tsujigiri

The editorial comments of Chris and James, covering the news, science, religion, politics and culture.

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." -Douglas Adams

Friday, April 29, 2005

Tragedy of the Commons

I guess it isn't really a tragedy so much as an amusement. The text below is from the Wikipedia entry on "Atomic Theory." Note the discordant voice indicating a possible different author for the last paragraph.

The importance of this theory cannot be overstated. Arguably, the atomic theory is the single most important theory in the history of science, with wide-ranging implications it holds for both pure and applied science. John Dalton, 17-18th century British chemist, is the scientist credited with this titanic discovery.

The entirety of modern chemistry (and biochemistry) is based upon the theory that all matter is made up of atoms of different elements which cannot be transmuted by chemical means. In turn, chemistry has allowed for the development of the pharmaceutical industry, the petrochemical industry, and many others.

Much of thermodynamics is understandable in terms of kinetic theory, whereby gases are considered to be made up of either atoms or molecules, behaving in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. This was, in turn, a large driving force behind the industrial revolution.

Indeed, many macroscopic properties of matter are best understood in terms of atoms. Other examples include friction, material science and semiconductor theory. The latter is particularly important, as it is the foundation of electronics.

In same case the study of a property at atomic level is very complex and easier result are obtained with a study at bigger scale. This does not means that atomic theory does not work in these case. The problem is the mathematical complexities given by treating such problem with the atomic theory. Till nowdays there are no case where atomic theory does not work, there are only case in which the result is easier obtained, in the limit of the wanted approximation, with easier theories. Dispite of that it may be of some worthness to point out that a general vision should always kept and considered and consider the world or the entire universe only as series of atoms is reductive.

Addendum: browsing the "History" tab of Wikipedia revisions is also entertaining. For some reason, the above last paragraph has survived many revisions without being polished. I guess the edits are mostly aimed at things like this:

The existence of atoms was first proposed by Greek philosophers such as Democritus, Leucippus, and the Epicureans, but without any real way to be sure, the concept disappeared until it was revived by Rudjer Boscovich in the 18th century, and after that applied to chemistry by John Dalton. YEA Nigga!!! Rudjer Boscovich based his theory on classical mechanics and published it in 1758

3 Comments:

At 4/29/05, 10:44 AM, Blogger James said...

"Worthness". Outstanding.

Yes, but the tragedy of the commons is accompanied by the comedy of vigorous peer-policing. Wikipedia is often very good at this. I fear it may be getting too big to do so efficiently anymore. I've seen atrocious, inexcusable typos and grammatical errors obviously written by a zealous third-party in otherwise solid entries, then been scowled at when I corrected them and called them "atrocious".

If there exists any online project that needs a pedantic schoolmarm, it's an encyclopedia, dammit.

 
At 4/29/05, 7:55 PM, Blogger Chris said...

I have often suggested that the webbospheroid needs some sort of meaningful peer review system, beyond the "you sound just like me" and "enemy of my enemy" social-credit approaches. The moderated rating system of Slashdot also seems fairly impoverished, since the credit usually gets awarded for wit or eloquence rather than depth or substance.

Especially for something like Wikipedia, what we need are real experts, or at least a useful measure for distinguishing expert from non.

Peer review is a pretty good system, provided the peers are mostly true-hearted experts themselves. It is damn hard to achieve and maintain a true community of experts.

 
At 4/30/05, 12:48 AM, Blogger James said...

I think the novelty of "writing" an "encyclopedia" has attracted enough casual authors that the casual entries and bizarre edits are starting to outweigh the number of experts and the time necessary for these experts to make corrections and monitor entries.

A few people have a lot invested in Wikipedia, but a lot of people have very little invested. This includes some of the experts. The danger is that, because of its free nature, the experts will notice that their efforts are futile and will stop caring. Then Wikipedia will wither and die and become a Vi@.gra and X@naX linkfarm.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home