984:
failing to address the audience properly, maybe we should include prominent links to tutorial videos, such as those of Khan
Academy, when good ones exist. My efforts at trying to understand why stars pulsate, for example, have been more advanced by YouTube than by Knowledge (XXG). WP assumes I know a lot about transparency of ionized gases, which actually fits me somewhat well, but also about enthalpy and other gas thermodynamic questions, which are a deep mystery to me. Such things tend to be addressed to grad students of the appropriate major and, umm, I never came close to graduating, nor did a course in optics or gas dynamics. If it were just astrophysics; no big deal but most our STEM areas are like that.
369:"... we study evolution of a Knowledge (XXG) article with respect to quality scales. Our results show novel non-intuitive patterns emerging from this exploration. As a second objective we attempt to develop an automated data driven approach for the detection of the early signals influencing the quality change of articles. We posit this as a change point detection problem whereby we represent an article as a time series of consecutive revisions and encode every revision by a set of intuitive features. Finally, various change point detection algorithms are used to efficiently and accurately detect the future change points."
1478:
understand on index cards and spend time in the library looking them up. How quaint that seems today. Of course search engines could be used if
Knowledge (XXG) did not exist, but Knowledge (XXG) provides more organized, hyperlinked and sourced presentations. One thing that would be interesting to know is how often students start their inquires on Knowledge (XXG) rather than a general search. Knowledge (XXG) is often one of the top search results in any case. And yes, our articles leave room for improvement. They always will.--
1407:- I'd second the comment about linguistics articles - and I'd also point out that densely-written articles that take on an essay-like tone cause problems for editors who aren't even attempting to rewrite the article's content itself. It can be difficult to know what to fix or even if the addition of certain templates will cause problems if the article is too dense to work on. This repels both readers and also editors attempting to improve whatever they can on an article outside of their area of interest.--
175:
463:
1135:- I've resigned myself to mostly focusing on minor WikiGnome cleanup work for mostly this reason. I do use Knowledge (XXG) to hoover up articles in my area of interest that cover concepts I didn't know existed, and I'm fortunate that most of my watchlist is low-interest and low-traffic work, but if I attempted to conduct the Big Big Rewrites that Definitely Need To Happen, I'd wear myself thin. I still find value in the addition of accessibility templates - language templates, using
397:"We rely on an open dataset of citations from Knowledge (XXG), and use network analysis to map the relationship between Knowledge (XXG) articles and scientific journal articles. We find that most journal articles cited from Knowledge (XXG) belong to STEM fields, in particular biology and medicine (47.6% of citations; 46.1% of cited articles). Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG)'s biographies play an important role in connecting STEM fields with the humanities, in particular history."
1332:, if anyone's looking for some light bedtime reading). However, for the most part, mathematics writing is done by a lot of thinking and scribbling and playing with toy examples, coming to some abstract conclusions, and then writing down the abstract conclusions and erasing all evidence of the toy examples, forcing the reader to rediscover those for themselves if they want to actually understand why something is true. During university, I regularly had the experience that a
794:, for instance), yet our article is an incomprehensible orgy of hypertechnical terms that quickly make me want to go full Oedipus on my eyes when I even attempt to read it. Linguistics articles can get like that too, for sure, but while a little clicking around is usually good enough to get through those I would never read Knowledge (XXG) to learn something about mathematics that I didn't already thoroughly understand; from that, I rather think the problem is self-evident.
110:
130:
582:
90:
120:
823:
problems which can be understood by an intelligent outsider—have either been solved or carried to a point where an indirect approach is clearly required. The great bulk of pure mathematical research is concerned with secondary, tertiary, or higher-order problem, the very statement of which can hardly be understood until one has mastered a great deal of technical mathematics.
36:
140:
249:"Physics was the only discipline to receive zero 3-Ratings. In contrast, Chemistry received four 3-Ratings. Accuracy (A-qualifier) was a barrier to opportunistic learning in nine of the 84 components (all in Environmental Science and Statistics) . The number of A-qualifiers alone suggests not recommending Knowledge (XXG) as a learning resource in STEM disciplines.
100:
1495:
the rest of the article is – what? Too long ("Too many notes, Herr Mozart")? Too difficult? Too picky with defined terms, careful citations, attributions to scientists? – then opportunistic readers are self-condemned to read only the lead, and maybe flick through the pictures, glance at the captions. Coffee-tablePedia? TwitterFeediaPedia? Oh dear.
894:. Instead of going out of its way to instantly assault readers with every possible esoteric term imaginable, and a few that aren't, it presents the subject in a very straightforward manner and uses easily approachable examples to demonstrate its point. This is, as the article itself notes, a very counterintuitive bit of math, so clearly it
150:
1494:
Pouncing on brief summary statements in the lead without looking at the cited paragraphs (and sources) that they summarize is always going to throw up ambiguities – all natural language is ambiguous and metaphoric, basta. If "opportunistic learning" means never going beyond the lead section – because
1178:
Of course we should always take what we can learn from this kind of exercise. In particular, we could make better use of the "Introduction to..." format to serve a wider range of audiences. But if you're going to publish an article criticizing a free resource from behind a paywall, well, pooh on you.
1081:
problems. To write a textbook-style introduction, you need to pick how to begin and what to include, devise a path through the ideas, probably invent examples that haven't been used anywhere else before... Knowledge (XXG), as a platform, simply isn't equipped to do any of that. As a physicist who has
829:
I'm sorry, but Graham's
Youtube chat may give you a warm feeling that you're learned something, but in fact you haven't. The purpose of our articles is to lend real understanding to those who have something like the background, not to let readers pretend they've learned something. That's what Youtube
204:
The 28 articles were chosen from "six disciplines for which willing academics familiar with introductory STEM topics were available to participate in this study: Biology, Chemistry, Environmental
Science, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics", plus a "General" STEM category. Within each of these, the
1114:
for the intrinsic difficulty of the subject, or the challenge of writing about it, or the human element of finding people qualified to do so when all the incentives are for them to be doing work that advances their careers. I've been trying to make it work for years now, and I'm tired. And I'm done.
1072:
guidelines. And if we tried to write a hand-holding introduction to every subject that presumed half of a high-school education, we'd need more than one of each. No one introduction works for all readers. The same textbook can come across as friendly to one reader and gimmicky to another. Please the
785:
Our math and physics articles are a mix of garbled verbiage and verbal garbage, the apparent need to write in an impenetrable style instead of maybe using the
English language is painful. It comes off to me as an intentional effort to show off instead of inform. To cite an obvious example, there are
1225:
The Oxford
English Dictionary tells us that the original meaning of encylopedia (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) is ‘encyclical education’, meaning "the circle of arts and sciences considered by the Greeks as essential to a liberal education." The first definition that follows this is "The circle of learning; a
1211:
with 100-edit contribution on talk pages who know the subject way better than I potentially would ever learn it - in fact, any subject - and are not ready to accept that what they say may deviate from the divine truth) that I am not sure I would ever actually write anything related to my research.--
1113:
For years, I've seen complaints about the difficulty of our technical articles, and sooner or later that thread of anti-intellectualism always works its way in. "Ha ha, I was never good at math, lolz, I stopped reading at the first word I didn't get, let's pivot to video." There's no consideration
983:
A sometimes applied doctrine says it's okay to be an insider to an academic discipline, writing an article, but we must remember our audience is outsiders. Alas, it seems many articles are written for insiders by insiders, or at least they try to teach the things every insider must know. If we are
822:
It is notoriously difficult to convey the proper impression of the frontiers of mathematics to nonspecialists. Ultimately the difficulty stems from the fact that mathematics is an easier subject than the other sciences. Consequently, many of the important primary problems of the subject—that is,
252:
Conceptual barriers were common (all components within every discipline, except the first paragraphs of
Statistics articles), and procedural barriers reasonably common (except for Chemistry). Statistics has (ignominiously) the most barriers regarding displays. Statistics and Environmental Science
1462:
I have to say, I wasn't particularly impressed by the lead publication here. Four articles per area is barely enough to generate anecdotes, much less data or understanding. And the authors' idea that someone without any background knowledge should be able to learn a topic from a quick read of its
1321:
In "Mathematics", "articles were generally instructive from an encyclopedic viewpoint, but the fluid narrative was less useful for learners unless supplemented". While there were no accuracy concerns, "C-qualifiers were frequently applied because the development was less helpful for opportunistic
1210:
I sometimes think whether I should write something about notions in my research field (which is condensed matter physics) and see whether anything useful would come out, but there is so much red tape (from colleagues potentially unhappy they are not cited or not cited they would like to, to users
410:
By comparing
Wikidata queries to real-world datasets we discovered that there is an overrepresentation of white individuals and those with citizenship in Europe and North America; the rest of the groups are generally underrepresented. Based on these findings, we have found and linked to Wikidata
290:
In "Mathematics", "articles were generally instructive from an encyclopedic viewpoint, but the fluid narrative was less useful for learners unless supplemented". While there were no accuracy concerns, "C-qualifiers were frequently applied because the development was less helpful for opportunistic
1477:
I'd be more interested in a study of how STEM students (and others) actually use
Knowledge (XXG), rather than some educators speculation on how useful it ought to be. I certainly would have found it very helpful when I was in school. Back then we were taught to write terms and concepts we didn't
1340:
just three days later. The problem for
Knowledge (XXG), then, is that making articles understandable necessarily makes them unverifiable, because mathematical papers and even textbooks and lecture notes do not give any or enough illustrative examples to learn the concept, or spell out the finer
381:
This master's thesis presents results of a survey asking readers of Greek Knowledge (XXG) how useful they found its "interactive storytelling tools (hyperlinks to other articles, navigation tables, page previews, photos, external sources of information, etc.)", and about improvements they would
298:
The authors emphasize that these evaluations were specific to the suitability of the Knowledge (XXG) articles for opportunistic learning, and that "a technically correct article may be a poor opportunistic learning resource. Of course, some criticisms (e.g., accuracy) may apply more generally".
212:
Each article was evaluated in three components, based on a revision from 14 November 2019: "the entire article, the preamble (before the Table of Contents) , and the preamble first paragraph". The focus on the latter two was motivated by the observation that they "are easily accessed on mobile
1295:
a school essay, or a single page to learn an advanced concept if one doesn't have the foggiest idea of the field of study as a basis. I think the intro section, besides defining the topic in an accessible fashion, lets one know whether one has any sort of background or context to be able to
1196:- and yet incredibly useful for someone wanting to understand the place of biodiversity in the world and culture at large. The study is inherently flawed by operating on the premise that any article is of primary or even exclusive use to people engaged in higher learning of its subject.
1296:
understand much of the rest. We do have a ton of articles on introductory topics and introductory articles on some advanced topics, but as the study rightly points out, we also have lots of non-introductory articles on non-introductory topics. And, as others have noted, some
1155:
in place of line breaks - but it's definitely not the heavy-hitting stuff I used to do. I feel sorry for people working in more active areas of interest - I can't begin to imagine the nightmare of attempting to wrangle more than five high-importance, high-traffic articles at
1096:
Moreover, the editors who are subject-matter experts and who have managed to adapt themselves to the different requirements of writing here are either working away in obscure corners because that's where their enthusiasm leads them, or they're run ragged trying to clean up
205:
authors selected "four diverse introductory topics commonly encountered in STEM programs topics commonly misunderstood or important in the discipline". The four "Statistics" articles had already been examined in a previous paper by three of the authors (see our review:
235:
Effectiveness of the display or visual components (D): clear; accessible; coherent and well-paced; organized; logical; interesting; context; readability; density of formulae; use of diagrams, videos, animations etc. for illustration; complexity, use and suitability of
330:
about Knowledge (XXG) and of an upcoming book titled "Writing the Revolution: Knowledge (XXG) and the Survival of Facts in the Digital Age" covers "the power struggles and community governance that makes the site one of the most trusted information sources on the
1290:
One of the standards of WP is that each article is to be focused on its topic, and make major use of bluelinks with only brief statements about what they contain, rather than have an article be anything like a self-contained exposition on the whole topic. It's
294:
For "Chemistry", the study criticized that "eight of the 12 article components lacked conceptual development (C). The articles introduced concepts at a level substantially above that expected of undergraduates or assumed knowledge that most would not have".
220:
The articles were evaluated using what the authors call the "ACPD framework" (developed in their earlier paper), assigning a score from 1 ("Not suitable for opportunistic learning") to 3 ("Recommended for opportunistic learning") in each of four criteria:
1027:
I probably wouldn't rely on Knowledge (XXG) for formulas. It's not uncommon I come across a maths article through edit filter logs or Huggle and notice some sneaky vandalism to a formula has passed through patrollers and managed to stay in the article.
1226:
general course of instruction." If a credible source judges the bulk of Knowledge (XXG) unsuitable for opportunistic learning by college undergraduates, then we have a serious problem. I have more to say on this than can reasonably be posted here:
730:"Quality change: norm or exception? Measurement, Analysis and Detection of Quality Change in Knowledge (XXG)" – It's hard to imagine a research project more doomed from the start than one which (AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP) mistakes our absurd
1300:
really are fairly impenetrable by their nature, due to niche article scope. The problem might not be that "any given article isn't fully accessible for self-learning to anyone with no background", but rather that we don't have at least
476:
Das, Paramita; Guda, Bhanu Prakash Reddy; Seelaboyina, Sasi Bhusan; Sarkar, Soumya; Mukherjee, Animesh (2021-11-02). "Quality change: norm or exception? Measurement, Analysis and Detection of Quality Change in Knowledge (XXG)".
969:, I usually give up after the first paragraph. The rest of such articles seem to be preaching to the choir. Fortunately in linguistics I'm one of the singers but I'm hopelessly confused when I want to learn something in STEM.
1359:"The proof is left as an excercise for the reader." Or end-of-chapter question #1 was to prove a theorem not discussed in the chapter, and then question #2 was to use that new theorem to prove yet some other thing. *cringe*
1305:
article on each major or lay-accessible topic that is. Depending on one's starting point (article, and personal background), that might be a few clicks down a rabbit-hole, and require a major investment to get up to speed.
926:
is mostly unsourced, and much of it looks like the sort of sophomoric filler one gets from writers who don't have a firm enough grasp of the subject to make any clear point but still need to reach a long enough page count.
1379:
be, anyway. An encyclopedia is a reference work! Its use as a pedagogical tool is secondary. I know students are reading it, and that's a very good reason (among many others) to care about whether or not our articles are
327:
206:
287:' (Environmental Science) article states 'Biodiversity inspires musicians, painters, sculptors, writers and other artists', which is not useful for a learner seeking to understand the concept of biodiversity".
687:
1102:
282:
which said "evolutionary processes cause species to change continually, and to grade into one another". The study also took issues with "paragraphs only tangentially related to the topic For example, the
631:
256:
The number of C-, P- and D-qualifiers noticeably increased while moving from the first paragraph, to the preamble, to the article (Table 3), suggesting first paragraphs are the most useful component."
226:
Article accuracy (A), including definitions; interpretation; notation; usage; examples. Accuracy focuses on errors, ambiguities, omissions, and inconsistencies, but also correct spelling and grammar.
1463:
Knowledge (XXG) article, and that any deeper content in the article that impedes that quick understanding is superfluous, seems...misguided at best. Encyclopedia articles should be encyclopedic. —
641:
606:
569:
560:
941:
I thought the lead was at least worth a read, I came away understanding more than when I went in. Also, since that article is under perpetual siege, I can see where its development is stunted.
651:
636:
611:
76:
1082:
written expository material for students, research papers for colleagues, and Knowledge (XXG) articles, I can tell you that the process and the mindset are necessarily different for each one.
621:
1123:
616:
599:
1227:
656:
352:
Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research,
1091:
1064:"outsiders". Sometimes, the same article has to serve multiple purposes, because anyone might read it — from schoolchildren to professional mathematicians. This is why we have the
593:
55:
44:
646:
661:
229:
Effectiveness of the conceptual explanations (C): logical explanations that lead to procedures; explanation beyond definitions; explanation of what is behind the procedure.
1042:
I do this sort of thing too, and it's usually a recognition-vs-recall situation; I can't remember what I'm looking for offhand but will probably notice if it's wrong.
1430:
really does suck though. That's not a proper lede at all. Way too long and what looks like body material that was moved up and shoved into the lede for some reason.
1595:
93:
716:). Ultimately STEM isn't learned by reading and our articles are written very technically and asan encyclopaedic reference rather than as a learning resource.
214:
21:
1571:
1543:
201:
topics for undergraduate students' "opportunistic learning", defined as "informal, self-regulated study to learn, relearn, or be introduced to a concept".
1566:
1561:
946:
911:
855:
799:
1169:
898:
be done. I get that most other subjects aren't the abject crank magnets that article is, and I suspect that external pressure is why, almost alone,
1556:
232:
Effectiveness of the procedural explanations (P): accuracy of procedures explained; examples used to explain procedure; explanation of procedure.
1402:
1328:. Higher education maths pedagogy is horrific. I have had a small number of excellent teachers, lecture notes and truly fantastic textbooks (
966:
942:
907:
851:
795:
1375:
For real. And at any rate, this "it's not useful for learners unless supplemented" conclusion is... describing exactly what an encyclopedia
1551:
1011:
i.e. some formulas and figures, a reminder or a key to further reading, not a learning resource per se. And I'm not disappointed. ☆
581:
428:
Dunn, Peter K.; Brunton, Elizabeth; Marshman, Margaret; McDougall, Robert; Kent, Damon; Masters, Nicole; McKay, David (2021-11-13).
49:
35:
17:
999:
1033:
721:
278:), the study criticized "uneven, vague, overly simplistic and/or imprecise" writing, highlighting an example from the article
267:. But "the preambles and the entire articles were generally poor, with many A-qualifiers (errors). Some errors were basic..."
1523:
1384:. But Knowledge (XXG) is a 💕, not a free university course. If it doesn't rate well as a teaching device, well, so what? --
536:
Shaik, Zaina; Ilievski, Filip; Morstatter, Fred (2021-08-11). "Analyzing Race and Country of Citizenship Bias in Wikidata".
377:"Digital Communication and Interactive Storytelling in Knowledge (XXG) : A Study of Greek Users' Interaction and Experience"
189:"The First Paragraph Is As Good As It Gets": study discourages STEM students from using the rest of Knowledge (XXG) articles
1412:
1161:
501:
Digital Communication and Interactive Storytelling in Knowledge (XXG) : A Study of Greek Users' Interaction and Experience
180:
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Knowledge (XXG) and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the
1529:
1504:
1487:
1472:
1455:
1441:
1420:
1393:
1368:
1354:
1315:
1239:
1220:
1205:
1188:
1051:
1037:
1022:
993:
978:
952:
936:
917:
885:
861:
841:
805:
780:
745:
725:
411:
additional data about STEM scientists from the minorities. This data is ready to be inserted into Wikidata with a bot.
1446:
For my background at least, the first three sentences explain it all perfectly. The rest probably can be moved down.--
213:
devices with small screens, and may be all that is read" (quoted from the earlier paper), an assumption supported by
270:
In "Environmental Science" (the other discipline where the evaluation had flagged accuracy concerns, in the articles
1184:
1047:
1029:
717:
353:
1265:
1065:
762:, kept at FAR in 2015). In those two cases they liked the lead, but Species got 1/3 overall and Enzyme got 2/3.
309:
1577:
1483:
1468:
1408:
1157:
932:
902:
article is written in such a way that it eschews navel-gazing gobbledygook in favor of language that actively
361:"Quality change: norm or exception? Measurement, Analysis and Detection of Quality Change in Knowledge (XXG)"
1500:
1270:
1235:
989:
30:
STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph: And other new research results
1436:
462:
1180:
1119:
1087:
1043:
430:"The First Paragraph Is As Good As It Gets: STEM Articles in Knowledge (XXG) and Opportunistic Learning"
754:
of articles reviewed, along with Knowledge (XXG)'s quality assessment. Mostly B/C, but there's one GA (
751:
1389:
1005:
I use Knowledge (XXG) a lot for my STEM-related professional field, and expect it to be as useful as
1069:
1479:
1464:
1451:
1216:
928:
869:
1341:
points that would be immediately obvious to anyone with the education to be reading the source. —
1098:
1518:
1496:
1231:
985:
537:
516:
478:
452:
207:"Evaluating Knowledge (XXG) as a self-learning resource for statistics: You know they'll use it"
181:
174:
1179:
Some "opportunistic learning" there. (Yes, I know, the OA fees are probably an arm and a leg.)
103:
1431:
1201:
974:
683:
445:
275:
260:
242:
123:
1277:
1074:
1364:
1347:
1311:
1130:
1115:
1083:
878:
787:
437:
319:
1078:
133:
1385:
499:
153:
1259:
1447:
1212:
836:
815:
740:
1589:
1513:
1416:
1165:
1018:
455:
1197:
1139:
1105:, schlock added by well-meaning editors suckered by sensationalist pop-science and
970:
323:
284:
143:
441:
1360:
1342:
1307:
1149:
873:
429:
890:
I have to say, one of the very few reasonably well-written articles on this is
515:
Yang, Puyu; Colavizza, Giovanni (2021). "A Map of Science in Knowledge (XXG)".
113:
1106:
1007:
271:
448:
1427:
831:
791:
768:
735:
710:
264:
263:, the authors judged the first paragraphs "excellent" with the exception of
163:
71:
STEM articles judged unsuitable for undergraduates below the first paragraph
1194:
not useful for a learner seeking to understand the concept of biodiversity
1103:
vanity-fueled autobiographies that try to use Knowledge (XXG) as LinkedIn
1013:
923:
891:
755:
279:
759:
542:
521:
483:
197:
evaluated the suitability of English Knowledge (XXG) articles on
1336:
answer I had given to a problem sheet question was impenetrable
1324:
Accords with my experience, not just of Knowledge (XXG), but of
335:
198:
54:
1511:
I wonder if they found any difference between GA/FAs and not?
339:
790:
in a reasonably approachable manner (the man himself does it
580:
402:"Analyzing Race and Country of Citizenship Bias in Wikidata"
34:
1228:
User:Kent G. Budge/Response to College Teaching critique
714:
699:
692:
672:
1330:
Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms
1073:former, and you'll lose the latter. We'd also face
697:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
334:The Wikimedia Foundation's research team published
1258:
1326:university textbooks, lecture notes and tutorials
1111:There just aren't enough volunteers to go around.
850:expect, hence my lack of disappointment from it.
810:Well, BotNL (hey -- you should have a bot called
734:tags for actual indicators of article quality.
376:
342:in a series of biannual reports about its work.
846:Heh. At least on YouTube that's about all you
750:"The First Paragraph Is As Good As It Gets" –
408:
367:
247:
223:
8:
315:for videos and slides of past presentations.
193:A study published last month in the journal
253:have the most identified barriers overall.
1596:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2021-12
541:
520:
482:
215:several data points and research results
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1250:
1060:The audience for Knowledge (XXG) isn't
700:
676:
420:
70:
1320:
1193:
821:
786:plenty of YouTube videos that explain
389:"A Map of Science in Knowledge (XXG)"
29:
7:
1278:participating institution membership
709:Unsurprising. I mentioned this on
56:
28:
682:These comments are automatically
1403:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1000:File:Pocket ref cover 4th ed.png
967:The Blade of the Northern Lights
943:The Blade of the Northern Lights
908:The Blade of the Northern Lights
852:The Blade of the Northern Lights
796:The Blade of the Northern Lights
461:
173:
148:
138:
128:
118:
108:
98:
88:
1070:"put the easiest part up front"
693:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1473:08:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
1456:20:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1442:19:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1394:21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1369:16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1355:11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1316:04:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
1240:17:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1221:14:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1206:06:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1189:06:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1124:07:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1092:05:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1052:06:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1038:04:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
1023:01:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
994:00:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
979:00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
953:15:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
937:08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
918:06:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
886:11:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
862:15:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
842:06:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
806:23:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
781:22:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
746:22:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
726:21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
442:10.1080/87567555.2021.2004387
328:various research publications
182:Wikimedia Research Newsletter
1530:03:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
1505:10:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
1421:16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
1170:16:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
1544:delivered to your talk page
1488:17:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
312:Wikimedia Research Showcase
1612:
261:In the Statistics category
1266:Oxford English Dictionary
868:Just dropping this here:
498:Mavridis, George (2021).
347:Other recent publications
906:courages understanding.
1271:Oxford University Press
1066:"write one level down"
732:Stub-Start-C-B-GA-A-FA
690:. To follow comments,
585:
413:
399:
371:
258:
241:The authors summarize
239:
39:
1030:ProcrastinatingReader
718:ProcrastinatingReader
584:
395:
243:the resulting ratings
38:
686:from this article's
310:page of the monthly
1409:Ineffablebookkeeper
1158:Ineffablebookkeeper
870:Talk:Falsifiability
573:"Recent research" →
406:From the abstract:
393:From the abstract:
365:From the abstract:
677:Discuss this story
632:Arbitration report
586:
354:are always welcome
45:← Back to Contents
40:
1276:(Subscription or
922:To the contrary,
778:
766:
701:purging the cache
565:"Recent research"
276:greenhouse effect
50:View Latest Issue
1603:
1580:
1539:Want the latest
1528:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1439:
1434:
1406:
1350:
1282:
1281:
1274:
1262:
1255:
1181:Opabinia regalis
1154:
1148:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1044:Opabinia regalis
1016:
965:Concurring with
949:
914:
881:
858:
830:videos are for.
802:
779:
776:
775:
773:
764:
713:'s talk before (
704:
702:
696:
675:
604:
596:
594:28 December 2021
589:
572:
564:
548:
547:
545:
533:
527:
526:
524:
512:
506:
505:
495:
489:
488:
486:
473:
467:
466:
465:
459:
434:College Teaching
425:
195:College Teaching
177:
166:
152:
151:
142:
141:
132:
131:
122:
121:
112:
111:
102:
101:
92:
91:
62:
60:
58:
57:28 December 2021
1611:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1559:
1554:
1547:
1536:
1535:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1512:
1437:
1432:
1400:
1348:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1275:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1128:
1012:
971:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
947:
912:
879:
856:
800:
788:Graham's number
769:
767:
763:
752:here's the list
706:
698:
691:
680:
679:
673:+ Add a comment
671:
667:
666:
665:
642:Deletion report
627:Recent research
607:From the editor
597:
592:
590:
587:
576:
575:
570:
567:
562:
556:
555:
551:
535:
534:
530:
514:
513:
509:
497:
496:
492:
475:
474:
470:
460:
427:
426:
422:
418:
404:
391:
379:
363:
349:
322:interview with
305:
191:
186:
178:
168:
167:
161:
160:
159:
158:
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
83:
80:
69:
68:Recent research
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1609:
1607:
1599:
1598:
1588:
1587:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1538:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1508:
1507:
1491:
1490:
1475:
1465:David Eppstein
1460:
1459:
1458:
1424:
1423:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1372:
1371:
1318:
1284:
1283:
1269:(Online ed.).
1260:"encyclopedia"
1249:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1223:
1208:
1191:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
997:
996:
981:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
929:David Eppstein
866:
865:
864:
827:
826:
825:
816:Andrew Gleason
783:
758:) and one FA (
748:
728:
681:
678:
670:
669:
668:
664:
659:
654:
652:Traffic report
649:
644:
639:
637:By the numbers
634:
629:
624:
619:
614:
612:News and notes
609:
603:
591:
579:
578:
577:
568:
559:
558:
557:
553:
550:
549:
528:
507:
490:
468:
419:
417:
414:
403:
400:
390:
387:
385:
378:
375:
373:
362:
359:
348:
345:
344:
343:
332:
316:
304:
301:
238:
237:
233:
230:
227:
190:
187:
172:
171:
170:
169:
157:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
85:
84:
81:
75:
74:
73:
72:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1608:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1591:
1579:
1573:
1568:
1563:
1558:
1553:
1545:
1542:
1531:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1497:Chiswick Chap
1493:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1279:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1261:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:Kent G. Budge
1229:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1151:
1141:
1132:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
995:
991:
987:
986:Jim.henderson
982:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
954:
950:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
921:
920:
919:
915:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
883:
882:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
840:
839:
835:
834:
828:
824:
820:
819:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
803:
797:
793:
789:
784:
782:
774:
772:
761:
757:
753:
749:
747:
744:
743:
739:
738:
733:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
708:
707:
703:
694:
689:
685:
674:
663:
660:
658:
655:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
610:
608:
605:
601:
595:
588:In this issue
583:
574:
566:
554:
544:
539:
532:
529:
523:
518:
511:
508:
503:
502:
494:
491:
485:
480:
472:
469:
464:
457:
454:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
424:
421:
415:
412:
407:
401:
398:
394:
388:
386:
383:
374:
370:
366:
360:
358:
357:
355:
346:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
307:
306:
302:
300:
296:
292:
288:
286:
281:
277:
273:
268:
266:
262:
257:
254:
250:
246:
244:
234:
231:
228:
225:
224:
222:
218:
216:
210:
208:
202:
200:
196:
188:
185:
183:
176:
165:
155:
147:
145:
137:
135:
127:
125:
117:
115:
107:
105:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
1540:
1381:
1376:
1346:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1264:
1253:
1245:
1110:
1061:
1006:
998:
903:
899:
895:
877:
847:
837:
832:
811:
770:
741:
736:
731:
626:
622:In the media
600:all comments
552:
531:
510:
500:
493:
471:
433:
423:
409:
405:
396:
392:
384:
380:
372:
368:
364:
351:
350:
324:Heather Ford
311:
297:
293:
289:
285:Biodiversity
269:
259:
255:
251:
248:
245:as follows:
240:
219:
211:
203:
194:
192:
179:
164:Tilman Bayer
94:PDF download
1578:Suggestions
1546:each month?
684:transcluded
617:Serendipity
326:(author of
291:learning".
144:X (Twitter)
1386:asilvering
1322:learning".
1280:required.)
1246:References
1131:XOR'easter
1116:XOR'easter
1107:churnalism
1101:nonsense,
1084:XOR'easter
1008:Pocket Ref
543:2108.05412
522:2110.13790
484:2111.01496
416:References
336:the fourth
272:extinction
82:Share this
77:Contribute
22:2021-12-28
1572:Subscribe
1525:contribs)
1448:Ymblanter
1428:Histogram
1213:Ymblanter
688:talk page
657:Crossword
456:244109849
449:8756-7555
382:suggest.
265:histogram
1590:Category
1567:Newsroom
1562:Archives
1541:Signpost
1515:Skarmory
1419:}} me!)
1382:accurate
1168:}} me!)
924:0.999...
892:0.999...
818:put it:
812:BotNLBot
563:Previous
436:: 1–10.
308:See the
134:Facebook
124:LinkedIn
114:Mastodon
20: |
1520:(talk •
1334:correct
1198:Kingsif
1156:once.--
1075:WP:NPOV
756:Species
647:Gallery
320:podcast
303:Briefly
280:species
236:images.
1433:Silver
1377:should
1361:DMacks
1343:Bilorv
1308:DMacks
1298:topics
1099:fringe
1079:WP:NOR
948:話して下さい
913:話して下さい
874:Bilorv
857:話して下さい
848:should
814:), as
801:話して下さい
760:Enzyme
662:Humour
154:Reddit
104:E-mail
1557:About
1438:seren
1415:) ({{
1338:to me
1164:) ({{
538:arXiv
517:arXiv
479:arXiv
453:S2CID
340:fifth
331:web".
16:<
1552:Home
1501:talk
1484:talk
1469:talk
1452:talk
1417:ping
1413:talk
1390:talk
1365:talk
1349:talk
1312:talk
1303:some
1236:talk
1217:talk
1202:talk
1185:talk
1166:ping
1162:talk
1145:and
1120:talk
1109:...
1088:talk
1077:and
1068:and
1062:just
1048:talk
1034:talk
1019:talk
990:talk
975:talk
933:talk
900:that
880:talk
872:. —
792:here
771:Sdkb
765:{{u|
722:talk
711:EEng
571:Next
446:ISSN
338:and
274:and
199:STEM
1480:agr
1293:not
1140:ubl
1014:Bri
896:can
838:Eng
742:Eng
438:doi
209:).
162:By
79:—
1592::
1503:)
1486:)
1471:)
1454:)
1392:)
1367:)
1353:)
1314:)
1263:.
1238:)
1230:--
1219:)
1204:)
1187:)
1153:}}
1150:pb
1147:{{
1143:}}
1137:{{
1122:)
1090:)
1050:)
1036:)
1021:)
992:)
977:)
951:)
935:)
916:)
904:en
884:)
860:)
804:)
777:}}
724:)
561:←
451:.
444:.
432:.
318:A
217:.
1499:(
1482:(
1467:(
1450:(
1411:(
1405::
1401:@
1388:(
1363:(
1345:(
1310:(
1273:.
1234:(
1215:(
1200:(
1183:(
1160:(
1133::
1129:@
1118:(
1086:(
1046:(
1032:(
1017:(
988:(
973:(
945:(
931:(
927:—
910:(
876:(
854:(
833:E
798:(
737:E
720:(
705:.
695:.
602:)
598:(
546:.
540::
525:.
519::
504:.
487:.
481::
458:.
440::
356:.
283:'
184:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
