Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I was just made aware of writing in the nLab by Todd Trimble on the category theory Zulip. I think this article should be updated to the current state of the nLab in 2025 (e.g. remark 1.1 should be removed because it isn’t true anymore). It should also be linked from the first section of the HomePage so that users have an idea what to do and what not to do on the nLab. I believe if it was accessible from the HomePage all these years, then we wouldn’t have had so many anonymous editors posting their original research on the nLab in the past few years.
Some small things will need updating, specifically the way that edits should be mentioned at the nForum, since the way the software works now is different. People should be encouraged to give a short and meaningful summary of their edits in the changes box.
Also the string theory stuff - who decided that physics articles on the nLab should be told from a “string theory point of view”?
I have no memory of this page.
But the page history shows that the mentioning of string theory was added by “Anonymous” in revision 10 in 2022. I have now reverted that edit.
FWIW, the page was started when we had a very busy editor who eventually got on our nerves (you’ll remember him, Urs: he went around injecting all sorts of footnotes and other marginalia, and also made a number of unsuccessful attempts to write about graph theory in the nLab), and I felt an urge to explain to him and others how things generally had successfully worked at the nLab.
I think it might be good to keep the page around, in case of others who stir up trouble (whether intentionally or not).
That page would have had been very useful a few months ago when we had an editor posting his original research on the nLab about type theory related stuff:
We could have simply pointed that editor at writing in the nLab instead of what we eventually did (added a rule requiring citations for additions to the nLab), which eventually showed itself to be too restrictive when it comes to category theory folklore.
Sure, that I remember.
Our latest episode with a rogue editor (“Anonymous/Anonymouse”) showed that after a couple of unsuccessful measures, what finally worked wonders was (much as I regret that this is the way it works): Group pressure. The moment several other contributors raised their voice, and then jointly so, he finally gave in (for the time being, at least).
Well, I don’t say that this page would, all by itself, be the prophylactic. But it’s something to point attention to, for people acting in good faith.
removed now false remark:
There is a uniform Joker name applied to those who don’t perform an edit under their own names: “Anonymous”. (This was originally “Anonymous Coward”, a joke.) An edit attributed to “Anonymous” could be a case of someone who didn’t submit under their real name because they forgot, or it could be someone who has good reason not to submit under their real name – whatever. It’s none of our business. We appreciate all the good edits made by the “Anonymous Cowards” out there just as we do those made by everyone else. However, we do encourage everyone to use their own name, or at least a consistent alias, if possible.
Tom Buchanan
I think I must have missed a discussion somewhere. There’s a disagreement that people sometimes do original research on the nLab?
It was in the wake of the notorious Anonymouse flooding the nLab with definitions that turned out to be pulled out of thin air, that users here emphasized the need for contributions to be justified. Some people asked for everything to be referenced to the literature, which is however not what we want. The way I ended up phrasing it at HomePage (in one of the latest edits, you can check the threads and page histories if you missed all that):
follow common academic practice of substantiating your edit: Either justify it by citing relevant literature or else provide relevant proof (for claims) or other sanity checks (e.g. when introducing new definitions or terminology).
To be clear: We certainly don’t want to ban original research. But since the pool of contributors is growing, it needs to be said that original material needs to be substantiated according to common academic standards (by a proof, a plausibility check, etc.).
(In the old days this went without saying, but it’s good to say it.)
Right, problems with certain individuals do crop up now and them. I’ll see whether I can find that discussion, but since I’m here now, I don’t think a blanket ban on all original research in the nLab (meaning, for me, writing up material that might not otherwise appear in publication) is necessarily a wise idea.
Originally, it was held to be one of the things that distinguished the nLab from Wikipedia.
Edit: written before I saw Urs’s last comment.
Okay, I was not aware of the newer change to the HomePage; last time I saw, it still had a note saying that citations were required.
Added back in the comment about original research, along with another comment about how the original research needs some justification / sanity check:
We also may conduct some original research, quite unlike Wikipedia. Said original research follows common academic practice of substantiation, either by justifying the original research by citing relevant literature or else by providing relevant proofs (for claims) or other sanity checks (e.g. when introducing new definitions or terminology).
Tom Buchanan
Thanks, Tom!
The contents of How to get started has been deleted and replaced with a link to HowTo in 2022 by Urs Schreiber, see
https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/14829/how-to-get-started/?Focus=101328#Comment_101328
Tom Buchanan
1 to 20 of 20