Re: Please help with wikipedia's article on Arabic Numerals that's falling victim to vandalism


Proginoskes wrote:
> casiocult...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > [...]
> > At this moment there two versions of the page that are being reverted
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&oldid=30788115
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_numerals&oldid=30788028
> >
> > One of them is, in all fairness, citing verifiable and reliable sources
> > (ie, scientific and academic, by professors and doctors on the topic of
> > mathematics and history of science) and doing so on a point-by-point
> > basis, with almost a citation for every significant piece of
> > information provided that is linked to and can be checked by the
> > reader. The page also links at the end of the article as its first
> > external reference to a paper titled "The Development of Hindu-Arabic
> > and Traditional Chinese Arithmetic" by Professor Lam Lay Yon, member of
> > the International Academy of the History of Science". This page still
> > needs some work to fill in the gaps, but as it's careful to be accurate
> > and verifiable it takes time, as well as the unpleasant fact that its
> > editors have to face an onslaught of a disruptive activism against
> > their efforts.
> >
> > The other version of the page is, in all fairness, lacking in citations
> > on a point-by-point basis, its first external reference linked to is a
> > personal weblog with the title of "Laputan Logic: Fanciful.
> > Preposterous. Absurd." that lists no author in its about section, has
> > quite a manifest and obvious bias that can be estimated to be Hindu
> > Nationalist or Hindu revisionist, contains many factual errors,
> > examples of which are discussed here and elsewhere on the talk page.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_numerals#Vertaloni.2C_examples_of_errors_in_your_version
>
> This is one of the problems with creating an encyclopedia that anyone
> and his brother can add information to. And this is also why I try to
> direct people away from Wikipedia and towards more neutral and
> established site (such as MathWorld).
>
> "The ability to type on a computer terminal is no guarantee of sanity,
> intelligence, or common sense." --- Spaf's Axiom of Usenet #2
>
> --- Christopher Heckman

I'm becoming convinced that unless it has strict editorial control then
Wikipedia is destined to perpetual failure. It's one thing devoting a
little of my time to a public cause, it's another to be wasting it in
"dispute" with unreasonable idiots who won't admit to their
demonstrable errors and won't back up their claims with evidence.

You spend a considerable amount of your valuable time researching the
literature, citing soruces, and so on, and what happens after a couple
of days? The idiots have been at it again and it's a mess.

I'm sure that anyone whose time is worth anything won't want to waste
it on Wikipedia.

But it's a dilemma, Wikipedia is becoming quite popular, on many topics
it's the first Google result returned. Do you leave it to the idiots to
spread their nonsense uncontested?! But again, if you do, they won't
admit to error, and given their evident idiocies they probably have
nothing better to do. What would you tell your mentor on your monthly
meeting with him; that you had been wasting time over the past month in
virtual arm-wrestling with unknown idiots on Wikipedia?!?! What a shame
that would be.

.

Relevant Pages