Friday, February 17, 2012
Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source)
******************************************
ABSTRACT: Lloyd Carroll of the Chemed-L list, in a post “Useful for students to read - Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source,” wrote (paraphrasing): “I plan to require that my students read Messer-Kruse’s (2012) “The ‘Undue Weight’of Truth on Wikipedia,” wherein he shows that new discoveries may be slow in coming to Wikipedia, especially if they are controversial.”
But the same can be said of Encyclopedia Britannica and is not necessarily a reason for non-citing of either encyclopedia. "In Defense of Wikipedia" [Hake (2009)] I wrote: "Those who dismiss Wikipedia entries as a mere 'opinion pieces,' may not be aware that a study by Nature [Giles (2005)] indicated that Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries. . . . . . Nature's claim of comparable accuracy of scientific entries in Britannica and Wikipedia was disputed by Britannica (2006), but Nature's initial formal response [Nature 2006a), an editorial Nature (2006b), and point-by-point rebuttal [Nature (2006c] suggest that Nature's claim was correct.
******************************************
To access the complete 7 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/zHmOEm.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/rrhake
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 17 Feb 2012.]
Giles, J. 2005. “Special Report - Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries, a Nature investigation finds.” Nature 438: 900-901, 15 December; online as a 508 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/xERbDe.
Hake, R.R. 2012. Why Wikipedia is a Relatively Reliable Source (was Why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source); online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/zHmOEm. Post of 17 Feb 2012 17:07:4-0800 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Messer-Kruse, T. 2012. "The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia" Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 Feb, online at http://bit.ly/zUka0c
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century -ADDENDUM
PhysLrnR’s Paul Camp (2011a) wrote:
“Having taught thermal physics this semester, I'll testify that, at least for my 5 beginners, the point where phase space appeared totally baffled them. I brought it up only as part of a historical note about the arguments between Planck and Boltzmann so I didn't dwell on it, but phase space is perhaps a great deal less transparent to beginners than Lambert appears to believe. What actually spoke to them pretty powerfully (because it was embedded in a dice game activity) was Shannon entropy.”
To which Frank Lambert (2011b) replied [bracketed by lines “LLLLL. . . . “; my insert at “. . . . .[[insert]]. . . .”; my CAPS]:
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
MY APOLOGIES TO PROF. CAMP AND ALL PHYSICISTS!!
That brief piece . . . .[[“The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century” (Lambert, 2011a)]]. . . . . was designed primarily for chemists teaching beginners. But, foolishly, I changed my standard opening description of “entropy is fundamentally an evaluation of how spread out/dispersed in SPACE [or in a substance] is....” and included “phase space” rather than emphasizing simple “space”.
(The first example in most first-year chemistry texts is the isothermal expansion of a gas in a chamber when a valve to an adjoined evacuated chamber is opened: the kinetic and potential energy of the gas is unchanged, but it is spread to the larger final accessible space.)
I, agreeing with Professor Camp, disagree with some chemistry texts that then try to introduce microstates, baby phys chem, and inklings of phase space to naive frosh. The best chemistry texts - in my opinion (of the 22 first-year texts that have adopted my approach) -- are by Burdge (2011) or by Burdge and Overby (2012). They superbly present the entropy increase of a chem process in changes of volume, temperature, molecular complexity, molar mass, phase change and chemical reaction -- with diagrams of differences in energy levels/occupancy of energy levels, but not a word about microstates or Boltzmann stat mech or phase space. I think that those next steps in sophistication should all be left for physical chemistry, the usual third-year course in chemistry.
ALL references to Wikipedia “Entropy”. . . . .[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy]]. . . . . and “Entropy (energy dispersal)”. . . . .[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(energy_dispersal)]]. . . . SHOULD BE IGNORED! The former is a hopeless morass with Shannon enfolding Clausius, Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs, while the latter was rewritten by a professor in economics -- from a spin-off by a non-academic person who attempted to have "energy dispersal" deleted from Wikipedia and was subsequently barred from contributing!
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
See, also the cogent response to the above by Paul Camp (2011b) who wrote (in part):
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
One of the reasons I taught Thermal Physics this semester was because I always hated it and that was because some of the fundamental concepts (notably entropy) never made any sense to me.
It took me some years, as a student, to understand what entropy is and the epiphany came when I tried to figure out what units it is measured in (oddly, none of the textbooks I used paid attention to this). When I realized it was basically an energy, then the first law made complete sense to me -- it is that portion of the energy of a system that is not available for doing work. All that crapola about disorder and everything was getting in the way of understanding.
Afterwards, the link with disorder made some sense. If all the particles in a gas are moving in the same direction (low disorder) they can do a lot of work, but if they are banging around at random, not so much.
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
BTW - To education aficionados Frank Lambert is less well known for his “Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy” than his “Post Gutenberg University Breakthrough” - see e.g.: “Editorially Speaking: Effective Teaching of Organic Chemistry” [Lambert (1963)] and the all-time classic must read: “The Lecture System in Teaching Science” [Morrison (1986)].
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References
which Recognize the Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
rrhake@earthlink.net>
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Academia: http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake
REFERENCES [All URL’s accessed on 18 Dec 2011; most shortened by http://bit.ly/.]
Camp, P. 2011a. “Re: The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century,” online on the CLOSED! :-( PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/rViO7S. Post of 27 Dec 2011 23:13:05-0500 to PhysLrnR. To access the archives of PhysLnR one needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on http://bit.ly/nG318r and then clicking on “Join or Leave PHYSLRNR-LIST.” If you're busy, then subscribe using the “NOMAIL” option under “Miscellaneous.” Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Camp, P. 2011b. “Re: The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century,” online on the CLOSED! :-( PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/vUdYbL. To access the archives of PhysLnR see the information above in Camp (2011a).
Hake, R.R. 2009. “In Defense of Wikipedia” online on the OPEN ! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/fb4bJx. Post of 31 Aug 2009 16:41:53-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and Math-Teach. The abstract and link to the complete post were distributed to various discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/tTjuo1.
Hake, R.R. 2011a. “The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century,” online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/s7heFg, post of 17 Dec 2011 21:35:08-0800, transmitted to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and various other discussion lists.
Hake, R.R. 2011b. "The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy - ADDENDUM," online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/vADrgv. Post of 18 Dec 2011 13:20:41-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and various other discussion lists.
Lambert, F.L. 1963. “Editorially Speaking: Effective Teaching of Organic Chemistry,” J. Chem. Ed. 40: 173-174; online at http://bit.ly/sZnEbI.
Lambert, F.L. 2011a. “The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century,” International Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry 1(3), online at http://bit.ly/upGF5C, click “Full Article PDF” after accessing the URL. At http://entropysite.oxy.edu/, Lambert wrote “[This article's] major goal is to explain why brilliant physicists and chemists of the past century failed to explain entropy clearly - i.e., to develop an adequate conceptual explanation for the success of dS = dq/T. Certainly, the 'driving force' in this relationship is simple: the nature of q, energy, is to spread out, disperse in space/ in phase space if its constraints are lessened or removed.”
Lambert, F.L. 2011b. “Re: The Conceptual Meaning of Thermodynamic Entropy in the 21st Century,” online on the CLOSED! :-( PhysLrnR archives at http://bit.ly/tl0unt. Post of 17 Dec 2011 22:15:12-0800 to PhysLrnR. To access the archives of PhysLnR see the information above in Camp (2011a).
Morrison, R.T. 1986. “The Lecture System in Teaching Science,” in Proceedings of the Chicago Conferences on Liberal Education, Number 1, Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Physics (edited by Marian R. Rice). The College Center for Curricular Thought: The University of Chicago, October 18-19, 1989; online at http://entropysite.oxy.edu/morrison.html thanks to Frank Lambert.
Friday, December 18, 2009
In Defense of Wikipedia
Some blog followers may be interested in a recent discussion-list post of the above title [Hake (2009). The abstract reads:
ABSTRACT: In my post “Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood” [Hake (2009)] regarding "Mathematics Learning in Early Childhood: Paths Toward Excellence and Equity" [Cross et al. (2009)], I quoted from Wikipedia's entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constance_Kamii on Constance Kamii.
Michael Paul Goldenberg (MPG) (2009) objected, opining that the Wikipedia quote is "clearly written by someone with a Mathematically-Correct accent. . . . you'd think [Hake would] be very wary of citing obvious opinion pieces as if they were serious scholarship."
Not to question the authority of a post that contains NO!!!! footnotes, but I disagree with MPG that the quote I gave from Wikipedia is "an obvious opinion piece" that's "clearly written by someone with a Mathematically-Correct accent." But if MPG is correct in thinking that the Wikipedia entry on Kamii is deficient, then Kamii, or one of her close associates, or even MPG, can edit the entry so as to correct any errors.
To access the complete 17 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/m5xpu9 .
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. “In Defense of Wikipedia” online on the OPEN ! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/m5xpu9. Post of 31 Aug 2009 16:41:53-0700 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and Math-Teach.