

Marathon Editing Brings New Rigor to Wikipedia Physics - JohnHammersley
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/foundation-news/marathon-editing-brings-new-rigor-to-wikipedia-physics/#st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/Ik43ACAtqN

======
mikro2nd
The real problem that WP's physics section suffers from is less "lack of
content" and much more one of accessibility to ordinary readers. (I'm looking
at you, Particle Physics!) Many of the articles are completely
incomprehensible to anyone with less than grad-level knowledge of the topic,
which sort of renders the whole exercise moot. An encyclopedia is meant to be
accessible to the ordinary intelligent reader -- say about high-school level.

I appreciate that much of the subject matter -- especially when it comes to
topics like Quantum Physics or Particle Physics -- is actually completely
counterintuitive and weird, and that it is only, really, properly described by
the math. Nevertheless, responding to comments requesting lay-level clarity
along the lines of "you won't understand it unless you get a PhD in it" is not
at all helpful, and merely reveals an attitude of arrogant superiority.

Many of the physics pages could really use the help of an editor who
_understands how to construct an $English sentence_ and is comfortable using
imagery and allegory to explain the concepts, even though those may likely be
inaccurate, misleading or technically wrong. Sadly those people usually don't
have the requisite knowledge of the subject.

Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are
doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"?

~~~
unstabilo
> Was it Einstein who said, "Any scientist who cannot explain what they are
> doing to an eight year old is a charlatan"?

No. It's commonly attributed to Einstein, but of course he didn't say that,
because he knew better. There are things you just can't explain at a certain
level. For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but
explained why not: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-
DwULM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM).

~~~
roghummal
>For example Feynman couldn't explain to a layman how magnets work, but
explained why not:

And it's possibly his failure, not some intrinsic property of MAGNETS WORKING
that's impossible to explain to laymen. In his own words,

"I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to
you."

"... because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're
familiar with."

~~~
Osmium
The trouble with fundamental forces is that they're fundamental. Trying to
explain them _in terms of_ something else is ultimately misleading (even
though this can work with literally almost everything else). So I'm
sympathetic to that specific question.

~~~
hga
You can get quite a distance if you start with electostatics, like charges
repel, opposite charges attract, which can be demonstrated with simple
apparatus.

That can get you a fair distance in describing gravity (it's like the attract
example, but _much_ weaker) and the strong nuclear force (very strong
attraction, but very very short range). That can then allow you to describe
atoms, electrons and the protons in the nucleus attract each other, but [waves
hands] not to the point they collapse into each other. And the nucleus, strong
force generally overpowers the repulsion of protons.

And at this point a quantum mechanics for poets for chemistry works fairly
well, it's not like any of that stuff makes intuitive sense anyway.

This doesn't contradict Feynman, of course, I can't say that I ever really
understood magnetism, and I've also left the weak force out, but as I
understand it you can wave your hands there and say it mediates beta decay.
But the above does help you describe and understand the fundamentals of a lot
of the universe, and much of what's important to you. Add Newtonian mechanics,
which _is_ pretty intuitive since we live in that world, and you're in fairly
good shape. For that matter, a fair amount of special relativity can be easily
added, the very basics of motion and the new definitions needed.

~~~
stan_rogers
_You can get quite a distance if you start with electostatics, like charges
repel, opposite charges attract, which can be demonstrated with simple
apparatus._

That really only answers the "what", though; it doesn't touch on the "why".

We can describe the attraction and repulsion, throw a precise mathematical
framework around it, describe how two or more things might just be different
aspects of (or viewpoints on) the same underlying phenomenon, even put names
and behaviours to the particle-like things involved, but when it comes right
down to it, nobody knows _why_ any of it should result in forces that tend to
move _physical things_ closer together or further apart.

And that's okay, but it does mean drawing a line _somewhere_ and saying "this
is fundamental (at least for now)".

------
techdragon
The article makes it sound like the usual tendency of Wikipedia to revert new
contributions was avoided but tellingly they point out not all of the changes
"stuck".

The fact that a coordinated gathering of __actual physicists __working
together on these pages had __anything __reverted is a telling example of the
poison that will eventually kill Wikipedia.

Without a coordinated list to see just which edits failed to stick I'm not
able to completely back my assertion. However I doubt that these people,
working in groups where they have many eyes proofreading and spellchecking at
once, were submitting the kind of changes with typos or other mistakes that
would be understandably rejected by Wikipedia.

~~~
snori74
Well, physicists are not necessarily perfect. The article says that "...the
group edited 51 existing physics pages, including Speed of Light...", but that
particular edit was this one:

 _Recently, there are some tests <1> on the upper limit of speed of light. The
test conducted by Zhang et. al showed that single photon still obeys speed
limit which is the speed of light no matter in normal material or fast
material. <1>Shanchao Zhang, J. F. Chen, Chang Liu, M. M. T. Loy, G. K. L.
Wong, and Shengwang Du, "Optical precursor of a single photon," Phys. Rev.
Lett. 106, 243602 (2011)._

And yes, it was reverted, with the comment "Poor wording. Perhaps someone with
access to the source can cast this into proper English?". (As always with
text-only communication, it's possible to read-in some snark, where none is
intended). I don't get the impression that this little factoid would have
greatly improved the article, but the poor wording would have degraded it.

The correct call I think.

Edit: formatting

~~~
DanBC
The correct approach is to fix the wording, not reject it completely.

It's not even that bad.

There have been problems with the speed of light article that required arbcom
measures; edit wars with a lot of talk page and ANI discussion, with some bans
for users.

It's not a surprise to me that edits to the speed of light article get
reverted.

~~~
roghummal
In my experience (outside Wikipedia) it's easier to shoot something down than
it is to fix it. There's a proxy effect where the thing you fixed becomes your
problem even when your fix has nothing to do with the (potentially future)
problem.

If this holds true for Wikipedia it'd make sense to see more rejections than
fixes. Let the person submitting it fix it. It's _their_ problem.

------
sparkzilla
The fact that they have to do this kind of "edit-a-thon" shows that Wikipedia
is not sustainable. Adding content shouldn't require extraordinary effort.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Good content does take a lot of effort to put in, people are to just going to
put it in by themselves. Wikipedia is sustainable, that's why it's still
around and the worlds most popular reference. The only feasible alternative is
private collections of knowledge opening up to the public. Now that's would be
ideal but it's not going to happen by itself either.

------
freethemullet
Where can I find complete list of the edited pages?

------
graycat
Simons did it again! Good results from brains, math, and money!

