User talk:Milton Beychok

Milton Beychok

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

 Where Milt lives it is approximately: 09:46

Guidance sought on Astrophysics article and creating a 'dating' article

Dear Milton: Thank you for the email notifications. John Brews has also left a pleasant note on my User talk page. It's a little intimidating observing the tremendous achievement among contributors, such as yourself and John. As a technician and later an engineer working night shift much of his professional life I cannot claim such distinction.

The Astrophysics article has an error which seems elementary to me, though. Discussing the density of ordinary and dark matter, it states in effect that $W_{B}+W_{D}<1\,$; essentially, that both put together aren't sufficient to close the universe. And yet it says this means that "if that is all there is, the universe would eventually stop expanding and collapse". Isn't this exactly the opposite of what's intended?

Most of my professional contributions related to analysis of other people's designs of boilers, pressure vessels etc. to the usual industry standards (ASME VIII,1 and BS5500). As such they are hardly original, though for lifts and cranes I actually wrote my own space frame code on an old HP 9845B; and now I think about it, a special bit of code which did a thin-plate finite element analysis of heat exchanger endplates. This was quite primitive by modern standards (I had to create the mesh by hand, for example).

Such computational shortcuts allowed me to certify some designs as safe - or otherwise, in the case of certain French cranes built to a Norme Française, which were probably perfectly designed but which were a bit too cutting edge for me. Either they weren't conformal with the usual ASME or BS standards, or there was some special threat (like earthquake or wind loading).

So I was at one time fairly technically proficient in my field(s) but except for the 1986 Lift (elevator) code for NZ, not the author of anything like a reference work. With one exception: I did actually once get co-opted into writing a paper jointly with two other gentlemen on carbon dating (I had skills in signal processing which they lacked). One project I had in mind when joining Citizendium was to write about the calibration stochastic distortion associated with nonlinearities in radiocarbon decay.

But there's no radiocarbon dating article I can add to! There is one in Wikipedia, though it's patchy. Should I create a new one?

Also, should I include a mathematical formula with LaTeX? When it comes to LaTeX my favourite shortcut is to import LaTeX into AbiWord but that converts it to MathML. Besides I've never created an article before, let alone one with equations in it.

--Terry Richard Linter Cole 10:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Terry, I have no expertise whatsoever in astrophysics, so I cannot help you regarding the Astrophysics article. At the moment, I am very busy with other matters and I suggest that you contact John Brews with all of your above questions.

However, I will tell you that any mathematics should be either in LaTeX or html ... with LaTeX being preferable. Also, we have a policy against importing WP articles. So, if you want to write an article about radiocarbon dating, please create a new one.

Again, please contact John Brews with your above questions. You might also contact Daniel Mietchen who is one of our active Physics editors. Regards, Milton Beychok 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You might to check these contributions

Milt I sent a message to a Constable to review these contributions but since you are online you might want to take a look. The contributions are from a new contributor so I am sure he needs a bit of guidance. See: [[1]] Thanks for checking this out. Mary Ash 04:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Assistance on photographs´ authors

Regards, Mr. Beychok. I am the new man in the town, and I published the article White Argentine in this encyclopedia, and I uploaded many photos that are planned to appear in it. Most of them are from Wikipedia, and they are in Public Domain according to Argentine law. Nevertheless, I have found hard to get the name(s) of their author(s). For example, a very well know photo of F1 car racer [Juan Manuel Fangio taken in 1952]; I looked it up in a collection named "Photograph in Argentine History" published by Clarín newspaper from my country, where most photos had their sources and authors, and it displays the label "Unidentified author". In the case of photos taken from Argentina Presidency official site, they are all credited to the official photographer of the Casa Rosada, but there are others taken by anonymous contributors to Wikipedia whom I cannot get their names. Other photos of Argentine Presidents from the XIX century have a similar difficulty, for they only display the history book they were taken from, all the sources for ALL the photos appearing in that book. Other authors here adviced me to contact you for guidance. Thanks for your attention. --Pablo Martín Zampini 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, I am sorry but I have too many other matters to attend to at the moment. Please discuss your problems with one of our Constables and ask them to contact Stephen Ewan who set up Citizendium's original policies on images imported from Wikimedia Commons. As I recall, his policy stated that we must obtain the real names of the image creators for any images imported from either Wikimedia Commons or from Flickr. Lacking a real name, then I would guess that the name of an entity like a U.S. government agency, a company name, a museum name, etc. should be sufficient.

I repeat, ask one of our Constables to contact Stephen Ewan ... or perhaps Larry Sanger, our original founder. I am fairly sure that the constables should be able to contact one of them. Milton Beychok 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Apollo program

Hello hello. I actually happened to read about half the article few days ago because it was so well written. There was quite a bit of fun and excitement in seeing the story unfold in the context of the Cold War rivalry. I want to read all of it again, actually. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 12:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Definition of 'billion' in Apollo program

Milton, Note #1 in Apollo program defines 'billion' as 10⁶. I just checked my American bank account balance and it reads 10⁹ for 'billion'. ;) Anthony.Sebastian 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony ... I goofed. Milton Beychok 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I love what you've done with the Apollo program. Reads with grace, style, and coherence. I will continue to try adding a little value, just to be part of something great. Anthony.Sebastian 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the gallery subpage? I could add more photos ... what do you think? Milton Beychok 00:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Apollo program/Gallery

Milton, nice work with the gallery. Can you think of a way, in the main article, to either:

• link to a specific image, perhaps by number or image-specific tag, allowing referral to specific images throughout the text
• create a link that, with mouse-over, pops up the image in a small pop-up window, allowing reader to see an image to illustrate a text statement, obviating need to include image permanently in the article

I use Firefox as my default browser, with the 'Cool Previews' add-in. When I mouse-over a link, external or internal, Cool Previews gives an icon to click to pop-up the linked page in a pop-up small, sizable window that disappears when you roll out of it. You never leave the main article page. Anthony.Sebastian 02:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

New functions should really be accomplished with templates (and I don't have the faintest notion how to write them) and should work for any browser. After all, not everyone uses Firefox and, those that do, may not have the same add-ons.

I think it boils down to creating some templates or creating an add-on to our MediaWiki software. You would do much better to take this up with either Daniel Mietchen, Peter Schmitt or Dan Nessett ... all of whom know a great deal about how to create templates. Milton Beychok 02:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Obtaining article approval

Hi Milt:

I observe that you are usually eager to obtain final approval for articles you write. I'd like to discuss the utility of this process with you.

A perhaps unrepresentative glance at the approval process for a number of articles leads to my view that approval is rather an informal process involving a limited number of "experts" who may enjoy clapping each other on the back more than reading the article for clarity or accuracy. An example is the article Set theory, which encompasses a number of near trivial defects (like using undefined technical acronyms) that I pointed out months ago on its talk page, and corrected on its draft page, with no apparent interest from the community or the original authors or its approvers.

In fact, I'd suggest, placing an article in the "approved" category and thereby removing all probability of correction of even minor points is quite counterproductive. Maybe it fits in with the CZ conceit of having definitive articles that can be referenced by outside authors, but in fact these articles are often less than definitive and have simply been placed high on a shelf where they can't be dusted off. It is my impression that the main utility of this category of articles is to preserve inaccuracy and obscurity of presentation. John R. Brews 17:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

John, as with many other of our shortcomings, what you describe is due to a lack of editors. The draft of an approved article can be nominated for re-approval. As with its first approval, that requires either one editor in the pertinent workgroup who made no significant edits of the article or three editors (some or all of whom did make some significant edits). With our current lack of editors, it is very difficult to get any approvals or re-approvals.

Set theory is in the Mathematics and Computers workgroups. Two really active Math editors are Peter Schmitt and Boris Tsirelson. Two really active Computer Editors are Sandy Harris and Pat Palmer. To find that out, one goes to those workgroups and displays the so-called "active editors". Then one looks at the "User Contributions" of the so-called "active editors" to see who are the "really" active editors. (I know ... that's a lot of work!)

Then one posts messages on the Talk pages of the really active editors and asks if they want to nominate an article for approval or re-approval.

So, if you really want to get re-approval of Set theory ask Schmitt, Tsirelson, Sandy and Pat to nominate it for re-approval. I am an Engineering editor and I cannot nominate it.

If you think that our current approval process is no good and you have a better way for CZ to grant approvals, then you should present your thoughts to the Editorial Council. But, in my opinion, the real problem is lack of editors. That's why I kept bugging you to become a Physics editor. Milton Beychok 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

John, as for my being eager to get approval for my articles, the only one I have asked for help on in many months is the Apollo program. I really don't think that is being "usually eager". Milton Beychok 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As Milt says, the only problem we have with the current Approval is the lack of active Editors. A couple of years ago, when I was a Constable, I was doing the mechanics of Approval fairly often. Now, either a lot of those Editors are either gone or new articles falling within their fields of expertise are simply not being written. The Editorial Council is acutely aware of this situation. We have had a Motion and prolonged Discussion going on about this for sometime now, and it is probable that a new mechanism will shortly be in place. Take a look at it at http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:2011-032/Approval_process Whether it will work any better, however, is something that only the future can tell us.... Hayford Peirce 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt and Hayford:

Thanks for the replies. It seems you both agree that the lack of editors impairs the approval process. If we agree that the approval process is not all it might be, I'd suggest that approval be suspended until a reasonable expectation of adequate review arrives. Because poor approvals do more damage in sheltering poor articles and in showcasing them as the best CZ can offer than any good that may come of them. John R. Brews 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that Approvals have simply suspended themselves because of a lack of Editors competent in the fields in which they have been requested. A couple of the crazies at Irrational Wiki may say that some of our earlier Approvals were bad (Homeopathy, for instance) but I can't think of any in a couple of years that have caused any controversy at all. Since we're not doing any Approvals, then, by definition, none of them can be "poor".... What you have to understand is that right now at Citizendium there may actually be 500, say, really outstanding articles written by true experts in those particular fields BUT there are no Editors in those fields that can Approve them. I myself would say that the true problem at the moment is not POOR Approvals, but the lack of Approvals for GOOD articles. The new Proposal in front of the Editorial Council may unlock this logjam.... Hayford Peirce 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

John, there were a grand total of 40 votes in our recent elections. That in itself tell us how much we need more active authors and editors alike. Personally, I am amazed at how much has been done by so few. Milton Beychok 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

John, excuse my interference: I saw your comments on Talk:Set theory (long ago) but I did not see any need for re-approval. In fact, I do not think that you pointed out any "defect" in the article. (It is a good informal introduction and not meant as an exhaustive survea.) As for your remark that approval is mainly "clapping each other on the back": The article was written by an author who (so far) has only contributed this article. It was "discovered" by Boris, and I copyedited for approval by Boris -- there was now shoulder clapping. --Peter Schmitt 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter: Personally I think (of course) that I made useful amendments on the draft page accompanied by very clear suggestions on the talk page. No-one deigned to engage upon the subject. And I'd call Boris Tsirelson's comment "Nice work" a clap on the back.

However you want to see the matter, my suggestions were ignored entirely, and I had no indication that you or anyone else ever read them. The net result, of course, was no change at all.

Unresponsiveness is only to the detriment of CZ. Apparently, what is, is, and the approval mechanism sets it in stone. John R. Brews 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

John, it would be nice and politer if every comment would be answered. But -- even though we are a small community -- not every edit is observed, and not every comment is read. And (unfortunately) not even every read comment can be answered. This, bluntly, may not be expected from a group of volunteers. And if had answered: "Nice suggestions. I shall (re)approve the page at once" then this would have been a clap on the back, wouldn't it? --Peter Schmitt 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, as often happens in exchanges on wikis, e-mail, and TV talk shows, among other media with narrow bandwidth and soundbite format, the laser-like focus upon minutiae misdirects.

The larger perspective is that the approval process might (under ideal circumstances with many participating editors) result in change to an approved article if egregious errors or embarrassing omissions were found and could be agreed to exist.

But simple changes that would improve the article without great modification of content apparently are not going to happen because the process introduces overhead that no-one feels is worth the bother. And at present, in fact, no-one exists to enable any such changes, however well warranted.

Is requiring a large threshold momentum for change a good thing, especially when the circumstances are far from ideal and participants hard to find? Isn't an article going to have greater appeal with improved grammar, or actual definitions for technical acronyms, or for building a broader context, or adding a figure, or etc etc, all things that (let's say) may be helpful in some particular article? Doesn't approval make such changes harder to accomplish, and even more so under the present limited circumstances?

And so, doesn't the approval process prove an impediment to CZ, rather than an asset, at least at the moment?

I believe the answers are yes. And as that is my message here, and as I seem to find no acceptance for any of my observations, I'll let the matter drop. Thank you, John R. Brews 20:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

John, our Chief constable (Matt Innis) will update an approved article to be consistent with a revised draft of the article (without formal re-approval) if, and only if, the revisions of the draft are merely mis-spellings, fixing or adding wiki links , adding or changing photos, and similar trivial revisions. If he is not sure whether the revisions are trivial, he would probably ask the original nominating editors. You may wish to contact him. Milton Beychok 20:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Milt: That is a practical suggestion. I was not aware of this possibility. Thanks. John R. Brews 22:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Any mistakes, even minor ones, typos, bad formatting, and such, should be corrected, of course. But changes in wording, adding a figure here or a sentence there are not so easy: What one might see as an improvement, another one might see as a "deterioration". A sequence of apparently minor changes may drastically change the "feeling", the style, or the personality of an article.

WP believes in constant incremental change. I do not -- I prefer some stability so that someone who cites a CZ article will still recognize it on a later revisit. Cooperation is fine, but if every now and then another author fiddles with a text (with best intentions!) the text will become sterile. I see "approval" as equivalent to publication -- you do not republish the same article without good reason.

Milt's talk page is, of course, not the best place for such a general disussion (that will have to occur when the EC debates re-approval criteria). --Peter Schmitt 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sure some of us think we are amazingly eloquent and, like poets and playwrights, sweat for hours over whether two sentences should replace a compound sentence, or whether a Venn diagram really adds to the concept of a union and intersection or somehow violates the purity of an abstract description. For these authors, the greater the impediment to revision the better, eh? John R. Brews 00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Peter and John, I think you have both now reached an impasse. So let this discussion end now ... or else move it to one of your talk pages. Milton Beychok 01:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt: The impasse is yet to come - it's all in the abstract so far. Following your suggestion, I have made a proposal to Matt here. John R. Brews 02:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)