Montalvo

The Actor Model, Mathematical Logic, and Physics (AfD Discussion)

Montalvo wrote:

It doesn't make it non-notable just because people haven't taken enough note yet or haven't understood it's significance yet. Some people in CS have taken note, and making technical things understandable to more people is the job of the WP.

Kindly be advised that the pupose of Wikipedia is to document human knowledge. It does not report that which should (in someone's opinion) be known by instead that which is known and is documented as being known. Also, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". It cannot know what will be proven later on or not. It therefore is not the job of Wikipedia to make the unknown known but instead to document it after it is known. Please respect that. --EMS | Talk 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

There's more subtlty here than you are allowing for. I wasn't talking about being known and being knowable (espistemology). I was talking about being noted and being notable (sociology). There's a difference. One has to do with knowing, the other has to do with being noticed by others. I am arguing degree here. You're standard of someone or something being noted seems to be too high for entry into WP. WP should be in the business of making (published) technical information more accessible to outsiders, outside narrow technical fields. For that, something may not be noticed by people outside some field, but may be worth making understandable to a more general audience. I thought that's what encyclopedias were supposed to do: make the significance of narrow technical results more understandable to more people. And we can't talk about proof here, because proof is too high a standard to apply to any WP article. Have you ever heard of Godel's theorem?

That's what I love about WP it's full of obscure facts and background info I wouldn't have found anywhere else. It doesn't have the page and space limits of paper encyclopedias (see "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia"). So it can hold more facts known by fewer people.

Montalvo 02:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments of RfAr workshop re Carl Hewitt

If you have disagreements with my proposal to restrict Carl then I advise letting it be known in the comments section provided, instead of the talk pages. Personally I do not see it doing Carl a lot of good, but your polite disagreements are germane to the evaluation.

Personally, I think that you do not "get it" with Carl and his edits. He has proven to be an editor that cannot be worked with, as much as many of us have tried to do so. --EMS | Talk 18:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)