8

The recent Revision 3 of the tag wiki looks odd to me. Obviously made in good faith by a person with competence in the domain, but still odd.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this topic. Which is why I'm asking before editing the wiki.

Formatting

This edit's author seems to have a certain penchant for formatting names in ALL CAPS, and other text in boldface and code (and sometimes both) – also exhibited in e.g. this answer. Not to mention the spurious block quote and headings.

Is there a domain-specific reason for (some of) this formatting? Any reason for me not to flatten it out?

Content

A lot of stuff was dumped into this tag wiki. Including a "criticism" section. This is a bit over the top for my personal liking. I think tag wikis should describe the topic and point to relevant resources, but stop short of approaching Wikipedia articles in their scope.

Should some of the content be trimmed down?

Summary

I'm looking for guidance / opinion as to how I should edit this tag wiki, with all due respect to the edit's author, whom I can only assume intended to improve it.

P.S. I went ahead and rolled back the corresponding tag wiki excerpt edit before deciding to stop and ask this question. Guidance on that move is also valued.

9
  • 3
    I rolled it back. A tag wiki is not the place for a full encyclopaedic treatise. – Martijn Pieters Dec 3 '17 at 22:04
  • 1
    @MartijnPieters I agree with the outcome, the issue is that some of that information was actually useful (though clearly didn't belong in the damn tag wiki). Where does that go? His edit has information I couldn't find elsewhere that has actually helped me. – whn Dec 6 '17 at 16:41
  • 2
    @snb: No idea, perhaps the OP could contribute to Wikipedia or some other body of knowlege that gathers this kind of info. Or post it on a blog. A tag wiki, however, is not the location for it. – Martijn Pieters Dec 6 '17 at 16:59
  • @MartijnPieters Ah, so that was the point of SO Documentation! – whn Dec 6 '17 at 17:00
  • 3
    @snb: Wikipedia and the now defunct SO documentation have the downside that the OP would have to accept edits for style, grammar and general readability. – Martijn Pieters Dec 6 '17 at 17:04
  • Dear Community, none of so far presented responses from delete-promoting members did answer the point [#1]: whether the wrong content is in indeed any aspect better than a correct & complete one. Sure, no one doubts, that it is so easy to delete ( Out of question infinitely easier, than to try to create any better text revision ). However, the same zero-reflection was about [#2]: what are the merit focused Community benefits, to then advertise the [ learn more ] ( from ) principally wrong & incomplete content? ( the -5 votes express nothing but a pure hate ) – user3666197 Dec 6 '17 at 18:38
  • @user3666197 In all fairness, please also consider a more standard interpretation of the downvotes on your answer, namely disagreement with it, or not finding it useful. I for one was unable to parse it within a reasonable time frame. – Jean-François Corbett Dec 7 '17 at 8:03
  • With all respect to rigorous argumentation, what is the basis for "a more standard interpretation" of voting? Voting is one of mechanisms for an expression of one's opinion about some subject. Given, there were 2 explicit questions + 1 experiment, I have found zero attempts to evaluate and present any rigorous argument about any of the pair of the expressed dilemma questions. Zero positive steps, but -8 votes. Clicking a button without any argument-supported answer for either of the said questions is not voting, but an argument-less expression of an emotion, not a merit-focused act – user3666197 Dec 7 '17 at 10:14
  • A "more standard interpretation" could be e.g. the tooltip text for the downvote button, or the convention on meta, which is "disagreement". "Pure hate", on the other hand, sounds like theatrical hyperbole, which isn't likely to lead to the type of discussion you purport to seek. – Jean-François Corbett Dec 7 '17 at 13:03
-11

Laudatio:
Let me thank you Jean-François, for your kindly expressed respect. This is a step not very often met in these times, the less in sometimes very aggressive almost-anonymous media, where voting-tools and/or "liking" has lost its original, real-world inter-personal meanings and now often replaced any rationale and any form of a search and evaluation of fair arguments ( forming a reasoning ) and records of evidence ( for rigorous validations of any reasoning against all collected facts ).

Once more, thank you Jean-François.


DILEMMA #1: "Is a wrong [ learn more ] better than a correct one?"

Is it "better" ( based on an unknown, fuzzy-by-nature, metric of a { worse | better | best }-ness )
to publish and share a text,
that is intended and labeled as an explanation of some terminus-technicus,
that is both
- not-correct ( not exact in content )
- in-complete ( missing an important, cardinal part, thus mis-leading if used as-was )


DILEMMA #2: "Is replace of a correct text by a wrong one an improve?"

What a positive benefit
does the Community receive
from executing such an administratively permitted "protective"-step
if one decides to roll-back an improved meaning ( repaired inexact & completed missing parts )
leaving there a not-correct and in-complete text ( which does not explain the very terminus-technicus )
as the negative impact
of an otherwise positively meant step
in a duty to protect Community values, remains to continue to cause harm?


OBSERVATIONS:
( Records of Evidence )


OBJECTIVE PARTS OF REALITY ( what indeed did happen ):

[o.1]
Textual information was presented ( based on the motivation the original text was not correct ).
[o.2]
A text, in a case it was not correct, does bear less value to the Community, than a correct one.
[o.3]
Text was adding important meaning, that was not present in the previous version.
[o.4]
A text, reduced to such state, where any important part of the information is, due to whatever reason, missing, has less value to the Community, than a complete one, reducing potential for any mis-leading des-interpretation(s).
[o.5]
A text information has formatting. Except for machine-read forms ( produced by assembler ( having also a deterministically driven meaning, genetically-inspired evolutionary process ( having a highly fractal meaning ), random-generator ( intentionally wished not to have any meaning at all ) et al ), every text, devoted for being read by a society of humans, uses formatting for ages, having started way back, a few millenia before Guttenberg.
[o.6]
Formatting carries entropy-bound means for improving perception of the meaning of a text.
[o.7]
Formatting removed increases entropy at a cost of decreased ease of perception of meaning. ( If yet in doubts, kindly ref. the pair of counter-examples below )


SUBJECTIVE PARTS OF REALITY ( based on one's individual perception ):

[s.1]
(cit.) "a bit over the top for my personal liking"
[s.2]
(cit.) "looks odd to me"


EXPERIMENT:

Visibly different Entropy-coded counter-examples ( yet, both having the same content ) :

./mondrianforest_demo.py --draw_mondrian 0 --name_metric acc --alpha 0 --n_mondrians 200 --bagging 0 --discount_factor 10 --budget -1.0 --op_dir results --n_minibatches 10 --normalize_features 1 --save 0 --store_every 1 --dataset satimage --optype class --data_path ../process_data/ --budget 2.0 --select_features 0 --debug 0 --init_id 1 --min_samples_split 2

Just try to measure, how long would it take one to find a principal error in the first, entropy-decreased text presentation above, and how long would it take to spot the cause of the trouble in the entropy-reduced text-content presentation below.

Try to present any argumentation in support of deciding the pair of ( Dilemma #1, Dilemma #2 ) above only after have managed to stopwatch or just heuristically experience to find the principal error above and realise on ones own experience the actual root cause of the process of understanding a text content and how easy or hard it is to find a meaning, an error, a contradiction in each of the forms of the ( lexically the same ) presented text.

Thank you for thinking twice before cutting once.

./mondrianforest_demo.py --n_mondrians        200      \
                         --n_minibatches       10       \
                         --dataset              satimage \
                         --optype               class     \
                         --name_metric:         acc        \
                         --bagging              0           \
                         --min_samples_split    2            \
                         --budget              -1.0           \
                         --budget               2.0            \
                         --op_dir               results         \
                         --data_path            ../process_data/ \
                         --normalize_features   1                 \
                         --select_features      0                  \
                         --discount_factor     10                   \
                         --init_id              1                    \
                         --store_every          1                     \
                         --save                 0                      \
                         --draw_mondrian        0                       \
                         --debug                0                        \

( a personal note: it took me an irreversibly lost and expensive amount of time and wasted CPU-weeks before having spot and identified the most primitive root cause of indeed immense domino-effect troubles generated, yet having been educated enough and well aware of this type of large-scale processing, so hope this educative experiment will be a readable piece of experience for wider audience, if not for literally everyone here )


2
  • 6
    I'm not sure if you realize that the OP had doubts if that edit should have been made to the tag-wiki. At least a moderator thought you shouldn't and rolled back your edit. While I won't like to discourage you but this answer isn't really clear if you either agree or disagree with the tag wiki being edited with the content you provided. Would you mind addressing that in laymen terms so that a simple flower like my self can judge this answer? – rene Dec 6 '17 at 16:46
  • 3
    @rene you didn't understand this? I thought it was pretty clear from the mondrian forest script. – whn Dec 6 '17 at 16:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/360170/odd-looking-recent-revision-of-tagparallelism-amdahl-tag-wiki
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
138170
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:YUOL53VWDW3WG5IC5YVBLKUUGW6T25ZC
<urn:uuid:7c1abf4f-a8d8-481a-91a3-f6953c2eb845>
2021-03-03T03:12:26Z
151.101.193.69
text/html
sha1:WFSP7TKB46TOLDUDY3OXUYCYSY2TA4M4
<urn:uuid:67dc3873-31f5-4117-8b66-9774ad3e024d>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/360170/odd-looking-recent-revision-of-tagparallelism-amdahl-tag-wiki
response
<urn:uuid:44feec50-7de7-48ec-beb7-08419464613d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-43.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/