posic: Математическая Википедия

Математическая Википедия
Exhibit 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basis_(linear_algebra)

"In linear algebra, a basis is a set of vectors that, in a linear combination, can represent every vector in a given vector space or free module, and such that no element of the set can be represented as a linear combination of the others."

Ну да, например {2,3} является базисом свободного Z-модуля Z, согласно этому определению.

Exhibit 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_ring

"In mathematics, a (left) coherent ring is a ring in which every finitely generated left ideal is finitely presented. <...> A ring is left coherent if and only if every direct product of flat left modules is flat"

"Лево там", как говорили у нас в школе после занятий строевой подготовкой на плацу в рамках уроков НВП.

Мораль: пользоваться этим можно, но только осторожно.

Update: все-таки сам пошел и исправил ошибку номер 2, благо там достаточно заменить одно слово. Не регистрируя эккаунта, идентифицируясь по IP. Интересно, какая участь ожидает эту мою коррекцию.

(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)

	chaource@lj 2010-01-13 16:59 (ссылка)
	Whenever I look at a physics article in Wikipedia, I have to cry :) (Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	posic@lj 2010-01-13 17:03 (ссылка)
	No, it's not that bad with math articles. (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	chaource@lj 2010-01-13 17:05 (ссылка)
	However, they do edit the articles, so (I just checked now) at least some of the howlers of 2 years ago are now gone. (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

posic@lj
2010-01-13 18:58 (ссылка)

Isn't it strange that lists of wiki-howlers are so rare, as a genre? I have no recollection of ever seeing one. People seem to be intimidated by the go-ahead-and-correct-it-yourself crowd. (Can't I have other things to do rather than correct Wikipedia? The point is to evaluate the state of the project and measure its shortcomings. Pointing them out would also serve to help those who are actually correcting them.)

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

chaource@lj
2010-01-13 19:45 (ссылка)

Well, I think it's a combination of two things. First, Wikipedia always had an image of something done strictly for fun, never a serious, pompous affair. The authors of Wikipedia are anonymous. Thus people do not have the usual incentives to point out a glaring error. Second, Wikipedia is always in a state of flux. Yesterday's awkward articles about the Schroedinger equation, for example, or about pseudotensors in General Relativity, are replaced today by more or less entirely different texts, no doubt after dozens of revisions.

Indeed, I have other things to do than write something that will be almost surely erased one year later. Most researchers strongly connect their identity with the quality of text, so they actually will not have any motivation to contribute a significant amount of text to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I did contribute a few lines here and there.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)

(Читать комментарии) -