Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Andrew Stacey
   Format: MarkdownItexWe have a wikipedia page! It's at [[wikipedia:nLab]]. Since its inception, it's survived a "speedy delete" challenge. (I have absolutely no idea of the rules of wikipedia editing so am definitely **not** encouraging anyone to go over and write great reams there. Maybe someone with a bit more experience can outline the pitfalls for me.) PS Note the wiki-link to wikipedia!

   We have a wikipedia page! It’s at nLab (wikipedia). Since its inception, it’s survived a “speedy delete” challenge.

   (I have absolutely no idea of the rules of wikipedia editing so am definitely not encouraging anyone to go over and write great reams there. Maybe someone with a bit more experience can outline the pitfalls for me.)

   PS Note the wiki-link to wikipedia!

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMichael Hardy
   • CommentTimeMay 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Michael Hardy
   Format: TextHere's one of the pitfalls: Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a "neutral point of view" (NPOV). That means you shouldn't write "Our magnificent site is called nLab." The word "Our" is inappropriate since people having nothing to do with nLab can contribute to the article and they can't call it "our site". "Magnificent" is not consistent with the sort of journalistic neutrality that is the goal. An article should assert that its topic is somehow "notable" in a way that justifies its inclusion (that's what the speedy-deletion proposal was questioning; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). There are style conventions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style). Don't try to read the whole manual. Just try to format an article like others you see there that have been worked on by a number of people; if you're a newbie you'll usually get pointers from others. There's also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics). DO NOT EVER begin an article by saying "Let H be a separable Hilbert space...." etc. First you need to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what it's about; you can't assume the lay reader has heard of a Hilbert space. You can start with "In mathematics, Xmith's theorem states that all bounded linear operators on a separable Hilbert space are purple", but you shouldn't say "In functional analysis, Xmith's theorem states...." etc., since that fails to tell the lay reader that it's not about psychology. The lay reader has heard of geometry, algebra, calculus, etc., but not of category theory, functional analysis, etc. I think "number theory" does the job even if the lay reader hasn't heard of that, since it's self-explanatory.

   Here's one of the pitfalls: Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a "neutral point of view" (NPOV). That means you shouldn't write "Our magnificent site is called nLab." The word "Our" is inappropriate since people having nothing to do with nLab can contribute to the article and they can't call it "our site". "Magnificent" is not consistent with the sort of journalistic neutrality that is the goal. An article should assert that its topic is somehow "notable" in a way that justifies its inclusion (that's what the speedy-deletion proposal was questioning; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability). There are style conventions (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style). Don't try to read the whole manual. Just try to format an article like others you see there that have been worked on by a number of people; if you're a newbie you'll usually get pointers from others. There's also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics). DO NOT EVER begin an article by saying "Let H be a separable Hilbert space...." etc. First you need to tell the lay reader that mathematics is what it's about; you can't assume the lay reader has heard of a Hilbert space. You can start with "In mathematics, Xmith's theorem states that all bounded linear operators on a separable Hilbert space are purple", but you shouldn't say "In functional analysis, Xmith's theorem states...." etc., since that fails to tell the lay reader that it's not about psychology. The lay reader has heard of geometry, algebra, calculus, etc., but not of category theory, functional analysis, etc. I think "number theory" does the job even if the lay reader hasn't heard of that, since it's self-explanatory.