User:Andrevan
This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrevan. |
|
Andrevan is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
You can edit this page!
Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit Yes, even you. No special expertise or education required. |
Welcome to my Wikipedia user page, est. 2003.
On Wikipedia anyone, even a kid, or a random person on the street, or in a library, can help write or contribute to (including gnomes, even little gnomes help) the corpus of human knowledge.
You can edit this user page right now. If you do, please make it useful, or funny, or both. On Wikipedia,
Wikipedia is an experiment in decentralized decision-making by
reliable sources We need multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. Not: passing mentions, directory listings, or any old thing that happens to have the topic's name in it. |
Sandbox
💥 💥 💥 If you really want to edit a page, you can go ahead and edit it right here, right now. 💥 💥 💥
🌞 🌞 🌞 This is a sandbox where you can safely try editing. I'll leave stuff here but clean it periodically. 🌞 🌞 🌞
you can edit here!
About me
I was known as and signed as just "Andre" for many years. In retrospect, why didn't I have an acuté accént? I knew how to make one for Pokémon. My pronouns are he/him, but I don't care if you want to use neutral pronouns or words. "Guys" is a gender neutral term IMHO.
I started editing Wikipedia after reading an article about wikis in a computer magazine obtained from
I later became a
Believe it or not, in 20 years of editing, 2022 is my most active year in terms of raw edit count (tho, I never used to use Twinkle)! On really less than half of that, 3-4 high months. I've always felt the pull of editing in the summer, like a good book on the
I got to meet and make a lot of online friends, I'm not the greatest at keeping in touch with people, but feel free to reach out and rekindle the magic any time.
I am also on Discord and on Libera Chat. |
Why Wikipedia works
Wikipedia works because it's fundamentally founded on the principle and value system of agile software development as developed by Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham, creator of the original WikiWikiWeb. This is also how many other open source and free software projects operate. Wikitext has a lot of similarity with program code. That's why
, etc.- Change should be easy and cheap
- Rapid iterations and tight feedback loops
- Don't gatekeep - collective ownership
- Don't plan too far in advance - resolution, clarity are inversely proportional to roadmap distance (time) in decision-making (WP:NOTNEWS)
- Don't set things in stone
- Change is the only constant
- Embrace new information opportunistically
- Learn from mistakes aggressively in real-time
- Fail fast
- Pivot
- 2 heads are better than 1 - pair on decisions
- Don't do with a committee what you can do with a pair
- Don't do with a cross-team dependency what you can do with an autonomous team
- Rule of 3: extract a pattern or abstraction no earlier than the 3rd case
- Distribute and empower from the bottom-up
- Working product is more important than comprehensive documentation
- Process and ceremony are adaptable and must be based on intro-/retrospection
- The backlog- it's a stack-ranked priority list of shovel-ready tasks approached iteratively in an ad hoc manner
- You can't steer a ship unless the rudder is moving
- Keep calm and deliver value
- Just-in-time solving of problems
- Organic, emergent, and evolutionary
- Track and optimize honest metrics
- LISTEN to feedback and bottom-up decisions
- EMPOWER the people who feel the pain to make decisions
- OUTCOMES not output
on pedanticness considered harmful
Wikipedia rules are principles, not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some common sense and discretion. |
Because Wikipedia's
Pedantry is about outcomes vs. outputs. Sometimes it's important to be exact. Like in
Discretion is discretion for a reason. It's not a misuse of the system. It is not required to find a way to make the exception fit the letter of the rule. That's why it's an exception. The important thing is a good, common sense outcome. If you can shortcut the proceedings and all the ceremony, and achieve an outcome that improves the project, that is preferable to following the process for the same, let alone a worse outcome. Pedants are often
This same phenomenon infests
This was something that the old breed of
So next time someone, purposefully or accidentally, ignores a rule and closes/does something that seems uncontroversial, as I was wont to do in my heyday, to occasional great consternation, which I do regret, but I digress... ask yourself, next time that happens, or anything else that seems like admins shortcutting the ceremony and going rogue, would the outcome have been different if a different uninvolved closer had closed it? Or are you just harping on the rules and not focusing on whether
WP:BIKESHEDding Don't get hung up on trifling details. |
TLDR: Lighten up, focus on the
The egg came first
Chicken-egg problems are resolveable inductively: assume the simplest thing you're trying to prove/accomplish, and test your hypothesis. A contradiction (failure) proves the null hypothesis. The egg came before the chicken in world history. See the article.
This is a practical proof of the value of
Other questions? The glass is neither
What it means is that your machinery that you use to read the universe are faulty, and you're assembling a partial picture with pieces. (See:
Consider a
History is a combination of macro-forces and microscale
Trust and decentralization
The
What do I mean by that? I mean that the patience of well-meaning people here and there, who are willing to do extremely frustrating
There's a well-known phenomenon that when you ask someone to sign up for something, even something free and beneficial, if you make them fill out a bunch of forms, and work with uncooperative people at the
Wikipedia relies on
On robust debate in the public square
One of the most important tools we have to keep the project working well is the
That doesn't mean we're debating for sport.
Nonetheless, we should not spare the sharp clarity of intellect, and that means logic. Some people prefer to use the term "discussion" than "debate," but then many people mistake a discussion for a "vote" or a "request for comment" being a simple question and answer loop. So let's not forget that when a point is in "dispute," you are now debating that point, whether you wish to use a pugnacious connotation or a more collaborative one. I prefer to think of robust debate as a civil, and respectful activity, but remember to check for understanding and do not belabor.
Debating a point means refuting the central point and offering specific evidence, and arguments. Evidence and arguments can be well-formed, or they can be faulty. An argument is constructed via a graph of premises, much like a
Common objections (from rules of evidence, U.S. courts)
Wikipedia is not a legal system. We're all volunteers, there are no judges (except
- Leading (see also: begging the question)
- Irrelevant
- Speculation
- Prejudicial effect outweighs probative value, or, inflammatory
- Asked and answered
- Vague, confusing, misleading, misstatement/misreading
- Argumentative/badgering
- Repetitious
- Lacks foundation
- Improper opinion
- Answer wasn't responsive to the question
- Hearsay (out of court statements)
- An exception to hearsay is a statement not being offered for the truth, but simply that it was said (attributed WP:RSOPINION).
- A statement by a party opponent (e.g. a self-description or admission) is not hearsay since it goes directly to the issue at hand and may be tried as a fact.
- Another exception is an expert opinion. A qualified expert may only opine when offered as an expert in their field, as established in proper evidence (WP:RS). Otherwise, it's an improper opinion.
- An exception to hearsay is a statement not being offered for the truth, but simply that it was said (attributed
- Improper character evidence
- Lack of personal knowledge
- Out of scope
- Fruit of the poisonous tree
Common fallacies and cognitive biases
- Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
- Straw man
- Appeal to authority
- What this means is that just because someone is in charge, pulling rank doesn't prove an argument. NOT that expert opinions in their field aren't admissible.
- Another variation on this is "This is the way it's always been done" aka Appeal to tradition
- False equivalence
- False dilemma
- Cherry picking
- No true Scotsman
- Moving the goalposts
- Argument from silence
- Ad hominem
- Argumentum ad populum
- I'm entitled to my opinion
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
- Efficient market hypothesis
- Laffer curve
- Fundamental attribution error
- Fallacy of composition
- Quoting out of context
- Motte-and-bailey fallacy
- McNamara fallacy
- Moralistic fallacy
- Naturalistic fallacy
- Prosecutor's fallacy
- Psychologist's fallacy
- Gambler's fallacy
- Hasty generalization
- False analogy
- Argument from ignorance
- Appeal to tradition
- Two wrongs don't make a right
- Vacuous truth
- Confirmation bias
- Framing effect
- Hasty generalization
- Red herring
- Anecdotal evidence
- Slippery slope
- Appeal to ignorance
- Irrelevant conclusion
- Equivocation
- Endowment effect
- See List of fallacies
Common methods of proof, arguments and razors
- Proof by contradiction
- Proof by induction
- Strong induction
- Weak induction
- Pigeonhole principle
- Deductive reasoning
- reductio ad absurdum
- Occam's razor
- Hanlon's razor
- Argumentum a fortiori
- Argument by example
- Metaphor/analogy
- Argumentum e contrario / poking a hole in a false analogy
- Dictum de omni et nullo (subsets)
- Newton's flaming laser sword
- Falsifiability
- Morgan's Canon
- Duck test
- Hitchens' razor
Common logical truth tables (copied from the article[4] which had 611+ editors)
p | q | F0 | NOR1 | ↚2 | ¬p3 | ↛4 | ¬q5 | XOR 6
|
NAND 7
|
AND8 | XNOR9 | q 10
|
→11 | p 12
|
← 13
|
OR14 | T15 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T | T | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T | T | T | T | T |
T | F | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T | F | F | F | F | T | T | T | T |
F | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T | F | F | T | T |
F | F | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T | F | T |
Com | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Assoc | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
Adj | F0 | NOR1 | ↛4 | ¬q5 | ↚2 | ¬p3 | XOR6 | NAND7 | AND8 | XNOR9 | p12 | ←13 | q10 | →11 | OR14 | T15 | |
Neg | T15 | OR14 | ←13 | p12 | →11 | q10 | XNOR9 | AND8 | NAND7 | XOR6 | ¬q5 | ↛4 | ¬p3 | ↚2 | NOR1 | F0 | |
Dual | T15 | NAND7 | →11 | ¬p3 | ←13 | ¬q5 | XNOR9 | NOR1 | OR14 | XOR6 | q10 | ↚2 | p12 | ↛4 | AND8 | F0 | |
L id | F | F | T | T | T,F | T | F | ||||||||||
R id | F | F | T | T | T,F | T | F |
where
- T = true.
- F = false.
- The superscripts 0 to 15 is the number resulting from reading the four truth values as a binary number with F = 0 and T = 1.
- The Com row indicates whether an operator, op, is commutative - P op Q = Q op P.
- The Assoc row indicates whether an operator, op, is associative - (P op Q) op R = P op (Q op R).
- The Adj row shows the operator op2 such that P op Q = Q op2 P
- The Neg row shows the operator op2 such that P op Q = ¬(P op2 Q)
- The Dual row shows the dual operationobtained by interchanging T with F, and AND with OR.
- The L id row shows the operator's left identitiesif it has any - values I such that I op Q = Q.
- The R id row shows the operator's right identitiesif it has any - values I such that P op I = P.
The four combinations of input values for p, q, are read by row from the table above. The output function for each p, q combination, can be read, by row, from the table.
Key:
The following table is oriented by column, rather than by row. There are four columns rather than four rows, to display the four combinations of p, q, as input.
p: T T F F
q: T F T F
There are 16 rows in this key, one row for each binary function of the two binary variables, p, q. For example, in row 2 of this Key, the value of Converse nonimplication ('') is solely T, for the column denoted by the unique combination p=F, q=T; while in row 2, the value of that '' operation is F for the three remaining columns of p, q. The output row for is thus
2: F F T F
and the 16-row key is
operator | Operation name | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | (F F F F)(p, q) | ⊥ | false , Opq
|
Contradiction |
1 | (F F F T)(p, q) | NOR | p ↓ q, Xpq | Logical NOR |
2 | (F F T F)(p, q) | ↚ | p ↚ q, Mpq | Converse nonimplication |
3 | (F F T T)(p, q) | ¬p, ~p | ¬p, Np, Fpq | Negation |
4 | (F T F F)(p, q) | ↛ | p ↛ q, Lpq | Material nonimplication |
5 | (F T F T)(p, q) | ¬q, ~q | ¬q, Nq, Gpq | Negation |
6 | (F T T F)(p, q) | XOR | p ⊕ q, Jpq | Exclusive disjunction
|
7 | (F T T T)(p, q) | NAND | p ↑ q, Dpq | Logical NAND
|
8 | (T F F F)(p, q) | AND | p ∧ q, Kpq | Logical conjunction |
9 | (T F F T)(p, q) | XNOR | p If and only if q, Epq | Logical biconditional |
10 | (T F T F)(p, q) | q | q, Hpq | Projection function
|
11 | (T F T T)(p, q) | p → q | if p then q, Cpq | Material implication |
12 | (T T F F)(p, q) | p | p, Ipq | Projection function |
13 | (T T F T)(p, q) | p ← q | p if q, Bpq | Converse implication
|
14 | (T T T F)(p, q) | OR | p ∨ q, Apq | Logical disjunction |
15 | (T T T T)(p, q) | ⊤ | true, Vpq | Tautology |
P | Q | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T | T | T | T | F | T | T | T |
T | F | F | T | T | F | F | F |
F | T | F | T | T | F | T | F |
F | F | F | F | F | T | T | T |
P | Q | ||||||
P => P => T | Q => Q => T | AND | OR | XOR | XNOR
|
conditional
"if-then"
|
biconditional "if-and-only-if" |
The human mind has a binary bias
We are 2-dimensional minds in a 4-dimensional world. We're really not 3D, we might think we are, but we are pretty much 2D. Once we add that 3rd dimension things start to go awry in the human mind.
Humans have 2 hands, 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 feet, 2 ventricles, 2 tonsils, 2 nostrils, 2 eyes, 2 ears, and 2 brains. We tend to want to model things as a spectrum where black starts here |----> and then there's an indeterminate blob of gray, and then white is here <----|. In reality, it's 4 quadrants with four different kinds of blurry gray, one for each different kind of combination. WE tend to want to think in terms of easy opposites, good guys and bad guys, up and down, left and right, in and out, etc. And even that 4-quadrant map is a simplification. You know your model is broken when you plot it in a way that isn't cohesive: you're imposing a
The
There aren't two equal and opposite universes, though. There's only one universe (or multiverse if you wish) and we don't have
Mop or bit?
I always liked the idea of Wikipedia administrator rights being an "sysop bit," meaning flipping a 0 to a 1 to indicate the
On the fragility of knowledge
It seems to be a given that a lot of people feel like they know many things, some of which they actually know, some of which they only think they know. Of the things that people think they know but do not know, that could fall into things that are categorically false, things that are partially true, things that are mostly untrue, or things that are relatively true except for some amount of strict precision. Wikipedia doesn't care what you know - it only is interested in aggregating the source material. Which means that commonly held and reported, but erroneous knowledge that exists in 2022 and is corrected in 2048, is objectively wrong today, but still must be encoded in Wikipedia even if you know it's wrong. Science is an evolutionary process and Wikipedia is merely one reflection of the broader macrocosm. But a person in 2022 thinks they know several things that turn out to be categorically false, yet still must be considered verifiable in 2022.
Wikipedia is also necessarily an imprecise source. What that means is that when you summarize something, you may reduce its truth value by lacking precision. And that is a process of modelling an abstraction and constructing a narrative, a necessary and important process of distillation and re-cognization, of reforming into a coherent and cohesive and digestible, formatted, data serialization that the human brain can process.
Tribute to little gnomes
Little
Quotes
- I don't know anyone who treats Bill Clinton's biography as their holy book, either. I don't know anyone who believes that the existence of France is a myth. I don't know anyone who believes that cars are a foodstuff. That's why I'm not about to start editing those articles with comments like "Believers in the existence of France claim that it is a country located in Western Europe..." and then defend them on the basis of NPOV. Harry R
- I do not worship logic, any more than I would worship a hammer. But neither do I scoff at logic, or at hammers; they are instruments most fine. Silence
- I have complete faith in the continued absurdity of whatever’s going on. Jon Stewart
- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it. Douglas Adams
- Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. Niels Bohr
- How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress. Bohr
- Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question. Bohr
- Life itself is but a compromise between death and life, the struggle continuing throughout our whole existence, until the great destroyer finally triumphs. All legislation, all government, all society is founded upon the principle of mutual concession, politeness, comity, courtesy; upon these everything is based... Let him who elevates himself above humanity, above its weaknesses, its infirmities, its wants, its necessities, say, if he pleases, I will never compromise; but let no one who is not above the frailties of our common nature disdain compromises. Henry Clay
- It's easy when you know how To get along without Biff! Bang! Pow! And if I see you're fed up I'll stop and give you a leg up Overpriced unreal estate, surreal estate The highest price they've hit to date Creating new divides and tension This is a tale of two city/situations Mutual appreciation Away from narrow preconception Avoiding conflict hypertension Non-phobic word aerobic This was my domain 'Til someone stole my name You've got to tolerate All those people that you hate I'm not in love with you But I won't hold that against you Super Furry Animals (Listen)
- if people really, really want to argue the toss, trying to do them a favor and save them time by getting them to not argue the toss won't work Floquenbeam
- This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. First inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt
- I certainly didn't intend to cause any dustup in the case of Meghan Markle - just to do the right thing as a bit of fun. I remember when it used to be ok to do the right thing at Wikipedia and have some fun with it. :-) Now, as to the Trump situation, I think I'll steer very far from it for now. Happy to have a long read at some point to see what I think, but.... I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much.--Jimbo Wales on User talk:Jimbo Wales[5] 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- The expected path is: Somebody does their best (Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia) but screws up (Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required). A more skilled or better informed editor (maybe you?) salvages what they can (Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems). WhatamIdoing
2018
See my 2018 statement here
COI
See my COI declaration here
License
Multi-licensed with any Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License | ||
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under license version 1.0 and 2.0, and the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.
|