| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On 02/24/2013 10:37 PM, Chuck Britton wrote:
Can the WikiPedia article be improved?
Or is it more valuables as an object of derision?
The problem is that wikipedia is a moving target. This is a
lose/lose situation:
-- If you fix it, it might not stay fixed.
-- If you try to use it as an object of derision, it might
not stay broken.
At one point I fixed the wikipedia article on "Entropy".
I got a huge amount of positive, flattering feedback, saying
that it was both correct and easy to follow. Then a few weeks
later everything I had done was gone. It turns out that people
with a high-school-level exposure to the topic greatly outnumber
people who actually understand the topic, and they have a lot
more time on their hands.
At one point I tried to fix the wikipedia article on "Scientific
method". I was told by one of the official staff editors (not
merely some random contributor) that the article should reflect the
meaning of the term "as it is commonly understood by the general
public"
and that any effort to point out that real scientistsThis reminds me of my experience when I attempt to correct misapprehensions by HS teachers of, for example, general relativity. A U. prof. friend advised me that if I argued, I'd lose, as all the HS teachers would gang up on me, which they have.
consider this to be ludicrously incorrect would not be welcome.
So now you know why I choose to maintain my own site. Others are
free to choose differently.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scientific-methods.htm
http://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo/entropy.html
=================
As for the electrophorus topic: The following is a work in
progress. Right now it is about half finished:
http://www.av8n.com/physics/electrophorus.htm
IMHO it provides a good example of a real-world open-ended
question. Suppose somebody asks you what is an electrophorus,
and how does it work? By googling you can get a rough description
of its structure and general method of operation, but the explanation
of how it works is obviously bogus. So you start to wonder, how
does the thing actually work? Are there perhaps some important
components and/or procedures that have not been mentioned? Is
there perhaps a modified version that works better and/or is
easier to explain? Etc. etc. etc.
My explanation is not finished, but you can see where it is
going. It is markedly different than most of the other alleged
explanations out there.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
Josh VanDavier, Feb 24 04:28 pm (PST):
Hi Bernard,
Thank you so much for taking the time to respond! We're incredibly appreciative of your continued support and for your feedback about this video and its message. We hope to produce more small videos like this in the future in an effort to show everyone what Wikipedia is all about.
We'd like to continue sharing videos with you and hearing your opinion - it's only with honest and continued feedback that we can really make each of these videos the best it can be. We've put together a short survey (only 4 questions) which will add you to a select list of donors. From time to time we will send you videos that we're working on with the hope of soliciting your input - both positive comments and critiques. This isn't a mailing list to solicit more donations, simply for you to watch and give us your thoughts about our newest video messaging; this is just as valuable to us as a monetary donation.
Thank for your continuing support and belief in free knowledge, and we hope you join us!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CreativeFeedback2013
Sincerely,
The Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Team