User:Mikkalai/By Erdos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This defenseless list of Mathematicians by Erdos number was snatched right out of the claws and paws of a scary 'bot chewing it and gnawing it right before my eyes after a deletionistic admin decided that all ye voters-keepers talk little sense giving no sensible explanation besides iDontLikeYourSay.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Please discuss what to do with it and how to do whatever will be decided to prevent another mishap in the future. `'Míkka 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, Míkka. I am extremely distressed by this development. I wrote immediately to the admin who decided to delete the categories (on what basis? he never bothered to explain), but I have not received any answer from him. I haven't seen such an arbitary action in my almost 12 months of editing here at WP. I hope this can be corrected, and such actions be prevented from happening in the future. In the meantime, sorry to say this, but my faith in how WP operates has been shaken. (BTW, and for all the good it does, I share your clandestine secret!) Turgidson 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't say I was surprised by the deletion; arbitrary (counter-consensus) action by admins is typical. Good luck to your cause, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I was bothered by the outcome, but not terribly surprised. Turgidson, don't lose faith in the process. Just keep contributing. Bad and wrong things happen on Wikipedia from time to time, but I believe they are never permanent. The categories' opponents seemed mostly in favor of listifying, so someone should just create 6 list articles, and link to them wherever appropriate. At least the information will still be available on Wikipedia. I looked at the discussion early this morning and saw what had happened, so I hurried to the category pages for numbers 1 and 2 (the Erdős numbers I had worked on) and copied and pasted all the names into a text file. I wanted to use the categories as a list of articles to work on, so I'll continue to do that. Ntsimp 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A regretable result, but, as CRGreathouse says, admins don't always follow consensus when closing AfDs/CfDs. A debate about the closing admins reasons has started at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28, but I doubt it will achieve anything useful. The decision could be questioned at WP:DRV, but my impression is that deletion decisions are rarely overturned unless there has been a really blatant breach of procedure. I agree with Ntsimp that we should just create list articles from the archived copies of the categories - with sources, so that they don't end up on AfD. Gandalf61 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the delete closure was incorrect both on the basis of !vote counting and as a matter of interpretation guidelines and policy, but the closing admin is given wide discretion by the deletion process. Usually this works well, sometimes not, as in this case. I think that WP:DRV would be an appropriate forum to try to overturn this poor decision. I was surprised by the decision because usually the side that exhibits the greatest amount of hectoring (contesting every opinion contrary to their own, repeating the same argument every time) is discounted, but that didn't happen here. List articles are OK, but they suck for navigation. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive, and categories are much better here. (Among other annoyances lists attract a lot more vandalism than cats. Cats are also lower maintenance.) Quale 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One possibility that was suggested on the talk page of the CfG page was to put Erdos numbers in an infobox. I think that this is an idea worth exploring. --Ramsey2006 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that, except for the fact that it would preclude seeing all others with the same E-number, which for me is much of the appeal of a category. (I use this kind of info all the time when making edits on groups of people, even if the connection is somewhat tenuous or whimsical, it can be a great motivation -- an aspect that did not seem to resonate with anyone else, unfortunately.) And yes, a list would be nightmarish to maintain, and still open to merciless attacks. I don't know, I'm left very despondent by all this -- I rather do something else. But maybe someone else has more energy left after this bruising fight... Turgidson 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of the infobox as a replacement for the list. (In fact, I would imagine that it would contain a link to the list.) But a list alone doesn't replace what for me was the major appeal of the categories, namely, that I could scroll down to the bottom of any math bio and see somebody's Erdos number. I can see the problem with maintenence, but we may have no choice. And of course, you are correct that all this could very well still be subject to further attacks just like the categories. On another note, with a list/infobox combination, we wouldn't be restricted to Erdos numbers of 6 or less (a limitation which I've never really understood). There are aparently five mathematicians with Erdos number 13 (the highest finite value at this time), and if any of them are notable to have wikipedia articles, it would be cool to have that fact noted in their bio. There is nothing inheriently more interesting about a low Erdos number (except perhaps 0 and 1) than a high Erdos number. In fact, if I were an isolated vertex myself, I would almost be inclined to search out the names of the vertices with Erdos number 13 just to try to spark up a colaboration that would make me the first person to have an Erdos number of 14. It would be cool to be the person who was responsible for changing a global parameter of the graph like the diameter. --Ramsey2006 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also much more interested in finding people with high Erdos numbers, than, say, 3 or 4, which is rather standard among mathematicians -- that's why I started the category with E-number 6 (which is by the way the highest I could reliably find on Mathscinet, at least among WP entries), and I added quite a bit to E-number 5. Somehow, it speaks to me that Ahmed Chalabi would have E-number 6! But I realize now that there is no chance in hell that one could convince the arbiters of category orthodoxy that that's a worthwhile endeavor. At any rate, if you know of anyone with E-number >6 at MathSciNet, I'd be interested of finding out, maybe even starting an article on that person if notability could be established. Turgidson 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Arturo Robles is mentioned by name at the ENP as having maximal finite erdos number of 13, but MR puts him at a mere 10. --Ramsey2006 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The path listed at ENP is: Erdös to Daniel D. Bonar (1977) to Charles L. Belna (1979) to S. A. Obaid (1983) to Wadie A. Bassali (1981) to Ibrahim H. M. el-Sirafy (1976) to Konstantin Chernous (1977) to Jose Valdes (1980) to B. Dugnol (1980) to P. Suarez Rodriguez (1995) to A. E. Alvarez Vigil (1995) to C. Gonzalez Nicieza (1992) to Jose Angel Huidobro (1986) to Robles (1990). [1] Looks like Benjamín Dugnol Álvarez just had to ruin it all in a 2007 publication with Gonzalo Galiano. [2] Oh, well.... --Ramsey2006 20:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Good catch. I was starting from WP articles, trying to guess which ones may have a high E-number -- for some reason, I did not think of starting from the ENP list, and working from there. OK, let me try to summarize the results we have so far. Let AMS-E be the Erdős number computed from the MathSciNet database, and let ENP-E be the Erdős number listed on the ENP website. Then (dealing only with finite E-numbers):
* From empirical data, it looks like AMS-E ≤ ENP-E. Is this always true?
* Overall: max AMS-E = 10, max ENP-E = 13.
* Over WP entries: max AMS-E = 6, max ENP-E ≥ 7
Can these bounds be improved? Made sharp? Turgidson 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the data is all coming from the same place. There are two ENP pages that I know of that talk about large e-numbers, and give tables for how many vertices there are for each number. One is this page [3], which claims a date of june 2004, and an older version of the same page [4] which claims a date of May 2000. But the data all comes from the MR database. The page mentions problems with author identification with the MR database, which I can see first hand by typing my own name into the MR tool at MathSciNet. I have, at various times, published with and without my middle initial (something that I didn't even realize that I had done until reciently), and MathSciNet doesn't know that all of my papers are by the same author. I get the same Erdos number if I type in the two versions of my own name, but only because I get the same number through two different coauthors on two different papers. --Ramsey2006 20:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikka, thank you for starting this discussion. I think the categories were illegally deleted. The result should have been "no-consensus." And the policy says no-consensus is a keep. I hope we can fight to get this category back. It was delete by those who don't really understand the cultural impact of Erdos Number. bunix 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand how this could have happened -- well, not "illegally", but the conclusion did not seem to follow at all from the discussion, which looked like a clear no-consensus to me, too. But I don't have any idea whether such ukases can be contested around here, with a chance of success greater than 0. Turgidson 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikka, yes thanks. I posted Reasons to Reverse the Deletion at the project talk page. Do you suppose that there is an admin somewhere who is sympathetic? I would like to get a dialogue going between admins, instead of just users whining about abuse by an admin. There must be someone in the mathematical sciences or engineering among the admins. Pete St.John 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you really think this should be reversed, the right way to do it is to go to WP:DRV, not to look for sympathetic admins. But I'm skeptical that would get anywhere: the closing admin has discretion to weigh the strength of arguments, not just to count votes, and that's what this one did, so it doesn't seem out-of-procedure, which is what WP:DRV is concerned with. —David Eppstein 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". So a closing admin is positively encouraged to use their own judgement when closing a deletion discussion - they decide what the "consensus" is. Not saying that's how things should be, but it's how they are at present. Gandalf61 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Compare this to the problems of two editors who both invoke policies and make conflicting edits; i.e. an edit war. Consensus generally resolves these, but sometimes an admin steps in to block an editor who is unresponsive to consensus. In this case, an Admin inovked policies and determined a result, seemingly bypassing the consensus process (or so it seems to us, as users of Erdos Numbers overwhelmingly favour keeping it, but the consensus process at the 3rd nomination for deletion comprised predominately nonusers). If we consider the admin to have been mistaken (as I do), then we have raised the level of the debate from consensus among contributors to consensus among admins, in which case it would be handy to find an admin to advocate our PoV. We shouldn't throw up our hands thinking "a dictator decreed against us", because even in that model, another dicatator could re-decree for us, as we have an oligarchy of admins, not a monarchy. Pete St.John 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And, Dr Eppstein, you are absolutely right about deletion review. I have just requested it at this Deletion Review Log Item. It's a bit complex, since they aren't looking at a single page, but the addtional categories Erdos Number <<X>>, and the discussion is a bit scattered at several talk page, but I shouldn't kvetch until after I've let the existing mechanisms address the issue. Pete St.John 18:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV closed

Same old, same old. No matter how many people speak up for these categories, or how forcefully, or how strong the arguments are — when the chips are down, it doesn't matter. Turgidson 22:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am (slowly) preparing for Arbitration. This appears to be a small number of wiki-legalists, with disproportionately high admin support, vs a larger number of content-Firsters, who are better at logic than at rhetoric, but which also include admins. I think right now that Arbitration will be appropriate for dealing with this but it will not be fast as the case is huge, involving so many pages and so many people. But I'm working towards it and I'll be asking for help as I get actionable points.
FWIW, Xoloz seems to think that this isn't ruling against the Category exactly, but re-expressing the deletion review in a more appropriate format, somehow. If I understand him. It's as exasperating to us as a delta-epsilon arguement would be to a linebacker; they love their dots and tiddles, not ours. But they know that burying us in paperwork is powerful. They don't know everything. Pete St.John 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't frame this as an us versus them thing. There were bad and good arguments either way, to which necessarily not everyone will attach the same weights, and for some the arguments one way carried the larger weight, while for some others it went the other way. I did not like the acrimony of the debate, with participants from both sides crossing the lines of what I deem appropriate, spoiling the good atmosphere, with you among them. In the cosmic balance of things, the whole issue has microscopic significance.  --Lambiam 22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, it is exactly "us vs them". Wikipedia is stuffed with artciles of pokemon trivia, pornstars, random softwarez and petty politicans. This is culture for "them". And a piece of culure for "us" goes randomly deleted. I have long no doubt that mathematicians and other geeks hardly enjoy widespread respect and understanding. `'Míkka>t 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the most vociferous proponents for deletion in the debate, SparsityProblem, is a geek if there ever was one, the kind of person who thinks that labelling a cat lying on its back "flip concatMap" and things like that are fun.  --Lambiam 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree with the sentiment expressed by Mikka — it sort of reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield's I don't get no respect routine, if anyone still remembers it. So OK, mathematicians get no respect, what can you do — but why put them in the same basket as the real geeks? Yes, some are (quite a few, as a matter of fact), but a lot aren't — at least, not as many as the popular perception has it. Why reinforce this unfortunate stereotype? Maybe it's worth putting up a valiant fight, after all? Turgidson 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lambiam, there is an "us vs. them" thing going on, but it's not "geeks" vs "fratboys". It's two socio-political philosphical trends, not two football teams :-) My current hypothesis is that one trend is "Wiki Policies are more important than content", i.e. "Law Preceeds Justice", expressible as "you can't have justice without law" and "Law comes from Authority" (Jimbo, God, The Ancients, whatever). The opposing trend is that "Content is more important than guidelines", that "Justice Preceeds Law", expressible as "we seek laws that will bring justice", and "defining justice without recourse to prior Laws is really really hard, so I can appreciate that most people fear it". But to be succinct, I call it "Wiki-legalistic Deletionists" vs "Mathematicians". Neither set is explicitly defined by an exact list of members, they are both merely succinct generalizations. I'm sure there are mathematicians that don't like Erdos Numbers (but I would truely like to meet one who can explain the necessity of deleting the category in terms I can understand). And of course the "crazies" perfer to be called "Streamliners" over "deletionists".
  • Turgidson, I am putting up a fight (valiant or not, to be determined). My hope is that lots of people will be able to contribute bits (such as good quotes, citations of particulars...) without all of us having to immerse in the lobsterpot. I'm buiding a case for Arbitration, and I mean to be slow, and inexorable. This is a new venue for me but not a new battle. -- Pete St.John (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a different take on the two sides of the controversy. Both are using policy and content in their arguments whenever expedient. But my impression is that one side is: Wikipedia is serious business. If something is fun, it's trivial, and if it's trivial, it's not encyclopedic, and if it's not encyclopedic, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. While the other side is: information that is widely discussed, documented, notable, and of interest to a broad community should be included in Wikipedia regardless of its seriousness, and that leavening the serious information in Wikipedia with some fun may be a good way of attracting people to Wikipedia and to our more serious content. —-- David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
David, I agree in that at least the "two sides" are more complex, at least, than my stated hypothesis. I think the classic SF theme "destroy what you don't understand" is a component, and "my (editorial) elitism is more important than your (interest group) elitism" and some other things. The "joke" thing seems to have been their favorite single debating point, but I doubt it sufficiently reflects the demographics, which I want to understand so in principle agreement could be reached. OTOH perhaps the idea "Wiki is serious, and therefore.." is not so far from my idea of "Wiki Policy Precedes Content". They are fighing for their subject matter-- their interpretation of editorial guidelines-- as we are fighting for ours-- math and mathematicians. And certainly I agree that nothing about the "joke" idea argues against the use of the category, so far as I can see, and you express it well. Bourbaki had been a great example too. -- Pete St.John (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The opposing philosophy

BrownHairedGirl has started at least two new items towards enunciating the philosophy that led to the category deletion; they are at WikiTalk discussions for developing new editorial policy guidelines. The two themes so far are "categories must define the subject" and "the Wiki is not a structured database" with statements like "categories must aid navigation, and not be labels" (I myself don't know what any label if for, but to aid some form of navigation). In any event it's a good effort to put their PoV into terms that maybe we can address, at least, if not fully understand. We ought to try. Also we may like some say about what becomes new Wiki editorial policy. I put some links together at my note about it. Pete St.John (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New list

OK, since the categories are all gone now, I have copied the data below (for Erdős numbers 1 and 2, the most verifiable ones) into a new List of people by Erdős number. Obviously the list can be improved, so feel free. Discussion should probably happen on the talk page. Ntsimp (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List itself

  • In this list of edits there are several (I think all of the 2s and many 3s) that are not yet in the list below. I'd add them but at the moment I can only access brain-dead Unicode-enabled editors.  --Lambiam 21:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #6

There are 6 pages in this section of this category.

A
B
C
L

[edit] #5

(34 names now)

A
B
C
D
E
G
H
K
L
M
O
P
S
T
W

[edit] #4

(85 names now)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
P
S
T
V
W

[edit] #3

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Z

[edit] #2

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z

[edit] #1

A
B
C
D
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W