User talk:Metaeducation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello and welcome to the user talk page for Metaeducation. If you would like to respond to a comment I have left for you, then please—leave the discussion where it is and don't fragment it for my sake! Just put a note giving me a heads up that you have added to the conversation, and provide a link if you are able.

I'd love it if before commenting you could take a moment (an hour?) to read my user page. It contains some amount of information about my editorial opinions, so if we just have a fundamental philosophical difference we can go straight to that instead of re-deriving it via discussion. I will frequently provide links instead of retyping lamer versions of arguments I've already made, and this is never intended to slight you. Just a device to save time, and maybe even enlist you to help upgrade my writing so it has more value.

Please notice that I have a very aggressive stance on "refactoring", and I hope that any discussion we have can be refined and migrated to more appropriate destinations, such as:

  • An update to our user pages of personal wiki/editing philosophy
  • An update to a policy page
  • An update to an article's talk page as an "editing guide"

In any event, the talk page is always a scratchpad, feel free to add whatever you like here! Thanks!

Contents

[edit] Database Normalization

I picked your name off the Normalization discussion group because I saw you took an interest in the topic and seemed to have been around a while. I will be proud to contribute to this work because I am very impressed with you and others who have already contributed so much. I do want you to think of normalization as only secondarily a reduction in redundancy. Primarily normalization is properly associating the measurement with the thing measured....

I placed: EF Codd proposed the process of normalization in general and 1st normal form in particular in his extremely influential paper A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks Communications of the ACM, Vol. 13, No. 6, June 1970, pp. 377-387. Copyright © 1970, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc [1]

To put that paper into context, the first commercial computers were put into place in about 1952. COBOL was proposed in 1959 and first standardized in 1968. Codd is published in 1970. Codd's work is followed and perhaps eclipsed in 1981 by “Information Engineering”, James Martin and Clive Finkelstein, Savant Institute.

From Codd's paper…, "There is, in fact, a very simple elimination procedure which we shall call normalization." [His term eliminate is misleading, nothing is lost in normalization. Through decomposition nonsimple domains are replaced by "domains whose elements are atomic (nondecomposable) values." He uses the example of a person's "jobhistory" is replaced by lists of simpler elements such as "employer" and "title"],

That short selection emphasizes:

  • His conscious coining of the now very common term, normalization
  • His emphasis on solving the particular problem of what he called 'nonsimple' domains rather than making broader statements about semantics. Nonsimple is not a coinage that has stuck; it translates into 2005-speak as 'abstract data type' - a fittingly nonsimple term.

The concept of normalization is an essential milestone in the development of modern database design theory. Though Codd writes about data as strictly an input and output of data processing, you can find in his footnotes that he was beginning to think about problems as we do today. He writes, "Naturally, as with any data put into and retrieved from a computer system, the user will normally make far more effective use of the data if he is aware of its meaning."

Codd stated:

There is, in fact, a very simple elimination* procedure which we shall call normalization. Through decomposition nonsimple domains are replaced by "domains whose elements are atomic (nondecomposable) values."
* His term eliminate is misleading, as nothing is "lost" in normalization.

In his paper, Codd consciously coined the term normalization and emphasized on solving a the problem of what he called "nonsimple" domains. The latter did not stick, and is currently referred to as abstract data type. Codd wrote about data as strictly an input and output of data processing, however, in some of his footnotes, he wrote, "Naturally, as with any data put into and retrieved from a computer system, the user will normally make far more effective use of the data if he is aware of its meaning."

I read your interest in keeping the discussion on point so I ask you in particular, do you feel that my pp 2 was too much. (My point is to show that Codd's work is a part of a rolling conversation and not an immutable law.)

The other changes are permutations of the kinds of changes I am asking about above... except I wonder about the etiquette of stylistic changes. If the change is not based on an objective standard such as spelling ... then doesn't this process create a lot of disaffection?

Hope to hear from you... Bschmidt 03:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It's official! The first-ever L.A. Wiki Meetup will be occuring on July 25th, 2005. Are you coming? Would you like to help host? More details on the Meetup page. Be sure to check back regularly for updates! - Eric 1 July 2005 03:49 (UTC)

[edit] The Holy Trinity of Paragraphs

I disagree with your refactoring policy. Keeping intact archives is important, as original authors may not have wished you to alter what they said months after the fact; I see no reason why one can't summarize important lengthy discussions for easy perusal rather than deleting or removing portions that are inconvenient. I do agree that keeping organized talk pages is important for maintaining intelligible discussions, and am fine with moving new comments to appropriate parts of the talk page where issues are being discussed (sometimes), but when it's truly vital or when the person who originally made the comments wants them moved himself (and sometimes not even in the latter case, if the comments are important for the discussion) should talk pages be dramatically altered. .. But all that's beside the point being discussed, sorry.
I disagree that it "didn't get much shorter". The current version has 2612 characters; yours had 1779 characters, 68% of the size it had been. But, yes, like you, size isn't my main concern—we're both apparently exclusively worried about what best serves the article, be it large or small. We just disagree, apparently, as to what does that; I think that while the current paragraphs could probably use a little revising (particularly the last intro paragraph, which is overlong and uses too many weasel words), they at least provide all the necessary information in a clear and accurate way, which I didn't feel your version managed in many areas.
I'll consider making my own pages for my beliefs on this matter, yes; I've already done that to a small extent on my main page with a few things I support, but haven't updated it with a few new conclusions I've come to after arguing with people who truly think that no page can have over three paragraphs in its intro (even though countless featured articles already do). I'm glad to hear that you're not one of those people, and as such will be perfectly willing to discuss ways to ensure that the intro sticks to only the most relevant details and is a high-quality summary and overview of the whole page.
And yes, my first instinct was to edit your version of the page rather than to just revert and criticize it; I completely understand how frustrating it can be to do an important, large-scale edit and then have it be removed almost immediately. It happened to me the very first time I edited the Jesus page, and on a very minor point, though the issue was eventually resolved. However, considering that the section we're talking about is the opening paragraphs of one of the most widely-visited pages on all of Wikipedia, I think that the best place to make the paragraphs as good as possible is the Talk page, where we have plenty of room to discuss revisions and there's no risk of scaring away new visitors to the page with unfinished changes. I hope you don't mind. -Silence 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eigenvalue etc...

Thanks for your contribution. Now the lead is better. Vb 09:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Richard O'Connor Intro

see updated comments on R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) talk page as of 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another LA-area Wikipedia meetup?

There is a proposal for a 3rd LA-area meetup at Philippe's on Saturday, 24 June 2006. If you are interested in another meetup, please visit the proposal and comment on the date and location. BlankVerse 08:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Heads-Up

Thanks for the heads-up. I have heard of Fabian Pascal: he's a disciple of Chris Date and Hugh Darwen. I once requested an exam copy of his book, Practical Issues in Database Management, which I had expected to be quite good, but it got lost somehow (I got paperwork but no book). Now, though, he has plummeted in my esteem: I hold in contempt anyone who engages in ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned argument.

Thanks again, EmmetCaulfield 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia puzzle ball

Hi. There's an ongoing thread at foundation-l about the Wikipedia logo problems. I've just replied to someone who was asking about what is on "the other side" of the globe, with the only info I know, which is your 3d model! (as linked from Wikipedia:Wikimedia logos)

I was wondering if there were any more details or finished pieces that came out of that project? Definitely an intriguing start :) --Quiddity 08:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Quiddity, glad you found that thread and that people are talking about this idea. My interest dropped after making that character chart you found, when I couldn't really get anyone too excited about it. If there is renewed interest then I hope that it can be picked up where that work left off, it seems the blender models and tutorial video are still online. And I just uploaded the puzzle ball animation to YouTube, so maybe that can help spread the meme.
I'm still fairly certain that Blender (software) is a great candidate for the model, given that it's an open source tool available to everybody. But I lost interest in learning the program myself when I found that it is a somewhat traditional program that does not suit well to parameterization. For my own learning of 3D, I'm more interested in the approaches used in programs like SolidWorks, but that's not open source! In any case, I think the modeling work would be best delegated to skilled Blender users...Hazard did an excellent job so far, and it seems others are fluent in it too.
I definitely think the appearance of Wikipedia and publicity materials benefit from a truly scalable 3D logo, that could be re-rendered in various ways. And as someone mentioned, it could make a great fundraiser toy to actually manufacture the ball (if we just figured out what was on the back of it). Metaeducation 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just slightly off-topic, I thought you could be interested in this discussion concerning the puzzle globe article :) Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on merging Wikipedia:Wikimedia logos#Wikipedia to Wikipedia:Logos and slogans#Logos (actually, I'd even split this last one in two, but that could be a next move. Oh, and btw, I just loved your 3D model ideas. I hope you or someone finishes it sometime :) And lovely chart too, I'd undoubtly add that to the logo page (and will do so once - if - the merging is done). In any case, I'd like your permission to upload it to commons -- or even better, do it yourself :) Waldir talk 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've upleaded the image :) Please make any adjustments to the licence, description, or anything you find appropriate. I'll try to look at the wiki logo subject this weekend if I can find some time. Cheers! Waldir talk 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I just merged (finally!) Wikipedia:Wikimedia logos#Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Logos and slogans#Logos (which is now located at Wikipedia:Slogans) into Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. Just though you'd like to know. I still have to merge m:Meta:Historical/Logo history into that, but I'll get there! Cheers, Waldir talk 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, do you still need textures for the Wikipedia logo? I don't have the exact same font, but I can provide an SVG file for Korean "위" if you want. --Kjoonlee 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Hangul wi.svg --Kjoonlee 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)