- Data-constrained modelling
- Constructal law
- Lucian Mocan
- Michael Taillard
- Random structure function, Bernoulli stochastics, Bernoulli space, Stochastic thinking, Stochastic prediction procedure, Stochastic measurement procedure, Quantification of randomness, Variability function, Ignorance space, Causal thinking — a walled garden
- Tricomplex numbers
- Zhisheng Niu
- Jason Lisle
- Generalized Noether's identity and non-classical Noether's conservation laws
- Infinite arithmetic sequence
- Law of the Universe — But what about the Law of the Galaxy?!!
- The Connected Universe
- Meiburg's paradox
- André Marchand (academic)
- Speciation (genetic algorithm)
- Prime Number Distribution Series
- Morphogenetic resonance
- Douglas Ulmer — incidentally interesting, perhaps, for what it shows about signs that one is an insider to mathematics
- Supersymmetric theory of stochastic dynamics
- ScienceWorld — "no flowers, by request" (merged into Wolfram Research)
- Charles T. Gidiney
- The Tetearing equation of organism growth
- Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory
- Jacob Barnett and The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius
- List of overlooked scientific innovators — In short, "Overlooked by whom?"
- Grafting number
- Johnston diagram
- Continuous quantum computation — not to be confused with Continuous-variable quantum computation, even though it will be (I hate scientific terminology sometimes)
- Alladi–Grinstead constant — a topic in the number theory of factorials
- Consequent to this, I proposed deletion of the page "Lueroth constant"
- List of sickle-cell disease researchers
- Limit of zero mass
- Theory of no-linguistic-absolutes
- Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number
- Retkes identities
- New Wittgenstein
- Chromatic Assesment in Education
Sweets and spiky thingsEdit
|The E=mc² Barnstar|
|For you assistance in making Bell test experiment more lay friendly — Preceding unsigned comment added by InformationvsInjustice (talk • contribs)|
|Thanks for your work to improve Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. North America1000 22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)|
|The Copyeditor's Barnstar|
|Super work on Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Rhadow (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)|
Oddities found while researchingEdit
According to the IMDb, Chris Tashima appeared as an uncredited extra in the Mechanical Universe episode "The Law of Falling Bodies," but I can't confirm that anywhere else. When I saw the movie Total Recall (1990), I knew that the clips that Doug Quaid sees on the monitor in the Rekall office (of Jupiter, Saturn and Mars) were from the Mechanical Universe title sequence. I figured that the moviemakers had licensed the footage. Nope: Caltech sued them for $3 million.
[QBism is] an interpretation, which everyone in the field admits explains the same facts as other standard interpretations, but in a way that seems compellingly but unprovably beautiful to a few people (I am not one of them, personally finding many-worlds and decoherence theory more beautiful). The multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics are not a sign of unfinished science, like continental drift or the solar neutrino problem, but rather a healthy part of the process of fitting our intuitions and concepts to nature, different blind men's descriptions of a beast stranger than any elephant. Like the multiple explanations of thermodynamic irreversibility, they will probably ultimately be seen as complementary, not one right and the others wrong. Already QBism has stimulated research, e.g. in SIC-POVM's, that one doesn't have to be a QBist to appreciate, and it has been commented on to a noteworthy degree in the popular press. 
- "Schools sue Carolco over 'Recall'". Daily Variety. 3 September 1992. p. 12.