Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Poll: Wikipedia metric vs old stuff
Yes, I want metric and imperial on all articles --- 9 (28.13%)
Yes, I want metric only --- 19 (59.38%)
Yes, I want imperial only -- 0 (0%)
I don't care --- 1 (3.13%)
I don't want either of those --- 1 (3.13%)
I don't understand the issue --- 2 (6.25%)

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Wikipedia metric vs old stuff
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 602
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 07:53
Wikipedia metric vs old stuff


This post is about wikipedia.org, not the wiki at sciencemadness.

With regards to wikipedia articles, do you want metric and the other old thing, I guess it is called imperial english and USA, to be present on all articles?

There are a lot of articles that are imperial only.
If I add the metric version, someone deletes them as if he is the article boss.




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2909
Registered: 15-10-2015
Location: Western Hemisphere
Member Is Offline

Mood: planning a semi-novel acetonitrile synthesis

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 08:25


There's little to be gained about arguing over metric vs. Imperial on Sciencemadness. You should take this up with Wikipedia if there is an issue with it.



This is my YouTube channel: Extreme Red Cabbage. I don't have much posted, but I try to do nice writeups once in a while.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 602
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 08:48


I don't know who is the manager or authority at wikipedia.
It seems to be community oriented.

The problem with that is that there are articles that are rarely visited by the majority of the public.
In other words, 1 or 2 people edit it.
If I come in and edit it, they remove my edits.

With the science community working together, I think we can change the world, one piece at a time.




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Herr Haber
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 167
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 09:20


Do they at least document the reasons for removing your contribution ?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
crystal grower
National Hazard
****




Posts: 440
Registered: 3-1-2016
Location: Os Petrosum
Member Is Offline

Mood: Puzzled

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 10:45


Metric, no diggity.



Elements collected:31/92
Last acquired: Co
Check out the ScienceMadness Wiki: http://www.sciencemadness.org/smwiki/index.php/Main_Page
Also make sure to check out my and hegi's website :) :
http://pieceofscience.com
Thanks.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
zwt
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 84
Registered: 1-8-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 12:03


They already have a guideline for this: WP:UNITS.
They also have a policy about what you're trying to do now: WP:MEAT.
If you have a problem with a guideline, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page.

Assuming you're this Vmelkon, I see metrication edits from this year to one article where you were reverted, followed by a discussion on the article talk page where you admitted you were mistaken. That's standard procedure, and it worked, considering your edit introduced errors.
Can you point out a specific edit where you think you were unjustly reverted?

P.S. They also use IUPAC spelling on science articles.

[Edited on 15-2-2017 by zwt]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2909
Registered: 15-10-2015
Location: Western Hemisphere
Member Is Offline

Mood: planning a semi-novel acetonitrile synthesis

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 14:17


Just FYI, you don't write in.2 for square inches in formal documents like you would with centimeters, decimeters, etc.; it's considered bad style.



This is my YouTube channel: Extreme Red Cabbage. I don't have much posted, but I try to do nice writeups once in a while.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 602
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 16:50


Quote: Originally posted by zwt  
They already have a guideline for this: WP:UNITS.
They also have a policy about what you're trying to do now: WP:MEAT.
If you have a problem with a guideline, you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page.

Assuming you're this Vmelkon, I see metrication edits from this year to one article where you were reverted, followed by a discussion on the article talk page where you admitted you were mistaken. That's standard procedure, and it worked, considering your edit introduced errors.
Can you point out a specific edit where you think you were unjustly reverted?

P.S. They also use IUPAC spelling on science articles.

[Edited on 15-2-2017 by zwt]


I am not worried about MEAT. We aren't trying to push false information.

Yes, the article in question is Goldbeating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbeating

(Reverted to revision 721392972 by Library Guy (talk): Rv nonsense unit conversions. (TW))
by Andy Dingley.

-----------------
http://cn.hujiang.com/new/p601361/




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2909
Registered: 15-10-2015
Location: Western Hemisphere
Member Is Offline

Mood: planning a semi-novel acetonitrile synthesis

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 16:55


I think the concern is that your approach to this is inappropriate, not that we should be using furlongs and half-barrels.



This is my YouTube channel: Extreme Red Cabbage. I don't have much posted, but I try to do nice writeups once in a while.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 3664
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Maintaining a semblance of equilibrium

[*] posted on 15-2-2017 at 19:14


A couple of thoughts.

  • A few anonymous bodies on a Science forum just aren't going to have the leverage to make a difference. Our opinion is pretty much irrelevant here.
  • Wikipedia is built by people. As such it conforms to what people want -- within certain parameters anyway. What we are talking about is a matter of communication The specifics of the units adopted in different contexts will by and large be determined by the interested parties of those contexts. Karats for jewellery will be around for a while yet.
  • It has never been easier to convert between units as it is now. We are not talking about anything that is that complex: all other communication being clear.
  • Metrication has obvious benefits in the scientific community. This is why the metric system has been so widely adopted. There are some places where it has not been adopted and there are reasons (both good and bad) for this non-conformity. The units expression in Wikipedia including the editing joys you are experiencing is merely a manifestation of these same reasons.


I think it might be insightful to find out what units people on this board think in and how they process stuff. But the goal of that would be to improve our own communication. The poll above is not framed accurately enough to really give good information on the matter. Not to mention that such a poll uses the worst sampling method possible. Furthermore I think that in this particular case there are issues with the intent of the poll as well as the substance of it.

Now... What to click?
I like metric. Maybe option 2.
I like good communication. Maybe option 1.
I think this whole discussion is a bit hyperbolic. Option 6 perhaps.
Bugger it. i'm going for 4.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 602
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 16-2-2017 at 05:28


Quote:
A few anonymous bodies on a Science forum just aren't going to have the leverage to make a difference. Our opinion is pretty much irrelevant here.


We could always get other science forums involved as well.
I do not see a problem with that.

Quote:
Karats for jewellery will be around for a while yet.


I don't think we should replace karats with something else. I don't think we should replace foot by meters. Some people need the number in karats and some need some numbers in foot.
Some of us need those numbers as % and meters, therefore, we would add them.
Quote:
There are some places where it has not been adopted and there are reasons (both good and bad) for this non-conformity.


I did not remove the imperial, USA, or English version.
I added the metric system.
In your comment, you did not specify the problem.



Quote:
I think it might be insightful to find out what units people on this board think in and how they process stuff. But the goal of that would be to improve our own communication. The poll above is not framed accurately enough to really give good information on the matter. Not to mention that such a poll uses the worst sampling method possible. Furthermore I think that in this particular case there are issues with the intent of the poll as well as the substance of it.


I don't understand.
How do you want me to frame the poll?
What are the issues?
What are the issues with the substance of it?

You need to tell me exactly what the problem is. Please be crystal clear.
I'm not sure why you pick option 4 after making such a lengthy comment.
The people who picked 1 and 2 aren't leaving comments and that is a problem.




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
zwt
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 84
Registered: 1-8-2016
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 16-2-2017 at 10:50


Your one example was reverted (by two people) because your calculations were off, not because someone thought they were "the article boss". Try editing a few of the many, many other articles where you've noticed a lack of metric units, but use Template:Convert to avoid errors. I suspect the edits will stick this time.

Here is an excerpt from the UNITS guideline:
Quote:
Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses e.g. 200 kilometres (120 mi).

This is closest to "option 1". "Option 2", metric only, is currently favored, which is not surprising, given that this is an international science forum. Of course, it would be ridiculous to try to force the will of a small science forum onto an encyclopedia intended for the laymen of the English-speaking world. Per the guideline, SI units are already preferred on all articles without strong ties to the United States, and most units in either metric or US Customary should include conversions to the other.

Again, if you think the guideline should be changed, you need to open a discussion on the talk page for the guideline. Simply editing articles in a manner inconsistent with the guideline (for example, removing non-metric units from many articles) while the guideline stands would be considered disruptive and may result in sanctions.
I mention WP:MEAT because a sudden flood of editors with the same preferences but little-to-no Wikipedia experience will rightly rouse the suspicions of the experienced Wikipedia editors, potentially resulting in massive push-back against whatever you're trying to do, no matter how useful.

[Edited on 16-2-2017 by zwt]
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top