thomblake comments on Get Curious - Less Wrong

51 Post author: lukeprog 24 February 2012 05:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (98)
Tags: curiosity

Comments (98)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 24 February 2012 07:20:13PM *  0 points [-]

If I pointed out that the speed of light in m/s is exact and the number of metres in a yard is exact and proceeded to give the exact value of the speed of light in imperial units

That's not reasonably called OR on Wikipedia either. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations

someone who insisted that on Wikipedia the only possible meaning of Jewish is ‘someone who a reliable source refers to as Jewish’.

That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you want to use a more nuanced concept to refer to someone, you could always find a reliable source who has used that nuanced concept to refer to the person. Or you could do the OR somewhere else and then someone else can use that to improve the article.

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2012 08:06:16PM *  0 points [-]

If I pointed out that the speed of light in m/s is exact and the number of metres in a yard is exact and proceeded to give the exact value of the speed of light in imperial units

That's not reasonably called OR on Wikipedia either. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations

For some time, they claimed that converting exact values as rational numbers (as opposed to conversions with a finite number of sigfigs) is not a routine calculation. (To be honest, I'm not sure I remember what eventually happened. [goes to check] Oh, yeah. The footnote stayed because we did find a citation. Not that I'd normally consider the personal website of a cryptographer as a reliable source, but still.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit