While I found the concept interesting, having to request an account through a contact form just to edit an article [1] doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part.
Interestingly, "wiki" means (in Hawaiian) "fast" (used by Ward Cunningham in '95 for "very fast web").
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.
A brief review of a single Wikenigma article suggests that it doesn't cover known topics particularly well. The mechanism for color vision in humans is poorly understood. We do know that there are four ocular photoreceptors, and at least one extraocular photosensitive cell in humans. The Wikenigma article erroneously states that "human eyes have three different types of retinal cells (cone cells) which respond to light". Of the several human photoreceptors, it is accurate that cone cells respond to light intensities at which we perceive color, but these are not the only human photoreceptors.
It sucks to criticize, but I concur in the case of the site's article on neural networks [1]. They state that the successes of neural networks "defy mathematical understanding." Universal Approximation Theorem is sufficient; even if you give the benefit of the doubt that they refer to interpretability, there is active and fruitful research into NN saliency. (As an aside, I'm curious how such a quotation got published in PNAS?) It goes on to criticize NNs as not being biologically accurate, misunderstanding the purpose of NNs.
Perhaps this is due to the site relying heavily upon newspaper articles, as opposed to actual research.
> 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.
Yes. Trivially, uncountable infinities have to be larger than countable infinities do they not? The set of reals contains within it the set of integers for example but also contains a bunch of other stuff. (Not a mathematician obviously).
* 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.
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.
> Recent research suggests that Paracetamol does have a marginal effect for pain relief - but only in around 25% of individuals - and that its beneficial action in others is due to placeboeffects.
This is great! Many of my questions on Stack Overflow are unanswered, or answered by me months later. Maybe the unanswered questions could be used to create a scaffolding at Wikenigma:
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:
“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?
> Listing scientific and academic questions to which no-one, anywhere, has yet been able to provide a definitive answer.
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.
They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki software.
If the site does a lot of curation and 'good writing' then I would say no, since wikipedia is a little austere. For example, if I want to read about oddball geographic places then Atlas Obscura is a much more interesting place to read.
I think it's on a shoddy webserver and is already being hn'd. A refresh fixed it for me.
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
So is this the equivalent of one of the stories in the 1997 movie "Good Will Hunting," but on the Internet for everyone to take a crack at some hard problems to solve?
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".
Anecdata but I see so many projects on the Internet that are both British in origin or hosting and inspired to the point of plagiarism, often without acknowledging the components of the original idea. What gives?
> It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
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.
agucova|3 years ago
[1]: https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become
willcipriano|3 years ago
mdp2021|3 years ago
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.
operator-name|3 years ago
entwife|3 years ago
kvathupo|3 years ago
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...
josephcsible|3 years ago
> Are some infinities larger than others?
But didn't Cantor prove the answer to that is "yes" back in the 19th century?
jwilk|3 years ago
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.
seanhunter|3 years ago
tgv|3 years ago
unosama|3 years ago
tgv|3 years ago
* 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.
mdp2021|3 years ago
? 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.
wgx|3 years ago
mensetmanusman|3 years ago
Are some medicines not worth the downside for society to have available?
unsupp0rted|3 years ago
IgorPartola|3 years ago
zackmorris|3 years ago
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?
mistermann|3 years ago
Nikola Tesla
ZeroGravitas|3 years ago
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.
witheld|3 years ago
Concrete, crystallization, bicycle design, green tea. What do we know, exactly?
djvdq|3 years ago
8bitsrule|3 years ago
davidy123|3 years ago
groffee|3 years ago
vivegi|3 years ago
Interesting concept though.
jabroni_salad|3 years ago
mhh__|3 years ago
kgeist|3 years ago
rzzzwilson|3 years ago
internetter|3 years ago
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
blantonl|3 years ago
mdp2021|3 years ago
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".
throwaway743|3 years ago
:(
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
bloqs|3 years ago
beardyw|3 years ago
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?
MrBlueIncognito|3 years ago
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.
jwilk|3 years ago
> 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?
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]