Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:06, 2 August 2011

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1. Talk Re Previous Article - Deleted /Archive 2. Talk 24May11 Article-Edit War

Archives

Previous Talk Archived GenKnowitall (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on this Article as of 5 June 2011

There have now been two edit-wars over this topic (there should have been none). I anticipated this possibility when I entered with an article so look for no sympathy, but will conclude. While there are problems with the article I will proceed no further with revision and correction of it. The problem is not merely content, but article history demonstrates that the article cannot be effectively corrected in the Misplaced Pages editing environment.

In particular, prior discussion demonstrates something that should not happen in the field of Physics: refusal to discuss and collaborate, and abusive edit-war tactics intended to suppress collaboration and impose a viewpoint. What is particularly concerning that two admins actually participated in the last edit-war but failed to intervene to control obvious and even notorious sniping and disruptor conduct (one disruptor has been since banned by a third admin), and additionally took actions which were apparently arbitrary or biased (article lock). This admin conduct is not a solution to anything, it is itself a problem. This failure brings into question the editorial process of the Misplaced Pages, its supervision, and whether any serious person should attempt contributions in such a "foodfight" environment.

Concerning the article content, NO STUDENT SHOULD CITE OR RELY UPON THIS ARTICLE AS WRITTEN, for while there is some merit here and the content is worthy of an article, it reflects the poor process used to create it and, in my opinion, the article as of June 5 2011 is replete with problems, including original research, misrepresentation of authority, and a non-balanced view of subject. Students should refer to your appropriate text. In any event, Physics is about THINKING as clearly as possible, as deeply as possible, about understanding the natural world. That is the tradition of Newton, the tradition of Einstein, the tradition of Physics. You do not need to be a "Physicist" to do it, you merely need to THINK like one, and it is that training and refinement that creates physics and "physicists". Do that and you will be fine.

Unfortunately, this article's problems do not stand singularly, for I find many fundamental problems within Misplaced Pages articles, including Physics articles, problems of concept which are often hallmarks of STUDENT level understanding, scholarship, and analysis. There is nothing wrong with this either, for revealing misunderstanding or alternate views is what learning is all about. What is of grave concern is the abusive editing environment created by the Misplaced Pages itself in the administration of its supposed policies, practices which obstruct article editing. I say "supposed policies" because it is obvious that the practice does not match the professed policy, the "walk" does not match the "talk". This is not a failure of policies alone, but a clear a failure of people charged with administering them. Misplaced Pages is what it is, but an authoritative encyclopedia it proves it is not. Let us instead call it what it is, a COMPENDIUM of scribbling.

I will, for a brief time, respond to civil comment.

GenKnowitall (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For a start, no student should cite any Misplaced Pages article, full stop. Students should be taught where to find reliable sources, and Misplaced Pages cannot be one, by its very nature. It can however be a useful resource for finding reliable sources. As for the remainder of your comments, I have to ask whether you are proposing any substantive changes to the way Misplaced Pages works, or merely venting your frustrations? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics, maybe someone from there can help sort all this out. Herostratus (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for comments.

TO ANDYTHEGRUMP - I agree with your first three sentences, and reply to the last. I propose nothing, I am a mere messenger. There appears to be a gross disconnect between the policy and the practice. I am not the only one to have noticed it, but demonstrate it with a relatively clear example. I state only what is plain. Yet if there is a problem to fix I am not the one to propose or implement its solution, someone high will need to acknowledge it and examine how best to address it. GenKnowitall (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TO HEROSTRATUS- I made no complaint about physics, in any event its already been sorted, the article is the result. That is the process, that is the result. Anyway, Misplaced Pages Physics project is no authority for any proposition in physics or any other subject. For example, someone purporting to represent the group is assigning "importance" to subjects, don't you think that odd? Instead my comments went beyond physics to the heart of the Misplaced Pages, and that is where any response lies. So fear not my good Herostratus, physics survived the inquisition, it will survive the Misplaced Pages. The open question is whether the Misplaced Pages will survive the Misplaced Pages. GenKnowitall (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is not all that bad

considering other Misplaced Pages articles on elementary (highschool) concepts in Physics. The recognition of 2 general meanings is fine, though each of them could be presented with somewhat better understanding (simpler presentation, correction of minor errors etc.). For the case of a body in the field, the elementary story on ballancing (stable, indifferent ...) would be helpful especially for discussion of the inhomogenous field. For the case of the field source, it should be clarified that the unique CoG refers only to the selected observation point. And even in this form, I believe it deserves to be back in Wiki, and should have a link in the CoM article (which happens to be of a comparable quality).

As for the students (from the above discussion), some of them do and will use Wiki regardless of the teachers warnings. It would be nice if Misplaced Pages would provide some more pronounced disclaimers for these less academically inclined souls when they attempt to "fast google" some simple physics definition...--Ilevanat (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article IS APPALLING from the standpoint of balance, scholarship, clarity, and general presentation. The CM article is not much better, alas, but this isn't about that article. Instead THIS article violates nearly every fundamental policy of the wikipedia, (although those polices are obviously more for show than do). On the technical merits, for those who think center of gravity is really just the same concept as center of mass, that a google URL reference dump is scholarship, that misrepresenting and misunderstanding the teaching of a very fine scientist (ie Feynman), presenting a biochemist (Asimov) as a physics authority, treating popular science articles as representing a weight of authority by repetitively quoting them, ignoring and down-playng and deliberately bungling an 'opposing view' supported by authorities in the field, and other failings of the article rather too numerous to list much less correct... if all that is a "not all that bad"... well, I can only be thankful that science has always been blessed and advanced by a few capable thinkers even as they struggle for foothold in the great Mire of Stupid. Still, I'd like to at least say that this wasn't all that bad work "for a fifth grader", but even that mild approval refuses to pass my keyboard. The article doesn't even mention Newton! This isn't physics, it isn't teaching, it isn't knowledge, it isn't scholarship, it is... entirely something else. It is instead, apparently, the Brave New World. It is, apparently, the Misplaced Pages. GenKnowitall (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my disscusion lead to any missunderstanding regarding my general views on Misplaced Pages. I have just posted a contribution to the Village pump policy section, claiming that professionals should be motivated to edit Wiki articles if Misplaced Pages is ever to become an encyclopedia.

However, regarding the CG article, it appears (after reading the archived disscusion) that you are for some reason unwilling to recognize the fact that the term CG is generally used in two different meanings: a) as a point related to a body in an external field, and b) as a point related to the body that caauses the field. The current article covers both meanings, and that is why I think "it is not all that bad", although it should be significantly improved in the presentation of these meanings.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read my comments, then perhaps you did not understand them. They plainly and specifically were objecting to process, not content. I opposed no alternernative view, instead requested alternatives be presented and discussed. Look again, you will see. To that I can add that it may ALSO be, and let us assume arguendo there IS, a serious problem with the main article definition. Yet, because of a failure in process I cannot, as a practical matter, demonstrate it, and contribute to improve Misplaced Pages content directly. The flaw remains. No student may rely on Misplaced Pages, no serious scholar may cite it. So what is it?

As for professionals... we have journals, we have textbooks, we have teachers, we have a peer review system. Misplaced Pages is a populist attempt to end-run that system, but without the safeguards. It could still work, perhaps, including anonymously, but would have to have better trained admins to enforce disciplined editing process. They aren't. They don't. It fails. This article plainly demonstrates that . And there you are. GenKnowitall (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As a basic rule, nobody should ever rely solely on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a good place to start one's research, and find other trustworthy sources, but Misplaced Pages, a reliable source? It is not, and it never will be. That will be inherent in Misplaced Pages as long as IPs are allowed to edit this. Citizendium flopped, though they had a serious chance of being a trustworthy user-contributed encyclopedia. The problem with Citizendium is that nobody wants to join, although if we could somehow move every active, enthusiastic, smart, and registered user to Citizendium, I believe it would become a rival to Misplaced Pages. --Σ _contribs 07:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigma, you hold the wrong end of the stick. Its not that no student should rely solely on Misplaced Pages, but that they should not be allowed to access Misplaced Pages at all! Certainly I am serious. Only a master can use Misplaced Pages safely, and even then must keep their wits about them. All that twirling swordplay looks and is dangerous, especially for students, especially when the teacher is a fool. Students (and bystanders) are too precious to expend so. Rarely we are blessed with quick and original thinkers who need little, but mostly we have capable people who need to learn, to be formally trained, not just "Wikipedified". We are shown how in a structured way by an "authority" in the field, we learn the moves, carefully, in order, and practice until we become the master. An encyclopedia may "summarize" this "knowledge", but must in no circumstance subvert the learning process. Here, and for multiple reasons, Misplaced Pages fails disastrously. Here college students and young PhD's practice their twirling swordplay to an audience of peers before middle and high-school bystanders. No supervisor or mentor or responsible adult stands by to moderate and avert disaster. It isn't that students shouldn't rely on it, it is that they shouldn't even witness it. Its not that Misplaced Pages has failed its objective, it is that perhaps it should be shut down and those responsible executed as a continuing danger to their fellow man. Well, perhaps that is too far to go. Perhaps. Whether Misplaced Pages can evolve, or another structure supplant it, is to be seen, and even hoped. Despite my negative comments I still favor the idea of building a "Great Library" filled with treasure and accessible to all. But if the building is to be a trash heap containing all the refuse of the world's mind, then a razor and hot bath could seem a more worthy endpoint for man... GenKnowitall (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance