Re: [Phys-L] definition of "power"

[Bernard Cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org>]

On 2014, Dec 01, , at 09:56, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

>  Note that I use wikipedia as a reflection of how the 
>  general population thinks, not as a source of objective
>  facts about the subject matter.  I have been told by 
>  wikipedia officials that this is how they /want/ it to be.


I suspect that the more esoteric the subject the more accurate, for example I’ve not suspected any error in horological articles, even ones of more general interest, such as the pendulum.

bc  thankful he’s usually interested in only esoteric articles, including “advanced” maths., and wonders if French, German, Scandinavian, etc. general articles have the same errors.  


p.s.  I think the wiki people should preface every article w/ the above caveat.  (population thinks).   Obviously this is the case, as the public write, and rewrite!, the articles.  An article in the "New Yorker”, claimed that crowd knowledge was a source of truth with some examples (mainly, IIRC, economic).  Well ….., obviously general physics is an exception.  A class room exercise:  Find the errors in wiki. physics articles.  

p.p.s John, et alii, have you found articles on such as, Hartree-Fock, fine structure, Bose-Einstein condensation, etc. rife w/ error?