Wikenigma is an encyclopedia for topics with unknown answers
wikenigma.org.ukWhile I found the concept interesting, having to request an account through a contact form just to edit an article [1] doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part.
[1]: https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become
Probably to prevent spam, without a community of moderators and tools it would be unworkable for them most likely.
Quite a number of webforums have had to adopt this (request account) process due to insane levels of SEO spam overwhelming mods.
Interestingly, "wiki" means (in Hawaiian) "fast" (used by Ward Cunningham in '95 for "very fast web").
So, no, the process may not be fast. But in topics like "the best competitive sports club in the world", some may prefer to keep intervention more controlled, depending on the general intention.
More recently, "wiki" seems to be a more concrete concept: a collaboratively edited website, managed by its audience [1]. The project references Wikipedia as an inspiration, and I hope it can live up to similar ideals.
> collaboratively edited website
Yes, but there are parts of it in terminology awareness gone slightly messy:
in 'wikipedia', the educational part is in '-poedia' ("children", hence "learners"); 'wiki-' reflects the concept that the operation on the content must be apt to be quick - which is exactly the direct interpretation that appears in your parent post («a contact form just to edit an article doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part»).
"Quick" there is not just "free of red tape": I understand the first idea of Cunningham was about distributed access to a relational database for collaborative editing, in the simplest and directmost possible way.
So, 'wiki-' in the current common use could be more like the truncation of 'wikiweb' (already containing interesting convergences of meaning in "web" as "collaboration", not just "network of frontends"). "Wiki-" per se would indicate more the "hassle free" side of the technology.
Sorry, but the second part, "-pedia" comes from "παιδεία", (all-around) education, not "children".
It's the same :) 'paideia', "education", comes from 'pais', "child" - as I wrote, «"children", hence "learners"» (...«the educational part»).
(Note: as I was checking the spelling of 'paedia', see edit below, the statement of pais→paideia also came out in the search results, from wiktionary.org . I suppose it must be quite uncontroversial.)
I suspect that with that '«all-around»' you refer to the left part of 'encyclopedia' as 'enkyklios paideia', "encompassing education".
Edit: but I see, re-reading the post, that I wrote 'poedia' instead of 'paedia'. (I think I am making at least a typo per post in these days. Maybe when the temperatures will return in the 20's...)
Ward Cunningham's wiki at c2.com was a simple user editable wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb
I don't know what all your linguistics analysis is trying to achieve other than disguise the fact that this isn't a wiki.
> trying to achieve
Intellectual curiosity, applied to the care of ideas.
«Disguise»: I have no idea what you are talking about. My only interest on whether the submitted site falls into the category of "wiki" can be linguistic - not about the site itself (of interest respectfully relative).
I manage a small wiki, and would never just open it up to the bots.
But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.
In my mind there's nothing about locking editing behind account creation that would discount this in being a wiki.
Only because the wikimedia foundation isn't taking people to court over the trademark. But their original vision was/is a website that is freely editable by the audience.
Not sure what you're getting at.
Wikimedia Foundation did not invent the word "wiki". They were not the first to apply the word to a collaboratively edited web page. And they do not assert rights to any words that would conflict with "Wikenigma".
Wikimedia didn't invent wikis.
In fact wikipedia has many festures that are completely against the ethos of the first wiki.
A brief review of a single Wikenigma article suggests that it doesn't cover known topics particularly well. The mechanism for color vision in humans is poorly understood. We do know that there are four ocular photoreceptors, and at least one extraocular photosensitive cell in humans. The Wikenigma article erroneously states that "human eyes have three different types of retinal cells (cone cells) which respond to light". Of the several human photoreceptors, it is accurate that cone cells respond to light intensities at which we perceive color, but these are not the only human photoreceptors.
It sucks to criticize, but I concur in the case of the site's article on neural networks [1]. They state that the successes of neural networks "defy mathematical understanding." Universal Approximation Theorem is sufficient; even if you give the benefit of the doubt that they refer to interpretability, there is active and fruitful research into NN saliency. (As an aside, I'm curious how such a quotation got published in PNAS?) It goes on to criticize NNs as not being biologically accurate, misunderstanding the purpose of NNs.
Perhaps this is due to the site relying heavily upon newspaper articles, as opposed to actual research.
[1] - https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/mathematics/neural_networks...
The stated aim being «to act as a Catalyst for Curiosity in a general sense – as well as trying to identify possible starting points for (re)cultivating interest in scientific, academic, and of course, armchair-based research [... also as] curiosity does tend to wane significantly as years go by», the ambition is not the most intent and practical.
I noticed this on the page about infinity:
> Are some infinities larger than others?
But didn't Cantor prove the answer to that is "yes" back in the 19th century?
https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/philosophy/infinity
Also:
> If a mathematician wants to explore infinity, there are many options - for example by calculating π, or the square root of 2, or dividing any number by 0.
Er, one of these things is not like the others…
This clearly wasn't written by a mathematician.
Yes. Trivially, uncountable infinities have to be larger than countable infinities do they not? The set of reals contains within it the set of integers for example but also contains a bunch of other stuff. (Not a mathematician obviously).
That argument turns out not to be enough! A counterexample is the set of rational numbers, which has the same cardinality as the natural numbers, even though the naturals are a proper subset of the rationals.
Some infinite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence with some of their proper subsets!
The proof of the lemma in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_first_set_theory_ar... doesn't look right to me.
They say "Since the endpoints of (a₁, b₁) are x₁ and x₂", but in the example below a₁ = x₅, b₁ = x₁₂.
Am I missing something?
Corrected. 'Fast' wiki in action!
Wait, what's corrected?
I couldn't find the fragment you cited.
It's stil there.
My first thought was that this is an odd wiki to make, as there isn't even consensus on what is known and what is not.
There's a lot of work to do.
* At least some of the articles in psychology and language have been written by someone with an agenda, or a limited education in the field. E.g., the article about turn taking (https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversati...) talks about "endogenous oscillators" as if it is accepted that that's the solution to the problem.
* Philosophy mentions the Liar Paradox next to Free Will. These two are not quite the same.
* The article on intelligence doesn't even try. "Further reading" refers to a 27 year old report that had to calm the seas after the publication of The Bell Curve.
On the other hand, what's the point of listing everything in language, psychology and philosophy? We know next to nothing about these with any level of certainty. They could just be single entries. Now it seems as if the only thing unknown about language is the origin of the word abacadabra.
> unknown ... origin
? Serenus Sammonicus?
Edit: ok, I read the page, I see what was meant.
But a problem emerges, it could get evident seeing as their source is Wikipedia (?! "I know that because somebody told me"?!): it is epistemologically not trivial to state ignorance. Even when the learned does, the protocol is that "John, PhD, on that occasion expressed ignorance".
It may be a reason why once upon a time we had erudition, much more highlighted than nowadays: some attempt towards completeness in the exploration of sources.
Always a favourite of mine: we still don’t know how Paracetamol works. https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/medicine/drugs/paracetamol
Yikes, 80k overdoses per year which can result in stomach lining damage?
Are some medicines not worth the downside for society to have available?
The wiki doesn't cite a source that I see. But I looks like that may be recent misinformation
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...
No, that bizarre 100K number is the misinformation, but Tylenol overdose is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the US, and accidentally kills 150 people a year (and another 400-500 people who intend to overdose.) The number of people who overdose without death is far more, and a potentially lethal dose is only about 3 times the effective dose.
> Recent research suggests that Paracetamol does have a marginal effect for pain relief - but only in around 25% of individuals - and that its beneficial action in others is due to placeboeffects.
Typical pharmaceutical.
Isn’t acetaminophen similar in that we also don’t know how exactly it works?
Paracetamol and acetaminophen are the same drug, so yes you are correct.
America and Japan refer to the drug as acetaminophen, while most of the rest of the world calls it paracetamol.
This is great! Many of my questions on Stack Overflow are unanswered, or answered by me months later. Maybe the unanswered questions could be used to create a scaffolding at Wikenigma:
https://stackoverflow.com/unanswered
https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered
...
Looks like Quora doesn't quite get it though:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-unanswered-questions-o...
I enjoy dabbling in fringe topics, and feel that the greatest danger to understanding is certitude. People get so certain that they know something that all further consideration of the topic ceases and they sit in satisfaction even when answers are contradictory or don't connect to greater understanding. Debating someone who uses circular logic feels like banging one's head against the wall.
On a related note, we need a better framework for metaphysical discussion. I've noticed a huge increase in woo woo phenomena since the pandemic. It's probably just a change in my own attention. But since science and religion can't explain consciousness, I feel that there is more to reality and the mental models we use to understand it than is generally discussed. Wikenigma could use pages on synchronicity, manifestation, placebo, etc:
https://www.wrf.org/complementary-therapies/power-of-mind-pl...
“In a recent study of a new kind of chemotherapy, 30 percent of the individuals in the control group, the group given placebos, lost their hair.”
For the placebo effect to be real, it would mean that the mind creates physical effects in the body. I take it further in my own life by believing that the mind creates the body and possibly the universe around it. Or at least, the mind/body/universe are somehow involved in co-creation. That's heretical to science, but, people experience it every day. So what the heck is that?
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.
Nikola Tesla
> Listing scientific and academic questions to which no-one, anywhere, has yet been able to provide a definitive answer.
It feels a bit healthier to assume this is all of them, and even the ones that are "true" in some binary yes/no sense, may still have nuance to be discovered.
One of the things I like about the original Wikipedia is that it's rarely so binary about things, often covering contemporary controversies and areas of current research.
It’s funny that the categories are pretty much everything.
Concrete, crystallization, bicycle design, green tea. What do we know, exactly?
Y̶o̶u̶ We know nothing, J̶o̶n̶ ̶S̶n̶o̶w̶ witheld
"Bandwidth exceeded". Latest at IA: https://web.archive.org/web/20220724100418/https://wikenigma...
They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki software.
Mediawiki is some of the worst software ever developed, no sane person would use it. This site is using https://dokuwiki.org
I don't love mediawiki software, starting with PHP, but it's indisputable that it is one of the most successful software platforms in the world, and it has quite an extensive ecosystem.
But thank you for pointing out that it's docuwiki that is attempting to inappropriately ride the mediawiki coattails and muddling use.
The fact this site is starting out without the basic feature of categories is a grave mistake. Maybe docuwiki edits them differently, but having clicky forms for every data field is also contrary to how wp became successful.
Because it's not using mediawiki, it will not be any parallel in development to wp, which is also a grave starting mistake.
Wouldn't a sub-wiki on Wikipedia for topics with unknown answers serve the purpose better?
Interesting concept though.
If the site does a lot of curation and 'good writing' then I would say no, since wikipedia is a little austere. For example, if I want to read about oddball geographic places then Atlas Obscura is a much more interesting place to read.
Wikipedia already has articles covering unsolved problems for at least physics and presumably other fields too
Yes. I was thinking in the lines of Karp's 21 NP-complete problems or Hilbert's problems. There is indeed a Lists of unsolved problems page in Wikipedia itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems). That is why the Wikenigma site in the original post sounded a bit redundant, though nothing wrong with a wiki focused on just that.
When answers become known, do they delete the corresponding articles?
Doesn't look good:
Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded
resource limit. Please try again later.I think it's on a shoddy webserver and is already being hn'd. A refresh fixed it for me.
Certainly not confidence inspiring but from the pages I visited it seems to be an excellent aggregator. Short summary, long enough for me to gadge if I want to head to Wikipedia.
Thank god for that, was worried it was going to be another wiki that is essentially just an unmaintained Wikipedia fork slowly diverging away
How many users on HN are there that this keeps happening ?
A few hundred in a few minutes is enough to take down a website? I've noticed that this keeps happening .
One of my blog articles got on the front page of HN a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29185971
In total, I saw roughly around 27'000 views (that entire day, load varied, too lazy to figure out the peak RPS value), which meant just short of 8 GB of data being transferred and in my case over 500'000 files being requested (given all of the CSS files, images, JavaScript etc.).
Now, the blog held out fine, because it was based on Grav, which means that it ends up being a bunch of flat files: https://getgrav.org/
It is especially interesting when you consider that I had capped the container that it was running in to 512M of RAM at max and also 0.75 CPU cores, just so it wouldn't slow down the entire node (can't really afford to have a separate server for it).
So in essence, I think that static files can be served really well with limited resources, but once you throw complicated PHP apps (think WordPress), insufficient caching and also database access (especially with any sub-optimally written code) as well as perhaps even something like mod_php instead of fpm, things can indeed go wrong.
I've seen enterprise projects struggle with 100 RPM due to exceedingly poorly written data fetching, N+1 problems and developers not knowing how to avoid running into issues like that or outright not caring because of the system being an internal one and the infrastructure having resources to waste.
In my case, even the cheap 100 Mbps link was enough to serve all of the requests with minimal impact (i think the longest page load was up to 4 seconds at peak load, most others were lower, less than 2 seconds).
If you're on a $2/mo shared host I'm sure 50 visits in a short enough period is enough to toast the server for a bit.
Front-page HN articles can result in tens of thousands of unique visits[0] and several hundred simultaneous users. It's not hard to see how 200-300 can throttle an otherwise unoptimized site.
[0] https://medium.com/@ketacode/the-impact-of-appearing-on-hns-...
So is this the equivalent of one of the stories in the 1997 movie "Good Will Hunting," but on the Internet for everyone to take a crack at some hard problems to solve?
> to solve
Just to be intrigued - see https://wikenigma.org.uk/curators_rationale
But also to raise awareness on the complementary part of the achievements in research. Nonetheless, in this regard it should be a much more structured effort than a "bedside booklet".
"Bandwidth limit exceeded"
:(
Anecdata but I see so many projects on the Internet that are both British in origin or hosting and inspired to the point of plagiarism, often without acknowledging the components of the original idea. What gives?
Irrational Numbers
Not sure what I am supposed to get from that. Irrational numbers are just reals that aren't rationals. Why is this enigmatic?
It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
Virtually all numbers are irrational. Are numbers enigmatic?
> It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?
The infinite digits of pi that we don't know. But we do know that they exist, so pi, or any other irrational number, will aptly be called a "known unknown."
> Virtually all numbers are irrational.
For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals. There is no firm basis to the argument that there are somehow more irrational numbers than rational numbers.
Do you reject Cantor's proof then? That takes mathematical bollocks.
Without wishing to defend it, the gotcha here is "numbers you name". Rational numbers are "named" by putting together a string of digits. That is not possible for the irrationals so the only ones we can name are a handful with alphabetic names. There are more sheep in a field than those.
I think Cantor can rest peacefully.
Extend alphabetical names to alphabetical descriptions and you have a countable number of irrationals.
It's a bit suspicious that we can't name or describe any of the uncountable irrational numbers, isn't it? Not even a single example.
Cantor's proof is not constructive. It doesn't name an example. If you enumerated all irrationals based on the algorithm required to calculate them then the contradiction in Cantor's diagonalization proof just turns into a failure to terminate. But that suggests that there are fewer irrationals than integers, not more.
You're limiting the existence of real numbers to our (human) capability of mentioning them. To me, that seems a rather arbitrary limit. Did I understand you correctly? If so, why do you accept infinity in the first place?
If you reduce the irrationals to those which can be named you are probably right. I think I said that before.
Named or described.
> For every n irrational numbers you name, I can name n+1 rationals.
I name "x+pi for every rational number x". Good luck!
https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/mathematics/irrational_numb...
> For many irrational numbers, relatively simple mathematical proofs exist which show that it's impossible to ever arrive at a finite solution.
LOL, what does that even mean?