vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5PYtul5aU
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. |
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5PYtul5aU
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. |
|
|
Herr Haber
International Hazard
Posts: 1236
Registered: 29-1-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Do they at least document the reasons for removing your contribution ?
|
|
|
crystal grower
Hazard to Others
Posts: 474
Registered: 3-1-2016
Location: Os Petrosum
Member Is Offline
Mood: Puzzled
|
|
Metric, no diggity.
|
|
|
zwt
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 1-8-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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]
|
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5PYtul5aU
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. |
|
|
JJay
International Hazard
Posts: 3440
Registered: 15-10-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
I think the concern is that your approach to this is inappropriate, not that we should be using furlongs and half-barrels.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
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.
|
|
|
vmelkon
National Hazard
Posts: 669
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation
|
|
| 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA5PYtul5aU
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. |
|
|
zwt
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 1-8-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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]
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
:
