PEGWiki:PEGWiki is not an encyclopedia - Revision history

Brian at 23:46, 1 March 2012

2012-03-01T23:46:04Z

Brian at 01:19, 11 December 2011

2011-12-11T01:19:55Z

Brian: Created page with 'PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikiped…'

2009-11-06T21:27:03Z

Created page with 'PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikiped…'

New page

PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. One might be tempted to think that PEGWiki serves a similar purpose to that of Wikipedia. It does not. PEGWiki is both similar and dissimilar to an encyclopedia.<br/>
<br/>
PEGWiki should contain whatever content is useful, interesting, or beneficial for PEG, and it should be driven by members of PEG. This does not mean that non-members are barred from contributing. If you are not a member of PEG, feel free to contribute to articles that you feel you could improve, such as those describing algorithms and data structures. However, the level and style of the article should be appropriate for PEG. So, for example, if you think an explanation is incomplete, poorly written, or confusing, then by all means improve it, but don't rewrite sections to make them more understandable for the non-computer-literate; also, pages describing algorithms and data structures, such as [[Computational geometry]], should have the primary purpose of educating the reader so that he or she can apply the techniques described, and not the tempting but incorrect purpose of simply collecting all the information about that topic (even if it is presented in the most interesting way possible). In effect, although PEGWiki is not a textbook either, it is much more similar to a textbook than it is to an encyclopedia.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 1 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. One might be tempted to think that PEGWiki serves a similar purpose to that of Wikipedia. It does not. If it did, then it would be pointless to write articles about computer science for PEGWiki (when one could simply add them to Wikipedia instead). At least one article has already been copied from here to there, and was found to be written in a style unsuitable for Wikipedia. This is to be expected, because PEGWiki articles are intended to read as tutorials, not as reference texts.	+	PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. One might be tempted to think that PEGWiki serves a similar purpose to that of Wikipedia. It does not. If it did, then it would be pointless to write articles about computer science for PEGWiki (when one could simply add them to Wikipedia instead).

−	~~Furthermore~~, the ~~level~~ and style of the article should be appropriate for PEG. So, for example, if you think an explanation is incomplete, poorly written, or confusing, then by all means improve it, but don't rewrite sections to make them more understandable for the non-computer-literate; they are not the intended audience.	+	As a matter of fact, the [[Longest palindromic substring]] article was, at some point, copied from PEGWiki onto Wikipedia; and later it was decided that the style was not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is to be expected, as the two sites focus on different things. Without attempting to speak for Wikipedia, it can be said that PEGWiki articles are intended to resemble sections of a computer science textbook. They are supposed to contain detailed explanations of the reasoning behind algorithms and data structures, rather than simply presenting them as-is and leaving the reader to try to figure out how they work.
		+
		+	Also, because PEGWiki is a wiki about computer science, with a focus on techniques applicable to programming contests, there are many topics which might not be notable enough to deserve their own articles on Wikipedia but would nevertheless be welcome as individual articles here. An example is [[Convex hull trick]].
		+
		+	Lastly, it should be mentioned that the level and style of a PEGWiki article should be appropriate for PEG. So, for example, if you think an explanation is incomplete, poorly written, or confusing, then by all means improve it, but don't rewrite sections to make them more understandable for the non-computer-literate; they are not the intended audience.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. One might be tempted to think that PEGWiki serves a similar purpose to that of Wikipedia. It does not. PEGWiki is both similar and dissimilar to an encyclopedia.<br/>
+PEGWiki runs on the very popular [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software. One site that uses MediaWiki that is particularly well-known is [http://en.wikipedia.org/ Wikipedia]. One might be tempted to think that PEGWiki serves a similar purpose to that of Wikipedia. It does not. If it did, then it would be pointless to write articles about computer science for PEGWiki (when one could simply add them to Wikipedia instead). At least one article has already been copied from here to there, and was found to be written in a style unsuitable for Wikipedia. This is to be expected, because PEGWiki articles are intended to read as tutorials, not as reference texts.
-<br/>
-PEGWiki should contain whatever content is useful, interesting, or beneficial for PEG, and it should be driven by members of PEG. This does not mean that non-members are barred from contributing. If you are not a member of PEG, feel free to contribute to articles that you feel you could improve, such as those describing algorithms and data structures. However, the level and style of the article should be appropriate for PEG. So, for example, if you think an explanation is incomplete, poorly written, or confusing, then by all means improve it, but don't rewrite sections to make them more understandable for the non-computer-literate; also, pages describing algorithms and data structures, such as [[Computational geometry]], should have the primary purpose of educating the reader so that he or she can apply the techniques described, and not the tempting but incorrect purpose of simply collecting all the information about that topic (even if it is presented in the most interesting way possible). In effect, although PEGWiki is not a textbook either, it is much more similar to a textbook than it is to an encyclopedia.
+Furthermore, the level and style of the article should be appropriate for PEG. So, for example, if you think an explanation is incomplete, poorly written, or confusing, then by all means improve it, but don't rewrite sections to make them more understandable for the non-computer-literate; they are not the intended audience.