Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 21 February 2011

This talk page is semi-protected due the excessive vandalism as well as living people issues. If you want to request an edit on Hewitt's page click here instead.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article is the subject of an arbitration ruling. It is expected that editors abide by the letter and spirit of that ruling. Those editors who violate the ruling, but are unaware of it, will be informed of the details before any sanctions are invoked.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Erdős number in introduction

Do others agree with me that having someone's Erdős number in the introduction is awkward? __meco (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it should go in the bio section, with the names of those whose co-authorship earns him the number. On it's own it reads a bit like his shoe size, at least to someone unfamiliar with the term. Kevin (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is his blog permitted as external link, but not his tweets?

I don't see the difference. Perhaps there is some Misplaced Pages policy on this.

Calamitybrook (talk)

(put above comment in proper order)

Update needed to External links

The external links need to be updated. Here is a suggested replacement:

• Hewitt's homepage.
• h at DBLP Bibliography Server
• List of publications from Hewitt's web page.
• Hewitt's blog.
• Hewitt's tweets
• Wittgenstein versus Gödel on the Foundations of Logic Stanford hour-long video with slides here on April 23, 2010 with participants including Solomon Feferman, Jeremy Forth, Grigori Mints, and Charles Petrie.
• How to Program the Many Cores for Inconsistency Robustness Stanford hour-long video with slides here on January 12, 2011 with participants including Dennis Allison, Douglas Crockford, and Andy Freeman.

171.66.86.58 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Above suggestion looks okay to me, but there may be a few editors who seek to keep article (and even this talk page) in an unchanged condition. I suppose that's their "consensus."

In fairness, a number of other editors have disagreed, and there are a practically infinite number of people who don't particularly care.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The important issue is having a good encyclopedia article. 171.66.86.58 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with you. But considering that I stumbled on this article through a press listing of the "Dumbest disputes on Misplaced Pages" or something like that.... your goal may be difficult to achieve.

Also, consider that the few eagle-editors involved here don't seem to cotton much to unregistered editors like yourself.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELOFFICIAL we dont need to repost every one of Hewitts social networking sites - so I would definitely eliminate the Twitter and blog.

I definitely disagree with the implication that these links violate your cited policy. In fact, to the contrary, it says "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

"We don't need to" do anything. A particular editor sees fit to add these links and I have no problem with it, and so far as we've seen, doing so doesn't violate a Misplaced Pages policy or policies.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The blog and tweets in this case are more informal and thus less encyclopedic. 171.66.95.19 (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"More informal" than what?

According to policy, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

How do values of "formal" vs "informal" relate to goal?

Obviously replies from relevant poster are now impossible to record here.

Why?

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct! Misplaced Pages allows an external link to the blog of the subject of an artice. So I restored the external link to

Hewitt's blog. Untalker (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency Robustness

Hewitt is also known for his work on inconsistency robustness which is defined to be information system performance in the face of continually pervasive inconsistencies---a shift from the previously dominant paradigms of inconsistency denial and inconsistency elimination attempting to sweep them under the rug.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Inconsistency robustness stands to become a more central theme for computation. The basic argument is that because inconsistency is continually pervasive in large information systems, the issue of inconsistency robustness must be addressed! And the best way to address the issue is computationally. Inconsistency robustness is both an observed phenomenon and a desired feature:

• It is an observed phenomenon because large information systems are required to operate in an environment of pervasive inconsistency. How are they doing?
• It is a desired feature because we need to improve the performance of large information systems.

Hewitt is program chair of the international symposium Inconsistency Robustness 2011 that will be held at Stanford in August 2011.

References

1. Common sense for inconsistency robust information integration using Direct Logic(TM) and the Actor Model
2. Inconsistency Robustness 2011 Call for Participation

Untalker (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why. Isn't "inconsistency robustness" Hewitt's own term? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No one owns the term "inconsistency robustness." (It builds on previous work on Inconsistency Tolerance.)

At this point, Professor Hewitt is best known for his work on inconsistency robustness because it has impact far outside computer science. (See the program committee of Inconsistency Robustness 2011.)

Untalker (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought he was best known for his work on the Actor model (R) and asynchronous computation. He seems to think he's best known for his attacks on Misplaced Pages.

And if Hewitt invented the term (or field of) "inconsistency robustness", then that might be a source of notability; but if he invented it, then his work in the field is almost certainly not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In computer science, Hewitt is known for his work on the Actor Model. However, it is a little troubling that Misplaced Pages seems to have some trouble with this. See This article is unfair to Professor Hewitt.

Outside computer science, he is known for his work on inconsistency robustness. See the program committee for Inconsistency Robustness 2011 Untalker (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, "inconsistency robustness" is part of computer science. It's not used outside of computer science. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The program committee of Inconsistency Robustness 2011 includes members from anthropology, applied mathematics, business, genetics, law, linguistics, medicine, microbiology, physics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, ans statistics. Untalker (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to be sure, but it sounds as if it's a fringe phenomenon, especially if all of those disciplines are considered relevant. I'm not convinced that the topic is of interest outside of computer science; it doesn't seem at all applicable to psychology or sociology (as belief does not preserve consistency) or to physics. I could be wrong; but Carl believing its importance is a strong negative to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How does your expertise in this area stack up against the psychologists, physicists, and sociologists on the program committee of Inconsistency Robustness 2011? Untalker (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. There were some fake "Engineers" in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I haven't checked the credentials of the physicists (if any) on the program committee. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The only physicist I can see on the committee appears to be an expert on quantum computers. I'd place that as "computer science", rather than "physics". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken. Carlo and Giacomo Mauro are two of the most prestigious theoretical physicists active today. Some of their publications are freely available on arXiv. Untalker (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hewitt on Misplaced Pages

Actually, he is significantly more associated with the term "Misplaced Pages" than either the term "robustness" or "actor model" -- at least according to the quick 'n dirty (but reasonable) yardstick of Google searches. Calamitybrook (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In accord with Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living people, because Hewitt's activities on Misplaced Pages constitute an extremely small part of his career and because explaining this activity would require a disproportionate amount of space, it has been decided to avoid mention in his Misplaced Pages article. Untalker (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was the reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There were other reasons as well. But the above reason is sufficient. Untalker (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy on biographies of living people is continually cited here: yet apparently nothing therein concerns this narrow question. Further, all the fulminating about the supposed inadmissibility of various & worldwide news coverage is "original research" and a matter of private, unpublished & questionable opinion.

Fact remains that at least out there on Google, his name is far more associated with Misplaced Pages than with any other term that may derive from his career.

It's a bit shameful in my view, that the article doesn't reflect this obvious fact.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We dont base on googlehits, we base on reliable sources. Active Banana ( 17:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Accepting, for a moment, your point, at least three really major publications in the U.K., Germany & Australia (N.Z.?? I forget, uh, there's also something from the Czech Republic?) have aired this Misplaced Pages matter. Most (all?) of the existing sources for this article are far less prominent, if not less reliable, than the Observer-Guardian.

Parsing the 8,400 other Google hits would be quite needless. Yet they are in any case, some yardstick of notoriety.

Here's another, mostly unrelated thought: The vast majority of people using Misplaced Pages (including myself) know nothing of Hewitt, but ipso facto, they all know something about Misplaced Pages and have some interest in the topic. To ignore Hewitt's rather prominent association with this topic might be seen as a mild insult to readers' intelligence & interests.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not really that big of a deal and we shouldnt think or act as if an interactions with it were more important than it really is in comparison to the other events in the the life of the subject of the article. WP:SUBJECT. Active Banana ( 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you evaluate what's a "big deal?"

Hewitt has received international press coverage only & exclusively regarding his relationship with Misplaced Pages. So the judgment of a few editors here is superior to that of numerous editors at major newspapers? How might this be so?

Oh I but forgot... recounting the contents of articles published in major newspapers throughout the world would, in this "special case," violate Misplaced Pages policy.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the major newspapers that you say covered the event. googlenews showed nothing. Active Banana ( 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

if you are talking about the content in this version, two of the newspapers are merely briefly mentioning and reprinting content from a third. Even the most "in depth" look at this shows it is a non-event - a puff piece with as little rel to the man and his career and impact as if it were a story about someone kicking down an elaborate sandcastle that some kid had built. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. Active Banana ( 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles