Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Measurement
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Measurement page.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|WikiProject Measurement||(Rated Project-class)|
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the
display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
I need your help
Hi metrologists, I ask for your help. I am stalked by two Chemists that unfortunately have no clue about metrology. I try to make sure that articles are written in correct metrological terminology. Now they are planing to ban me again (see here User_talk:Kkmurray/1). I hope you guys can see that his article Kendrick mass is full of incorrect language (even though it is all taken from reviewed papers) and that my article Kendrick (unit) is better.
Here you find the whole story of the current argument: Talk:Kendrick_mass.
We had an argument before on which they achieved to have me banned for one year. I still think this ban was incorrect. The argument was about a physical quantity in mass spectrometry, the mass-to-charge ratio. Some in the chemistry branch of mass spectrometry use a "dimensionless" m/z and my claim is that a mass-to-charge ratio by definition cannot be dimensionless and therefore needs a unit and that a symbol m/Q would be more appropriate. I partly won the argument because my article Thomson (unit) is still alive.
The deeper issue on this new argument is that many chemists seem not able to make the difference between a quantity Q = n * unit, and the numerical factor n of a quantity. Please check yourself and I would really appreciate your support here Talk:Kendrick_mass. Kehrli (talk) 31 October 2010
Errors and residuals in statistics listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Errors and residuals in statistics to be moved to Errors and residuals. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4
Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:
For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.
A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.
What have we been working on?
- A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
- A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
- New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
- SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
- Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.
Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.
The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.
Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.
Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.
There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.
The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.
Until next time,
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6
Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:
Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.
During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.
We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:
- Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
- One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
- Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)
The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.
This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.
Until next time,
Comments on the article “Natural Units”
When we measure a value of a quantity with an object O we describe an objective property of that object that does not depend on our choice of unit. So, for instance, the mass of by body is the same in London, where an old fashioned system of units is used, and in Paris, where masses are expressed with the help of the unit kg. It is an objective property of my body.
Generally, values of quantities are elements of linear spaces, and as such, they can be written as linear combinations of basis elements. When we change the basis, the coefficients of the linear combination that describes a value will change contravariantly so as to keep the value invariant. In the special case of a one-dimensional quantity, the basis has only one element and this is called a unit. Our equations that describe physical laws relate invariant values of several quantities. Consequently these equations are also invariant. No change of unit will change the aspect of the equations and especially no constants will disappear with a special use of units.
So if we use the mass value mp of a proton as the mass unit, the mass value of a proton will be 1 mass unit and not the number 1, as is stated in the article. The symbol mp will not disappear from the equations. What eliminates constant values from the equations is not a special choice of units but a change or a redefinition of quantities. So if mO is the mass value of an object O , we can define a new quantity with numeric values such that the value attributed to the object O is m*O=mO/mp . This is a new quantity that describes a property of a pair of objects; <object O, proton>. But as long as we keep the second object fixed, this quantity can also be considered as a new definition of the mass. With this new definition of mass, the symbol mp will disappear from the equations. Coincidently, the reference object “proton”, which was used in order to define the new mass quantity, could also have been the object that defined the unit of the old mass quantity. But a redefinition of a quantity and a choice of unit are different things. Not always the redefinition of a quantity that eliminates constants needs a reference object. The redefinitions of quantities that make the symbols c (invariant speed) and hbar (Planck constant) disappear are not induced by a choice of reference objects. I shall discus the case c=1 as an example, because this case is an especially interesting one. Here I shall restrict my arguments to a space-time region where gravitational effects can be neglected and special relativity is sufficient to describe space-time geometry (the general case is discussed in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 47, (2014) 107-116; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.002).
Let A and B be two fixed points in the space of a given inertial reference frame. Imagine we install two identical atomic clocks CA and CB in these points and these clocks remain stationary at the respective points. We need two more atomic clocks of the same type, but these clocks will move in space with the kind of motion that is characteristic of free particles. The first of these traveling clocks passes through the point A and later through the point B. This clock will measure a certain traveling time τ between the events of reaching the points A and B. After the arrival of the traveling clock 1 at point B we send the second traveling clock in such a way that it passes through point B and afterwards through point A. The traveling speed of this second traveling clock shell be adjusted such that this clock will also show the same traveling time τ as the first one. Let tA1 be the time shown by clock CA when the first traveling clock passes point A. Let tB1 be the time shown by clock CB when the first traveling clock passes point B. And correspondingly, let tA2 and tB2 be the times shown by the respective stationary clocks at the respective passages of traveling clock 2. Then one can verify experimentally that:
(1) The value ((tA2-tA1-tB2+tB1)2-τ2)1/2 depends only on the points A and B. It does not depend on the traveling speed of the traveling clocks! If one measures this quantity for many pairs of points one may determine a function:
D(A,B) = ((tA2-tA1-tB2+tB1)2-τ2)1/2
(2) The function D defines a Euclidean metric in the space of the inertial frame.
(3) The ordinary distance d, which is defined with the usual measurement procedures using compasses, is proportional to D, that means the quotient d(A,B)/D(A,B) does not depend on A and B.
These observations allow us to substitute the ordinary distance d by the new function D. If one does that, other quantities such as the speed also get replaced. The new speed quantity will have values in the set of real numbers and the invariant speed c will have the value 1.
In this construction of new quantities no reference object has been used. Also the equality c=1 has absolutely no relation to a special choice of units. You may even use your old units second and meter. Ask the director of the museum in Paris for permission to measure the distance of the scratch marks on the meter bar with the atomic clock method. Probably you will get a value with considerable experimental uncertainty and the value will be something like 3.3×10-9s. Then you may call this a meter. But you may also define a meter to be 1m=1s/299792458. You may do with the units whatever you want; the relation c=1 does not depend on it.
So we see that “use of natural units” is an inadequate term for the procedure to eliminate certain constants from the physical equations.
The article gives the impression that scientists are cheating. The “setting a unite equal to one in parenthesis” without any explanation of the exact meaning gives this impression. We cannot simply set something equal to 1. The symbol “=” has a very definite meaning. One more comment concerning the fine structure constant: Let me first recall what the fine constant is: this constant is 2π times the electrostatic energy of two electrons separated by a macroscopic distance d , divided by the energy of a photon of wavelength d. This gives a measurable number and with electrons in our galaxy one finds 7.29735289(53)×10-3. The fact that 1=7.29735289(53)×10-3 is not a valid formula has absolutely nothing to do with the question which other constants one would like to set equal to one! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (Signature moved; Imaginatorium (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC))