Re:Ebtrees: Elastic Binary Trees (2011)
by Someone on Sunday May 26, 2019 @02:37AM
(#20013496)
”I was told that Wikipedia cannot hold original work, only copies of what can be found somewhere else”
I wouldn’t expect you were told that. Wikipedia _does_ require information to be ‘notable’, which ”generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject”, but ”copies of what can be found somewhere else” almost certainly implies copyright infringement, so AFAIK, Wikipedia requires writers to write their own texts, rather than copy-pasting text from elsewhere.
Also, if I had to review this text, I would say it needs editing for readability/understandability. The above already may be a sign of that. Another example: reading ”the worst case may happen with a small tree (for instance, 32 distinct keys of one bit)”, I am lost. I can’t think of more than two distinct one-bit keys (yes, that may become clear on closer reading, but I scan first, to see whether it’s worth doing the closer reading)
Re:Ebtrees: Elastic Binary Trees (2011)
by lifthrasiir on Sunday May 26, 2019 @05:16AM
(#20013954)
Not just that, Wikipedia specifically prohibits original research [1] because it doesn't (while not in the practice, at least rightly) want to be the source of the truth [2].
Re:Ebtrees: Elastic Binary Trees (2011)
by rurban on Monday May 27, 2019 @02:20AM
(#20019844)
Willy really should have put the Administriva section at the bottom. My reading of the work was constantly being disturbed by the unrelated Wikipedia drama.
Re:Ebtrees: Elastic Binary Trees (2011)
by jarfil on Saturday May 25, 2019 @11:47PM
(#20012969)
Sometimes people don't understand the difference between the Wikipedia and a random wiki, then insult its moderators, right before admitting they didn't even keep a copy of the document they've written.
Makes me much less interested in whatever else they have to say.
I wouldn’t expect you were told that. Wikipedia _does_ require information to be ‘notable’, which ”generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject”, but ”copies of what can be found somewhere else” almost certainly implies copyright infringement, so AFAIK, Wikipedia requires writers to write their own texts, rather than copy-pasting text from elsewhere.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Content_policies_and...)
Also, if I had to review this text, I would say it needs editing for readability/understandability. The above already may be a sign of that. Another example: reading ”the worst case may happen with a small tree (for instance, 32 distinct keys of one bit)”, I am lost. I can’t think of more than two distinct one-bit keys (yes, that may become clear on closer reading, but I scan first, to see whether it’s worth doing the closer reading)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
[2] Can be inferred from, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories
Makes me much less interested in whatever else they have to say.