Physicists who don't know math are ruining Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.14547556]

I know "physicist who doesn't know math" is a pleonasm, but just to be clear.

[Anonymous No.14547562]

who gives a fuck. What do you want us to do? Band together to "stop this injustice!"? Why come bitching to a bunch of highschool pseuds about a problem caused by pseuds?

[Anonymous No.14547569]

not my problem

[Anonymous No.14547573]

Get a grip faggot

[Anonymous No.14547577]

>>14547556
wikipedia fucking sucks. ever since i learned about the Essjay scandal i just can’t take any of it seriously any more

[Anonymous No.14547588]

>>14547556
Can you imagine being so privileged that the greatest wars of your life take place on the battlefields of Wikipedia? wowzers

[Anonymous No.14547631]

>>14547556
contact picrel and explain the problem to him in a calm, well reasoned answer and maybe he will allow you to make the edits you want to.
you can also make the edits and wait for them to be reverted and they try to reason with whomever is doing the reverting, but it is probably picrel doing it anyway, so contacting him directly is usually more efficient.
complaining on 4chan is amongst the least efficient ways to get the changes you want made, good odds that some nerd who disliked this thread will now be waiting to troll you if you try to make the edits you want.

[Anonymous No.14547635]

[Anonymous No.14548423]

>>14547588
Yes, it's actually extremely easy. What part of this do you struggle to understand most? Does your model of privilege not make first world problems obvious?

[Anonymous No.14548596]

>>14547556
often a less rigorous exposition is more useful than a fully rigorously developed formulation. while physics seem to make use of non-rigorous mathematics (for instance the abuse of delta 'function') the notations and simplifications work, as in they can convey the meaning behind the formulas well. rigour, while strictly correct and adhering to definitions, can be unnecessarily complicated up to the point where only a handful of people know what's even going on - not something you want on a page like wikipedia. Remember wikipedia is more like a general encyclopedia and not a mathematical compendium or research reference. If you want a taste for mathematical rigour, go to ncatlab and see for yourself. Even the simplest topics get algebraized beyond comprehension.

[Anonymous No.14548649]

>>14547631
>that pic
Why are women so anti-intellectual?

[Anonymous No.14548657]

>>14547556
Proof? What does he want it to say that instead exactly?

[Anonymous No.14548685]

>>14548649
Some people when they feel bad just want to make others feel bad too.

Steven Pruitt obviously gets a captaincy upon her pirate queens vessel.

[Anonymous No.14549684]

>>14547635
>>>x/

[Anonymous No.14551338]

>>14548649

[Anonymous No.14551353]

>>14548596
>while physics seem to make use of non-rigorous mathematics (for instance the abuse of delta 'function')
dirac delta function is perfectly rigorous, complaints that it's called a function when it isn't are pointless, since physics books and lectures always say that it's just a name
it's like saying "but the renormalisation group isn't really a group, stupid physicists" when only the severely autistic have any difficulty with this
that said, I agree with what you're saying

[Anonymous No.14551744]

>>14548596
the delta function is not a real valued function. d(t) is not a real function. you can approximate the behaviour by gaussians or rectangles but they will not converge to a real function. The term generalized function or distribution is misleading, as the dirac delta function is actually an operator/functional.

[Anonymous No.14551761]

>>14547635
This guy is an idiot if he thinks neolibs are leftist. Any articles having anything to do with leftist, communism, or anticapitalism are heavily biased against leftism just like /pol/. Articles about historical topics are anti-leftist. Even articles about transpeople are problematic because the delegitimize transpeople agreeing with /pol/ narratives despite what /pol/tards will have you believe because ultimately liberals and fascists are two sides of the same coin. I agree that Wikipedia can no longer be trusted but can Larry Sanger tell us how it's leftist exactly.

[Anonymous No.14551781]

>>14551338
>No source
Brain weight does not correlate with intelligence. Brain weight correlates with body size. Stop hating women you chuds.
>>14548649
Women can be extremely based like >>14548685 our queen of sci and sci-hub

[Anonymous No.14551798]

>>14551781
She's the exception to the rule. If I take two normal distributions,
N(0,1)
N(2,1)
Then if I measure a value at 4, it's almost surely from the second distribution. Of course it could come from the first distribution, but at such low rates it's negligible. Given this is a sci board I'll assume you can calculate the ratio if needed

[Anonymous No.14551810]

>>14551798
>N(0,1)
>N(2,1)
Typical moid overestimating his kind's abilities. Nothing new to be seen here.

[Anonymous No.14551835]

>>14548423
Niggers fighting for food because their genetics hold them back isn't a third world problem, its a personal problem.

Science being stifled because of ignorance is a first world problem.

[Anonymous No.14551848]

>>14551810
Someone needs to fuck the female hysteria out of you, cunt.

[Anonymous No.14551857]

>>14548649
they aren't
women are anti-ugly
you only get mocked for intellectual work if you look like a fat balding frogman like this guy

[Anonymous No.14551858]

>>14551848
Someone needs to forcefully inject estrogens into you, scrote.

[Anonymous No.14551870]

>>14551858
I need to forcefully inject my semen into your womb and then force you to go through with the pregnancy before taking away the child and raising him to be a radical Muslim. :^)

[Anonymous No.14551875]

>>14551857
Based and truth pilled

[Anonymous No.14551913]

>>14551810
Listen here, bitch. Name one, just one genius level IQ woman. I mean actual genius, like Da Vinci, Euler, or Neumann level. You probably don't know those names because you're too busy shopping for shoes online rather than using her brain.

[Anonymous No.14551921]

>>14551761
You will never be a woman, literally never. Like not in a billion years, your atoms will still say "Male faggot". And you'll be burning in hell for eternity for being a turbo-kike cock-sucker

[Anonymous No.14551936]

>>14551913
Too late for your fake angry alpha antics. I've already inseminated her.

[Anonymous No.14551946]

>>14551913
Look at this moid being very proud that he's memorized three names.

[Anonymous No.14551955]

>>14551946
>t. foid leaking cum from every orifice

[Anonymous No.14551963]

>>14547556
Wikipedia is an awful source for literally anything. The admins, who ultimately decide what goes on the site, are completely unqualified and openly biased which is a horrible combination. Using wikipedia for history is like going to that guy with really weird opinions that sits at the back of the class and asking him what he thinks about the issue. Using wikipedia for math is like going to that guy who tries to answer before the teacher and gets it wrong. Using wikipedia for chemistry is like going to the worst student in class and asking them to do a deamination for you. All of these are bad ideas but it's how most kids are learning. Fuck wikipedia, the site makes a good case for internet censorship just to keep bullshit at bay.

[Anonymous No.14551978]

>>14551955
>t. loser that never had sex and masturbates to animated 13 year olds

[Anonymous No.14551981]

>>14551936
>>14551946
I accept your concession. Now go choke on a dick. Just remember: men are smarter than women, and is a fact that's been known even to your ancestors. Men built the physical world whereas women nagged and nagged.

[Anonymous No.14551991]

>>14551978
Why would I need to masturbate to animated 13 years olds when I can bang real life 16 years olds? Anyway, time for you to come lick my balls.

[Anonymous No.14552011]

>>14551981
The only thing I see you doing is being a pathetic incel.

[Anonymous No.14552018]

>>14552011
>gauges the quality of an argument based on whether the person has sex, and not on the content of the argument.
This is what estrogen does to your brain.

[Anonymous No.14552022]

>>14552018
What argument? Did you really think your post was an argument? Incels are more stupid than what I imagined, apparently

[Anonymous No.14552024]

>>14552018
The femcel is right. You sound like a giga-virgin.

[Anonymous No.14552047]

I lost an edit war on bacterial nomenclature recently. Feels bad.

[Anonymous No.14553141]

>>14551921
>You will never be a woman, literally never
That's not what my government issued ID says :)
>your atoms will still say "Male faggot".
Uhm sweatie I'm pretty sure atoms don't have language written on them let alone English :/
>And you'll be burning in hell for eternity for being a turbo-kike cock-sucker
I'm not the one being intolerant and spewing vile profanities and slurs so you might want to check that last one again :D

You should stop going on pol so much, it's really rotting your mind

[Anonymous No.14553148]

>>14553141
How many "suicide attempts" have you failed at? You may be as passive as a bitch, but you ain't no bitch. You're just a fag who seeks attention like a woman does. Literally worst of both worlds. You're an actual freak show.

[Anonymous No.14553161]

>>14552024
>>14552022
But hes right, women are dumb and useless

[Anonymous No.14553171]

>>14553141
This woman is both more a woman and a man than you will ever be. Your parents hate you and nobody will love you

[Anonymous No.14553195]

>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.14553198]

>>14553141
are you actually trans or just baiting poltards?

[Anonymous No.14553578]

>>14551781
you know she is fake, right? it's just some posterboy made up by russians as a front

[Anonymous No.14554216]

>>14551857
u got it backwards
only fat balding frogman like that guy are cringe enough to be professional wikicucks

[Anonymous No.14554224]

>>14548649
Cause that pic related wouldn’t defend her in battle or build her a house.

[Anonymous No.14554229]

>>14551870
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.14554601]

>>14547588
Yes, and I'm not even rich.

[Anonymous No.14554611]

>>14553198
He's quite obviously a troll. These retarded fucking tranny haters don't know when to ignore them.

[Anonymous No.14554613]

>>14553195
i counter your witten with a witten.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYRHDm5X424

[Anonymous No.14555015]

>>14548649
I'm not a woman and feel the same way as her, cope. Being a fat wiki janny is NOT being an intellectual idk what to tell you

[Anonymous No.14555041]

>>14551857
>women are anti-ugly
this
she's not making fun of his intellectualism or work ethic

[Anonymous No.14555058]

>>14551761
stupid troon

[Anonymous No.14555089]

>>14551761
Yeah, yeah, we know the only reason you're mad at Wikipedia is that you can't delete the "victims of communism" page.
Not that the site is unusable due to incredible bias at all levels.

[Anonymous No.14555099]

>>14548649
there is no excuse for being a fat fuck.

[Anonymous No.14555107]

>>14547631
dumb shallow whore.

[Anonymous No.14555170]

>>14548685
I've watched her interview and she's an unironic tankie that worships Stalin

[Anonymous No.14555180]

>Stand back, I am a wikipedia editor, and I have a war to win.

[Anonymous No.14555184]

>>14551857
Her post clearly associates his lack of attractiveness with his intellectualism. She presents intellectualism as a (negative) trait to be expected only from unattractive men.

[Anonymous No.14555759]

>>14547631
>he does it for free

[Anonymous No.14555769]

>>14555759
he gets paid by organizations outside of wikipedia to create and maintain their wikipedia propaganda and to insure that nobody else will alter it

[Anonymous No.14555846]

>>14547577
qrd?

[Anonymous No.14556493]

>circumcision article has been at a non-stop edit war since 2006
>people still link it despite the outdated citations and bias

[Anonymous No.14556708]

>>14547631
I dont think he is retarded to write 35.000 pages of work lol atleast he has background knowledge IF IF HE KNOWS What he is talking about if not he is schizo

[Anonymous No.14556861]

>>14556493
yeah wikipedia is basically useless. only thing you might use it for is finding sources but these are usually poor and selective/restrictive anyway. the whole thing is a shitshow and the autistic unqualified or agenda-driven contributors make it very low quality while the willing to contribute qualified people get beaten out and give up.

people say it's fine for science but this isn't true either. it's not fine for anything really, because it's not just bias but laziness and incompetence.