Re: [Phys-l] physics lessons from wikipedia

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 03/11/2010 02:39 PM, chuck britton wrote:

>  To the best of my knowledge, a 
> correction is seldom, if ever, overridden. This could result in a 
> topic being moderated, as are touchy political/social issues etc. 
> Physics hasn't yet descended to this level of rancor.

If you want an innnteresting experience, try correcting 
the "entropy" article.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

The number of wikipedia "contributors" who have an axe
to grind and/or have no idea what they're talking about
are vastly more numerous -- and have more time on their
hands -- compared to the folks who might be able to
inject some facts and some perspective into this article.

I have personally edited this article to lead off with
a definition of entropy in terms of probability, and was
praised by others for my contribution ... but it was soon
ripped out.

Even the article
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28statistical_thermodynamics%29

which does lead off with a reasonable statement of the
workhorse formula 
  S = - k ∑ p log p             [1]

before long turns around and emphatically defines 
  S = k log (multiplicity)      [2]

on the authority of Boltzmann, which would a nakedly
unscientific appeal to authority even if Boltzmann
had disagreed with equation [1], which he did not.

And then there is
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28energy_dispersal%29
which is IMHO unmitigated axe-grinding.  It is a
completely non-even-handed discussion of a topic
that is (to say the least!) controversial and IMHO
complete nonsense.

And don't get me started about the "scientific method"
article:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

=============

If you can inject some sense into these important,
fundamental articles, that would be great.  But I'm 
not holding my breath.