Improving Wikipedia Coverage of Computer Science

Pickens writes "MIT computer scientist Scott Aaronson has an interesting post on how to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theoretical computer science. Aaronson writes what while Wikpedia will never be an ideal venue for academics because 'we're used to (1) putting our names on our stuff, (2) editorializing pretty freely, (3) using "original research" as a compliment and not an accusation, and (4) not having our prose rewritten or deleted by people calling themselves Duduyat, Raul654, and Prokonsul Piotrus,' he identifies twenty basic research areas and terms in theoretical computer science that are not defined on Wikipedia, and invites readers to write some articles about them. Article suggestions include property testing, algorithmic game theory, derandomization, sketching algorithms, propositional proof complexity, arithmetic circuit complexity, discrete harmonic analysis, streaming algorithms, and hardness of approximation. One commenter suggests that professors should encourage students to improve the Wikipedia articles about topics they are studying. 'This will help them understand the topic and at the same time improve Wikipedia.'"

Comments

Good to see...

[E IS mC(Square)]

It's good to see that somebody in academics is appreciating the importance and usefulness of Wikipedia, instead of ranting about inaccuracies and trolls.

Now let's resume our program of bashing Wikipedia.

Re:Good to see...

[Seth Kriticos]

Hey, leave my favorite massively multilayer on-line editing game alone you insensitive clod!

tagged !encyclopedia

[Culture20]

it is apparently wrong and evil to have the person directly responsible for the research itself to be included in the creation of encyclopedia content about said research.

Good thing Wikipedia is a Wiki and not an encyclopedia then.

Re:tagged !encyclopedia

[ShakaUVM]

>>The way they reject things for being non-notable (as if there was a lack of space in wikipedia) and the other rules they fling at people sometimes

Look, if we fill up Wikipedia with totally non-notable theoretical computer science stuff, then we'll run out of room for our highly detailed, referenced, verifiable pages on every episode of the Simpsons made, ever.

Re:tagged !encyclopedia

[Raenex]

The way they reject things for being non-notable (as if there was a lack of space in wikipedia)

Yeah, I really hate that. I was trying to publish my research about how (1/0 * Infinity) proves the existence of God, but they deleted my page. Bastards. They're in cahoots with all the journals too.

Re:Don't bother

[Anonymous Coward]

Mob mentality rules on a social encyclopedia. If 1 experts knows something to be true, 100 idiots who agree with each other can rewrite their own version of that truth.

Re:what

[Daniel Dvorkin]

p=np is a classic theoretical computer problem that has never been solved

"Let n = 1."

There you go. Why do people get so worked up about this?