/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13675489

2MiB, 1524x5912, ScienceSummary_2021_August_EN.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 23 Sep 22:43:45 2021 No.13675489 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13675955 >>13676776 >>13676784 >>13677809 >>13677818 >>13679555 >>13684436

Let's talk about last month in science.
Any major papers/developments missing here?

Why are so few people integrating such scientific knowledge into Wikipedia? And why isn't science like this being covered in common newscasts on TV and in paper-newspapers?

What do you think of current scientometrics and current ways research is evaluated, selected/popularized and incentivized? I mostly check scienceopen.com - what are some similar sites to find top papers or for general open science?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 01:35:13 No.13675955 Report

Quoted By: >>13676910

>>13675489
Wikipedia is irredeemably political.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 07:58:28 No.13676776 Report

Quoted By: >>13681413

>>13675489
Wikipedia is a failed project. It was, from 2001-2006, a great experiment in collaborative writing, but it failed on the moderatorship, and from 2007-2010, it closed itself off, and became impossible to edit and impossible to expand, and dominated by deletionist minded bureaucrats who prevent it from fulfilling its mission. It assigns moderatorship by elections, and the elections select tiers of hierarchical administrators, culminating in the ArbCom, which is a big mistake. This turns it into a totalitarian democracy, like the Soviet Union. The ArbCom is like the politburo, and you need to tow the line to stay in the organization. Anyone who is politically slightly less than popular, or has a strange idea, is marginalized, ostracized, and finally blocked. This is a catastrophe, as this means that ridiculous rules, narrowly interpreted, are now used to prevent people from writing things that disseminate knowledge in the encyclopedia. The rules are stupid, and it was always clear they were stupid, but they were expanded and became more draconian with time, with the main phase transition in 2007. We've already been through this political process before, as humans, it's in the collective memory, it's the exact same political catastrophe that happened in the Soviet Union.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 07:59:01 No.13676779 Report

Quoted By: >>13676910 >>13681413

The only solution is to scrap the site, fork it, and start over with a new political system. In order to smash through a consensus, you need to respect minority positions, and allow them space to gather arguments, be heard, and when they are correct, to displace majority positions. This only happens under conditions of total freedom, and ability to fork. You can't do it by consensus processes, and there are cases, like biogenic petroleum, where the consensus is brain dead. So you need to constantly allow forking, challenge, and a procedure for the fork to win over the main page. This cannot happen on Wikipedia, it is permanently stuck in its politburo stage, so there is really nothing to do with it anymore. It still has good content, almost all from before 2007, which can be freely used in a later fork.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1611831110489.jpg, 15KiB, 360x115

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 07:59:39 No.13676784 Report

Quoted By:

>>13675489
>Why are so few people integrating such scientific knowledge into Wikipedia?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO temp_.png, 185KiB, 1176x1176

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 08:56:38 No.13676910 Report

Quoted By:

>>13675955 In the sense that it also has info about political matters and informs about all major sides of political contention etc.

>>13676779 Scrapping the site is not a solution as it is and keep being used by many/most. Filterbubblepedia certainly isn't a solution. One more reason for that ia that it would inhibit all major/relevant/important points to be informed about (neutrally) within one article.
I agree with your point about minority info but WP already is supposed to be that way: see /WP:NODEMOCRACY

The problem of Wikipedia is a lack of editors and a lack of will of those seing problems there to actually help fix them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 10:48:48 No.13677180 Report

Quoted By: >>13677189

redpill me on personal carbon allovance

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 10:56:28 No.13677189 Report

Quoted By: >>13677554

>>13677180
It works like this:
You're only allowed to have a certain amount of public utility electricity, water and fuel per month because that is proportional to the amount of carbon emissions generated by you (by proxy) and you're only allowed to generate X amount per month.
BUT
You can buy carbon credits to offset your consumption.
So the rich can continue being rich while enjoying their well earned lifestyles and the poor can still go get fuckd.

All is well.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO montreal_.png, 1021KiB, 6576x6576

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 14:10:12 No.13677554 Report

Quoted By:

>>13677189
>BUT
>You can buy carbon credits to offset your consumption.
>So the rich can continue being rich while enjoying their well earned lifestyles and the poor can still go get fuckd.

Indeed, this could be a way this gets implemented. And this is why people need to get informed about it. Politicians would definitely screw this up by default.

For example there could be a maximum amount to offset and/or you need good reasons to be permitted to go above a certain limit etc. Also the poor could become affluent by this if they act sustainably. So this would alleviate inequality and increase affluence but still adress the problem of increasing wealth leading to higher carbon footprints as can be seen in China where once poor people now can afford lots of e.g. meat and travel.
Btw it could also apply to anonymized consumption of most products and services as well as those people running (multinational) companies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 15:37:55 No.13677809 Report

Quoted By: >>13678100

>>13675489
>SCIENTISTS
>SCIENTISTS
>RESEARCHERS
>SCIENTISTS
Fucking seriously? I'm at the point where I dismiss any fucking headline that does this shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 15:40:24 No.13677818 Report

Quoted By:

>>13675489
>You WILL have a fecal transplant for dessert after your insect burger, goy!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 43587_2021_93_Fig12_ESM.png, 1MiB, 2120x1112

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 16:56:37 No.13678100 Report

Quoted By: >>13679572

>>13677809
What would you propose? There's reasons for that: more specific labels aren't as accurate as most of these studies are results of interdisciplinary research, so I'm only rarely using e.g. "Biologists" (mostly just "astronomers").
The results aren't described without an introductory phrase like "a study finds/scientists report" because that would make it seem more like the results are completely definite, established and confirmed rather that (just) their results. E.g. other scientists usually still could produce results that partly contradict what an earlier study concluded.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Future_lagrange_mission_ESA3864782.jpg, 732KiB, 3840x2160

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 23:01:10 No.13679555 Report

Quoted By:

>>13675489 The sources (& monthly newsletter) are here: https://mailchi.mp/4345cd0237c2/orapfn1bn4

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 24 Sep 2021 23:05:49 No.13679572 Report

Quoted By: >>13682772 >>13684200

>>13678100
If your field isn't well defined, isn't that a fucking problem? What do I propose? Cite what their field of expertise is in. For example,
>Astronomers detect X
>Biologists measure X
>Physicists found blah blah
>Mathematicians think
>Orthopedics say ...
Etc. Otherwise you open yourself up to bullshit like
>EXPERTS FIND VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
Except it's an except in chiropractic care without a medical license. Or
>Scientists say Republicans are stupid
Except it's a bunch of therapists with no actual scientific training. In short, WHO are these scientists? Leftists fags love to shit on and deboonk Republicans cited "experts" all the while hide behind nebulous buzzwords of SCIENCE SCIENCE RESEARCH. Makes me fucking sick.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Sep 2021 12:46:03 No.13681413 Report

Quoted By: >>13682772

>>13676776
>Wikipedia is a failed project.
I can confirm. I was a contributor until about 2004 when I ran into trouble with deletionists. It is telling that instead of one Wikipedia we not have a huge fragmentation of multiple wikis. What is needed is a distributed pedia where a cabal cannot take full control

>>13676779
>start over with a new political system
Hard. The iron law of the oligarchy will inevitably strike back.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO OCP07_Fig-6.jpg, 168KiB, 600x473

Anonymous Sat 25 Sep 2021 20:03:14 No.13682772 Report

Quoted By: >>13682839

>>13679572
I'll try to name the fields more often from now on. In this summary one could only have changed it for 2 items (the microbiome one & the Internet one) because all the other ones were way too interdisciplinary. The problem with saying "astronomers detect" etc is that this didn't occur on that date/during that month - it's just when it was reported / the study was finalized and released. Sometimes that's many years after detection (and it's supposed to be as accurate as possible).

>>13681413 This would be worse than the huge fragmentation of Linux. Instead what is needed is more editors / getting more people onboard (including back on board and keeping existing editors). There are already are other Wikis like Wikia and it's good that there's only one Wikipedia because that inhibits filter bubbles and gets people to improve/expand or create the page (or at least to complain about it on some talk page) instead of simply sheltering elsewhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Sep 2021 20:27:23 No.13682839 Report

Quoted By: >>13683517

>>13682772
>This would be worse than the huge fragmentation of Linux.
That fragmentation works.
>Instead what is needed is more editors / getting more people onboard (including back on board and keeping existing editors).
That will only add more of what gave us the problem in the first round. Some of the "editors" appear to be on the lower end of the spectrum and monitor "their" articles 24/7 and will instantly revert what you did. Without ejecting or de-powering these psychos we will get nowhere.
>There are already are other Wikis like Wikia and it's good that there's only one Wikipedia because that inhibits filter bubbles and gets people to improve/expand or create the page (or at least to complain about it on some talk page) instead of simply sheltering elsewhere.
We have to try other models. Going along the lines of the fragmentation you mentioned above, we could see Wikipedia like Debian, an OK aggregation of stuff but otherwise too autistic and buried in its own navel. The real use comes downstream, in distros like Ubuntu that are made for real and functioning humans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Sep 2021 00:13:12 No.13683517 Report

Quoted By: >>13684854

>>13682839 If you made good points on the talk page AND there were more editors this wouldn't be a problem. And it's not a problem as big as you make it seem.
Kind of rehashing Wikipedia content would make sense...but imo only as far as adding media that can't be hosted on WP due to license issues or making media like infographics or videos out of WP articles (which is somewhat what I tried to do; I stopped making videos now). Other than things like that please also consider that even changes to Wikipedia's software are possible so WP itself is what one should try to improve if one intends to make real change (there could be sites to kind of betatest such changes though).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Sep 2021 06:18:07 No.13684200 Report

Quoted By:

>>13679572
Based beyond belief

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Sep 2021 08:46:31 No.13684436 Report

Quoted By:

>>13675489
Here's some other science from last month that's pretty significant too:

>Researchers discover new strategy for developing human-integrated electronics
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-strategy-human-integrated-electronics.html

>New tool enables mapping of protein interaction networks at scale
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-tool-enables-protein-interaction-networks.html

>Apple can scan your photos for child abuse and still protect your privacy
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-apple-scan-photos-child-abuse.html

>Combining perovskite with silicon, solar cells convert more energy from sun
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-combining-perovskite-silicon-solar-cells.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Sep 2021 12:36:18 No.13684854 Report

Quoted By:

>>13683517
>If you made good points on the talk page
I did
>AND there were more editors
ASSUMING it would not be more of the same. Deletionists operate in groups.
>this wouldn't be a problem.
I am not convinced.
>And it's not a problem as big as you make it seem.
The problem was sufficient for me to leave.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches