Quantum mechanics, cricket, and PR

[Paul Wormer]

I retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_mechanics" the following:

==Mention on BBC blog==
BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones admits he knows nothing about quantum mechanics, but it might be useful to know that as a layperson he finds the Wikipedia version of this article easier to read. This is another article identifying CZ's number of articles as a problem. John Stephenson 02:47, 1 April 2008 (CDT) [ Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/will_wikipedia_always_win.html ]

Although the comment of Cellan-Jones is somewhat curious, because the CZ article on quantum mechanics originates for its largest part from WP,  I 'm shocked by it. It is not often that CZ reaches the media, and -- when it does -- it is negative, then this is disastrous.

After having followed this forum and some talk pages for the last half year, it seems to me that the energy of many of us is directed too much to details (Problem or problem, Republic or The Republic, green or red bar on top, etc.) and not enough to generating content. I strongly believe that first the quantity  of content  (giving Google hits) and second the quality of content are of major importance. Everything else is secondary (IMHO) and  may be improved later.

Returning to quantum mechanics (QM), an article on this important subject could be a flagship that CZ could be proud of. I know a fair amount of QM, but I'm not skilled in popularizing science. Therefore I propose that some scientists versed in QM (including myself) come together with some skilled  non-science writers (who must be willing to try to understand what they are writing) and write a good and understandable article about quantum mechanics. The scientists explain to the non-scientists the meaning of QM, the latter do the actual writing and the former check that their writing covers the meaning.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I propose that some scientists versed in QM (including myself) come together with some skilled  non-science writers (who must be willing to try to understand what they are writing) and write a good and understandable article about quantum mechanics.

I'm up for that. I'm a non-physicist (but a technical person) with a long-time interest in QM, so hopefully you won't have to teach me much about QM!

More importantly, I think the kind of co-operation you suggest is ideal (in fact, I suggested much the same an hour ago on [[Prime numbers]]), and one I think we ought to follow througout Citizendium. I can think of nothing better calculated to produce high-quality articles that are also accesible to non-specialists. In fact, do we want to make this formal CZ policy (as a very, very desirable goal, of course, not an absolute mandate)?

Noel

[Paul Wormer]

I prepared the page:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics and propose that we discuss content, pedagogy, etc. on the associated discussion page. I made a start. Chris proposes that we make a student page out of it. I don't mind this, as long as something is happening (that is, people start writing and content is added).

[Chris Day]

I prepared the page:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics and propose that we discuss content, pedagogy, etc. on the associated discussion page. I made a start. Chris proposes that we make a student page out of it. I don't mind this, as long as something is happening (that is, people start writing and content is added).

I think it is fine at it's current home, we can always move it later, if needed.  Possibly we might want to change the name of the Student Level subpage to make it more suitable for this type of article?

Robert King suggested "Introductory".  Any other suggestions or ideas on what role the student level subpage should fulfil?

On the other hand a recent thread argued that our main articles should be serving the introductory role and the subpage should be labelled "Advanced". Most of our articles are advanced by design, we are supposed to be writing at a university level. And as such our introductory, lay audience is not served so well.

Possibly having the more advanced version on a subpage will encourge us to complete the task of writing a lay version too, that would live at the main article? Such articles would be perfect for expert and non-expert collaboration since both have a different but relevant perspective.

[Robert_W_King]

Robert King suggested "Introductory". 

I know there are other people here named Robert, but every time I always get referenced by "Robert King".  Can I change my name to something like, Xandar?

[Chris Day]

Robert King suggested "Introductory". 

I know there are other people here named Robert, but every time I always get referenced by "Robert King".  Can I change my name to something like, Xandar?

Given there is no context for the quote it makes sense.  But you always get referred to as Robert King even in the context of a discussion?  I had not noticed but in future I'll be happy to refer to you are Xander.  Or R'ing?

[J. Noel Chiappa]

a recent thread argued that our main articles should be serving the introductory role and the subpage should be labelled "Advanced". Most of our articles are advanced by design, we are supposed to be writing at a university level. And as such our introductory, lay audience is not served so well.

I definitely belong to that school of thought (that the basic article be for everyone). A general encyclopaedia, which CZ is, is by definition a resouce for the average person. So our basic articles should be for them.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's really excellent to have the 'Advanced' article too, and I am whole-heartedly in favour of having them. But I think we need to always remember that generally, our readers are not specialists. (Although it's probably not true that at least half of them are 'dumber than average', to use the classic Carlin line :-).

Possibly having the more advanced version on a subpage will encourge us to complete the task of writing a lay version too, that would live at the main article?

Good point.

Noel

[Robert_W_King]

Robert King suggested "Introductory". 

I know there are other people here named Robert, but every time I always get referenced by "Robert King".  Can I change my name to something like, Xandar?

Given there is no context for the quote it makes sense.  But you always get referred to as Robert King even in the context of a discussion?  I had not noticed but in future I'll be happy to refer to you are Xander.  Or R'ing?

R.K., RW King, Robert (in context) are all ok.  It's just weird; imagine if there were three of us in a group and every time I talked about something we did I would say "Oh man it was so funny when Chris Day did..." or "Chris Day do you want to head out to the bar after the party?"

[Chris Day]

"Chris Day do you want to head out to the bar after the party?"

Sure. Is it so strange though? Don't the Chinese utilise both names? Mr Day would be even stranger, yet that is the norm for some. I guess conversational and written have different boundaries too. For some texting is like verbal, for me these forums are less verbal-like, so some things that would sound odd in conversation sound less odd when I read (or write) them here.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I prepared the page:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

This got moved to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, and the existing article got moved to /Advanced (I think).

I threw some words together that I hoped would illustrate the kind of content/approach we need to have in an article on QM for high-school art majors, and would love feedback on whether this looks like the right approach. If so, it can be expanded; if not, back to the drawing board....

Noel

[Aleta Curry]

Robert King suggested "Introductory". 

I know there are other people here named Robert, but every time I always get referenced by "Robert King".  Can I change my name to something like, Xandar?

Having a good chuckle over this.

Well, are you a Rob, a Bobby or a Bert?  (I think I used to call you Rob, but got no comment).  Bob's taken; that's Badgett.  And Ro is of course Thorpe.

I like Ring, myself, or Xandar.  RK is a pain to type due to keyboard position and shifting.

Rik?  Rok? Bertie?

You *do* realise that I'm never going to let you hear the end of this?

[Aleta Curry]

I retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_mechanics" the following:

*snip!*

Although the comment of Cellan-Jones is somewhat curious, because the CZ article on quantum mechanics originates for its largest part from WP,  I 'm shocked by it. It is not often that CZ reaches the media, and -- when it does -- it is negative, then this is disastrous.

After having followed this forum and some talk pages for the last half year, it seems to me that the energy of many of us is directed too much to details (Problem or problem, Republic or The Republic, green or red bar on top, etc.) and not enough to generating content. I strongly believe that first the quantity  of content  (giving Google hits) and second the quality of content are of major importance. Everything else is secondary (IMHO) and  may be improved later.

*snip!*

Returning to Paul's serious subject for a mo, well I'm not quite as devastated.  I don't know who Cellan-Jones is, and I don't know if the WP article *is* easier to read, and if it is, *is* it actually *better*??

Anyway, some of us have been talking about this tone and level thing for a while now--ahem!  I'm sure I'm boring people humming the same old tune, but I'll keep at it.  So to me, your suggestion is a no-brainer, Paul--have at it!!

[Chris Day]

I prepared the page:  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics

This got moved to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, and the existing article got moved to /Advanced (I think).

I moved the old article to /Advanced and labeled it an experimental subpage.  I also migrated a lot of the info to their relevant subpages. I think I will be a good candidate to proof your more introductory version since I know nothing about quantum mechanic. I'd also point out that Robert King, I mean Bert, or is that R'ing?, has done a nice job with the time line.

[Paul Wormer]

I challenge all non-scientists among us, who always are full of criticism of the (unnecessary) difficulty of the  science/math articles, to start working with us on the article quantum mechanics. Open up your brain, tell us what you don't understand, or be bold and change the text so that you understand it  yourself (we will correct you if you slip and we will not laugh at you). Noel went out on a limb and made a first try. Who follows?

[J. Noel Chiappa]

some of us have been talking about this tone and level thing for a while now--ahem! 

I wonder if we shouldn't make some structural/procedural change to our processes to make sure that Approved articles are edible by the average member of the public.

One possibility that I thought of (and I can see the scatteraction this is going to cause :-) is to mandate that for any article to be approved, in addition to an approval from editor(s) inside the workgroup, it must also be approved by an editor from outside the workgroup, and, in fact outside the area. So, for say [[quantum mechanics]] to be approved, it would also need to get an OK from an editor from outside the entire "Natural Sciences" area. That editor would be specifically charged with ensuring that the article is comprehensible to the general public.

There's be an exception for /Advanced subpages, of course - those are generally intended for consumption by specialists. And some pages that are in themselves inherently specialist (e.g. [[Wieferich primes]] - whatever the devil they might be :-), that would basically never, ever be of interest to anyone except a specialist, might also get exemptions - but those exemptions would also have to be OK'd by an out-of-WG editor.

Anyway, this is not a finished, polished idea - I'm just casting around for ways that we can ensure that this BBC/QM thing never, ever happens again - and so I thought of this and thought I'd run it up the drapery pole and see what people thought...

Noel