User talk:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia
Mad scientist edit
Reminded me of Septimus' Telecephaloscope:
- https://www.centaurclub.com/ARCHIVE/Archibald/ref/Centaurclub-Blake-Mortimer-01-06-1b.jpg
- https://www.centaurclub.com/forum/Fred/BM06-marque-jaune/BM06-marque-jaune-pl51-c06.jpg
—PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Heh. Nice.
- This page started as a "what are the good kinds of sources for math and physics" proto-guideline, and now it's moving in a more "so, you want to write about math and/or physics on Wikipedia" direction. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Some additional points perhaps worth integrating edit
This is what comes to mind most often for me when dealing with academics (especially in the sciences) who start editing Wikipedia without yet really absorbing its culture:
Research and academic scientists are professionally and habitually very interested in primary-research papers, the bleeding edge in their field. The secondary source material in journals (review articles) are often tedious for them. But the latter are the sources most appropriate for most uses on Wikipedia. A tremendous amount of primary research is fairly quickly superseded (even refuted), and primary-research papers remain primary sources, though ones published in reputable peer-reviewed journals are much higher-quality primary sources than self-published material. A primary-research paper is useful to cite for what what particular researchers have claimed, and is good to include (for specialist readers) as a citation along with one to a secondary and more general-audience source for a claim. But Wikipedia is not in a position to make unattributed claims of fact based on primary-research papers, even those published in the most eminent journals.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)