This page is for public contact with other members of the wiki and administrators, to avoid using "closed" private services. For more details, see Googology Wiki:Policy#Wiki philosophy. Please sign your messages with ~~~~.
Extensible Illion System changes
The following is a complete list of changes in this revision of the Extensible Illion System article:
- "insist that this notation is irrelevant to Bower's naming system" (A few edits later it's close enough for Nirvana's intention)
- "Unfortunately, this article is a target of the removal and the manipulation by the creator ... The creator silently removed many constructive descriptions such as mathematical arguments, sources of the informations, and so on." (listing personal errors on the mainspace, etc.)
- "giving up the removal and the manipulation" (loaded language)
- "The creator insists that versions of the notation are well-defined even after errors are pointed out. ... The same incident occurred with the previous notation Rampant Array Notation and the next notation Quick array notation created by the same creator. Since this is quite unusual in googology, this article is mainly devoted to the history of the notation" (a targeted statement of dishonesty not appropriate for mainspace, regardless of truth. "There are probably more appropriate places to do this than a mainspace article" - Username5243)
- "the creator still insists that it is well-defined" (See before)
- "but the creator is trying to hide this fact by removing or changing the description" (see before, targeted statement about a person, not appropriate on the mainspace regardless of truth)
- "Together with the second definition, this version and the issue of the ill-definedness is a target of the removal and the manipulation by the cretor" (see before)
- "there are several simple and elementary solutions by setting complete case classification without overlapping" (the extra description "it's easy to avoid this person's failure" seems condescending)
- "Unfortunately, this section is the main target of the removal and the manipulation by the creator ..." (More targeted mainspace statements against the person, no edits in months so it's likely safe to remove this)
- "After those issues were pointed out, the creator finally tried to remove all descriptions" (Mainspace callouts)
- "However, the creator silently removed the arguments above and the doubts of the incorrectness of the explanation of 0[4,0,1], ... " (Essentially denouncing a person on the mainspace, see before)
Both CIF and Username have agreed on a private service that this article should be removed, and Username in particular agreed that at least most of these changes (I am not sure if Username has looked through all changes) are beneficial. Since the last recision was reverted due to the discussion being on a private platform, I am creating this message on a public page for community discussion. C7X (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I link to Talk:Extensible Illion System. I think that we have agreed with the clean up through the discussion. However, the result of the clean up included errors on ref tags. So I propose to clean up the article and fix ref tags.
- p-adic 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- If nobody disagrees with it, please clean uo agrain and fix the errors on ref tags. Or if you are busy, then I can do instead.
- p-adic 04:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you!
- p-adic 22:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The use of this page
I propose to clarify that we should not decide something on this wiki (mainly removal, deletion, moving, blocking, unblocking, and so on) in a space outside this wiki. The reason is that we should not exclude active users in the decision, and FANDOM officially requires us to have the equivalent right to decide anything on this wiki. The admin right is not the right to decide anything alone, but is the right to execute the decision of the community. Here, the decision of the community does not mean the decision by a few members given in a space outside this wiki.
p-adic 01:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Should this go in Policy? Although I didn't see a segment of ToS describing right to equal voice in decisions, it can be a goal of this wiki's policy C7X (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am not certain about where is the appropriate place to write, but it is better to clarify it at this discussion page, the policy, and main pages including a link to discord. Otherwise, discord users do not check it, as they are always ignoring my proposal to stop deciding anything on this wiki outside this wiki.
- p-adic 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
A point has come to my attention from another user about Discord, that the entire community should have a say in decisions made about this wiki. This includes both Discord and Wiki users, so restricting discussion to the wiki only cuts off a portion of the community. If their solution is "check the wiki if you want discussion", that's equivalent in difficulty to "check an SMS you aren't active on if you want discussion" C7X (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree with the equivalence. Members of this wiki are working in this wiki. Why should we check other SNSs? Please imagine that many members in this wiki prefer to argue in other SNSs, say, pixiv, mixi, twitter, mathoverflow, and anything you do not use. Do you agree to check all of them? Isn't it unreasonable to ignore active users' cost in this wiki? It is not equivalent, as this wiki has no right to decide anything about discord community.
- p-adic 06:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I want to hear the opinion to my point. Can we agree with using twitter to decide anything without involving active users? It is really easy to create an account of twitter, and so many googologists in this wiki are active there. It is more open than discord.
- p-adic 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- My intention was not to recommend you to use twitter as a place for decision. I meant that it is non-sense to use twitter as a place for decisions by the reasons above. Since discord is worse than twitter or other SNSs by the reasons, it is inappropriate to use it as a place for decisions. We should not ignore active users in this wiki, and should not avoid future googologists to easily access the log of decisions in a single platform. At least, Japanese Googology wiki strictly forbids such an inappropriate use of an SNS. (To be honest, I might have done the failure in twitter, if nobody had explained it. Fish explained us why we should not do it before we do so.) Could you tell me the opinion about it?
- p-adic 02:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Then I propose to clarify that we should decide anything on this wiki in main spaces like Googology Wiki:Discussion, Googology Wiki:Voting, Talk:Googology Wiki, Googology Wiki talk:Policy, Googology Wiki talk:Guideline, Category talk:Candidates for deletion, and so on.
- p-adic 03:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- If nobody disagrees with it, I will add it to main pages.
- p-adic 04:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. (I did )
- p-adic 08:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Result of the Discussion "Rewriting 'Hydra Theorem' Section" in "Buchholz hydra"
This is a brief summary of a discussion "Rewriting 'Hydra Theorem' Section" in the talk page of the article Buchholz hydra. The discussion was started by User:Naruyoko (me). Writing of this summary was suggested by User:p進大好きbot. Other contributors included User:Kyodaisuu and User:Hexirp.
The purpose of the discussion was to find a way to rewrite the section to be better fitting for a mainspace article on this wiki. The initial proposal included reducing the use of bold characters and the repetition of the wrongness of some members in this community. The proposal was later updated to clarify that the mistakes were included in (the old version of) the article. This proposal was accepted and incorporated with this revision. This discussion also spawned a separate but related suggestion to make a section "History of discussion" that lists similar statements. This suggestion was approved and reflected in this revision. See Fish' suggestion.
Throughout the discussion, a number of agreements were made between the participants. Here are the results of this discussion:
- If an article included significant mistakes or unjustified statements ("the wrong statements") about the topic of the article, or if they were believed by a significant group of people, particularly for a long time, especially if it may or has resulted in serious misinformation, then the statements should be documented in the article.
- It is not necessary to repeatedly emphasize that the wrong statements are wrong by means such as bolding the words "wrong" and "believed" and repeating the refutation.
- The origins of the wrong statements should be made clear, e.g. the old versions of the article.
- The discussion of the wrong statements does not need to be put alongside other descriptions. Instead, they can either be made brief or collected in a separate section. (Fish' suggestion)
- The discussion of the wrong statements are not off-topic, so they should not be removed.
- Pointing out the wrong statements is not (necessarily) unfair or biased.
- When the wiki/community spreads the wrong statements, they are responsible for correcting this mistake.
In conclusion, we found that the wrong descriptions should be recorded and discussed in an accessible way from reading the main article. When they are powerful enough to be widespread in the googology community, it is our responsibility to clarify, correct, and address them. They do not need to be put afront, but they or their source should not be hidden away. I hope for this discussion to be a reference for future edits.