[seqfan] OEIS wiki and editing, Boubaker affair.

Antti Karttunen antti.karttunen at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 17:18:56 CET 2009


Neil's guidelines look very reasonable. Foremost I think it is important to
only such policies that can be realistically enforced ("don't make laws that
cannot be enforced!").
For example, when the set of editors is chosen by the set of (englightened)
and all of them in principle know each other (at least by e-mail contacts)
there should not be any reason to launch paranoid sockpuppet/meatpuppet
witch-hunts which frequently occur in Wikipedia.

Also, because by default any accurately defined and computed sequence
or valid comment (even if trivial) about an existing sequence is OK,
regardless of the credentials of the submitter, there should not be so many
about the "notability", and none about the "original research".
Moreover, mathematical claims are precise, which can all be clearly flagged
as true,
false or conjectural, contrary to the most of the material in Wikipedia.
No need to argue about NPOV.

Okay, the question of "relevancy" still remains. I can see the day,
when it will be necessary to divide the sequences to A- and B-series,
where B's are the vast sea where anything goes (as long as correctly
computed), from which then the most relevant and referenced sequences
will be raised to the class A.

About Boubaker-polynomials: I don't think there's nothing about sequences
why they wouldn't be allowed into OEIS. People submit
these kind of sequences all the time, usually even without
giving any specific names to them.

But I understand that O. Gerard and some other people might feel
deceived, if the request for the collaboration they took bona fide
turns out to be just a tactical wedge for some edit-war intrigue in

Just my 2 cents,

Antti Karttunen

More information about the SeqFan mailing list