Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers
wikenigma.org.uk
wikenigma.org.uk
[1]: https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become
So, no, the process may not be fast. But in topics like "the best competitive sports club in the world", some may prefer to keep intervention more controlled, depending on the general intention.
Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy:
in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part»).
"Quick" there is not just "free of red tape": I understand the first idea of Cunningham was about distributed access to a relational database for collaborative editing, in the simplest and directmost possible way.
So, 'wiki-' in the current common use could be more like the truncation of 'wikiweb' (already containing interesting convergences of meaning in "web" as "collaboration", not just "network of frontends"). "Wiki-" per se would indicate more the "hassle free" side of the technology.
I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.
Intellectual curiosity, applied to the care of ideas.
«Disguise»: I have no idea what you are talking about. My only interest on whether the submitted site falls into the category of "wiki" can be linguistic - not about the site itself (of interest respectfully relative).
(Note: as I was checking the spelling of 'paedia', see edit below, the statement of pais→paideia also came out in the search results, from wiktionary.org . I suppose it must be quite uncontroversial.)
I suspect that with that '«all-around»' you refer to the left part of 'encyclopedia' as 'enkyklios paideia', "encompassing education".
Edit: but I see, re-reading the post, that I wrote 'poedia' instead of 'paedia'. (I think I am making at least a typo per post in these days. Maybe when the temperatures will return in the 20's...)
But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.
Wikimedia Foundation did not invent the word "wiki". They were not the first to apply the word to a collaboratively edited web page. And they do not assert rights to any words that would conflict with "Wikenigma".
In fact wikipedia has many festures that are completely against the ethos of the first wiki.
Perhaps this is due to the site relying heavily upon newspaper articles, as opposed to actual research.
[1] - https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/mathematics/neural_networks...
> Are some infinities larger than others?
But didn't Cantor prove the answer to that is "yes" back in the 19th century?
They say "Since the endpoints of (a₁, b₁) are x₁ and x₂", but in the example below a₁ = x₅, b₁ = x₁₂.
Am I missing something?
Some infinite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence with some of their proper subsets!
Also:
> If a mathematician wants to explore infinity, there are many options - for example by calculating π, or the square root of 2, or dividing any number by 0.
Er, one of these things is not like the others…
This clearly wasn't written by a mathematician.
* At least some of the articles in psychology and language have been written by someone with an agenda, or a limited education in the field. E.g., the article about turn taking (https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversati...) talks about "endogenous oscillators" as if it is accepted that that's the solution to the problem.
* Philosophy mentions the Liar Paradox next to Free Will. These two are not quite the same.
* The article on intelligence doesn't even try. "Further reading" refers to a 27 year old report that had to calm the seas after the publication of The Bell Curve.
On the other hand, what's the point of listing everything in language, psychology and philosophy? We know next to nothing about these with any level of certainty. They could just be single entries. Now it seems as if the only thing unknown about language is the origin of the word abacadabra.
? Serenus Sammonicus?
Edit: ok, I read the page, I see what was meant.
But a problem emerges, it could get evident seeing as their source is Wikipedia (?! "I know that because somebody told me"?!): it is epistemologically not trivial to state ignorance. Even when the learned does, the protocol is that "John, PhD, on that occasion expressed ignorance".
It may be a reason why once upon a time we had erudition, much more highlighted than nowadays: some attempt towards completeness in the exploration of sources.
Are some medicines not worth the downside for society to have available?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
America and Japan refer to the drug as acetaminophen, while most of the rest of the world calls it paracetamol.
https://stackoverflow.com/unanswered
https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered
...
Looks like Quora doesn't quite get it though:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-unanswered-questions-o...
I enjoy dabbling in fringe topics, and feel that the greatest danger to understanding is certitude. People get so certain that they know something that all further consideration of the topic ceases and they sit in satisfaction even when answers are contradictory or don't connect to greater understanding. Debating someone who uses circular logic feels like banging one's head against the wall.
On a related note, we need a better framework for metaphysical discussion. I've noticed a huge increase in woo woo phenomena since the pandemic. It's probably just a change in my own attention. But since science and religion can't explain consciousness, I feel that there is more to reality and the mental models we use to understand it than is generally discussed. Wikenigma could use pages on synchronicity, manifestation, placebo, etc:
https://www.wrf.org/complementary-therapies/power-of-mind-pl...
“In a recent study of a new kind of chemotherapy, 30 percent of the individuals in the control group, the group given placebos, lost their hair.”
For the placebo effect to be real, it would mean that the mind creates physical effects in the body. I take it further in my own life by believing that the mind creates the body and possibly the universe around it. Or at least, the mind/body/universe are somehow involved in co-creation. That's heretical to science, but, people experience it every day. So what the heck is that?
Nikola Tesla
It feels a bit healthier to assume this is all of them, and even the ones that are "true" in some binary yes/no sense, may still have nuance to be discovered.
One of the things I like about the original Wikipedia is that it's rarely so binary about things, often covering contemporary controversies and areas of current research.
Concrete, crystallization, bicycle design, green tea. What do we know, exactly?
But thank you for pointing out that it's docuwiki that is attempting to inappropriately ride the mediawiki coattails and muddling use.
The fact this site is starting out without the basic feature of categories is a grave mistake. Maybe docuwiki edits them differently, but having clicky forms for every data field is also contrary to how wp became successful.
Because it's not using mediawiki, it will not be any parallel in development to wp, which is also a grave starting mistake.
Interesting concept though.
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded
resource limit. Please try again later.Certainly not confidence inspiring but from the pages I visited it seems to be an excellent aggregator. Short summary, long enough for me to gadge if I want to head to Wikipedia.
Thank god for that, was worried it was going to be another wiki that is essentially just an unmaintained Wikipedia fork slowly diverging away
A few hundred in a few minutes is enough to take down a website? I've noticed that this keeps happening .
Front-page HN articles can result in tens of thousands of unique visits[0] and several hundred simultaneous users. It's not hard to see how 200-300 can throttle an otherwise unoptimized site.
[0] https://medium.com/@ketacode/the-impact-of-appearing-on-hns-...
In total, I saw roughly around 27'000 views (that entire day, load varied, too lazy to figure out the peak RPS value), which meant just short of 8 GB of data being transferred and in my case over 500'000 files being requested (given all of the CSS files, images, JavaScript etc.).
Now, the blog held out fine, because it was based on Grav, which means that it ends up being a bunch of flat files: https://getgrav.org/
It is especially interesting when you consider that I had capped the container that it was running in to 512M of RAM at max and also 0.75 CPU cores, just so it wouldn't slow down the entire node (can't really afford to have a separate server for it).
So in essence, I think that static files can be served really well with limited resources, but once you throw complicated PHP apps (think WordPress), insufficient caching and also database access (especially with any sub-optimally written code) as well as perhaps even something like mod_php instead of fpm, things can indeed go wrong.
I've seen enterprise projects struggle with 100 RPM due to exceedingly poorly written data fetching, N+1 problems and developers not knowing how to avoid running into issues like that or outright not caring because of the system being an internal one and the infrastructure having resources to waste.
In my case, even the cheap 100 Mbps link was enough to serve all of the requests with minimal impact (i think the longest page load was up to 4 seconds at peak load, most others were lower, less than 2 seconds).
Just to be intrigued - see https://wikenigma.org.uk/curators_rationale
But also to raise awareness on the complementary part of the achievements in research. Nonetheless, in this regard it should be a much more structured effort than a "bedside booklet".
:(
Not sure what I am supposed to get from that. Irrational numbers are just reals that aren't rationals. Why is this enigmatic?
It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
Virtually all numbers are irrational. Are numbers enigmatic?
The infinite digits of pi that we don't know. But we do know that they exist, so pi, or any other irrational number, will aptly be called a "known unknown."
> Virtually all numbers are irrational.
For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals. There is no firm basis to the argument that there are somehow more irrational numbers than rational numbers.
I think Cantor can rest peacefully.
It's a bit suspicious that we can't name or describe any of the uncountable irrational numbers, isn't it? Not even a single example.
Cantor's proof is not constructive. It doesn't name an example. If you enumerated all irrationals based on the algorithm required to calculate them then the contradiction in Cantor's diagonalization proof just turns into a failure to terminate. But that suggests that there are fewer irrationals than integers, not more.
I name "x+pi for every rational number x". Good luck!
> For many irrational numbers, relatively simple mathematical proofs exist which show that it's impossible to ever arrive at a finite solution.
LOL, what does that even mean?