Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 April 16

= April 16 =

Those authoring topics on Wikipedia for the knowledge of the readers
The undersigned is a 70+ ; retired and actively doing non-stop research since 1969 on the topic of Indian Cine Music. Bharatiya Cine Sangeet Parampara (BCSP) is my brain child. I have dedicated everything for it - tan, mun, dhan. The objective: To nurture the rich,colorful heritage of Indian cine music in promoting the Eternal values of LOVE, TRUTH-n-TIME in the MINDSETS of the present generation..free of cost to the reader/listener/viewer at my personal expense on YOU TUBE via MP32Tube.com ( as a Premium User) as well as my regular postings / feeds into the IBs of Rmimers on Google groups: rec.music.indian.misc.

I receive plenty of criticisms but that doesn't bother me. I am always on the stress of 'enlightening' IGNORANCE that is rampant in the rmimers-mindsets that have been imbibed from internet resources that do not disclose their identities...for whatever reasons.

My principle in life:

Everything is a 2-way process in this human world - never one-way.

Your authors never DISCLOSE their identity on the topics authored ! Why? How can one know whether it is authentic or fiction.

No one in this world is perfect, however clever, intelligent or powerful he may be. Whatever you put in print of your matter on any topic, the same has to be substantiated in the form of 'instant evidence & listening facility if its music'.

Currently, a cold war is going on, on the forum.

—BCSP— 16/4


 * By examining an article's history you can usually tell who wrote what (even though most of us are pseudonymous). —Tamfang (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, all of the information in every article is supposed to be corroborated by citations of external published works, written by identifiable authors/authorities - that is how one can know whether or not it is authentic. The identities of those who have incorporated that information into the articles here are not in themselves important, since they are not claiming anything on their own authority. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.111 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Expanding a bit on the previous statement: Wikipedia does not allow original thought to be added. So, everything that's added should have already been published in another work, hence the citations to indicate where the information came from. Adding something simply because "I know it is" isn't enough. Further, other editors working that same article will double-check new information as it's added, and if something is potentially controversial (or outright wrong), it's done away with quickly. -- McDoob  AU  93  02:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that authors HARDLY ever disclose their identities in Wikipedia. It can even be argued that they should not do so at all, so that the focus of building the encyclopedia is anonymous collegial editing rather than unsupported statements from authority. The result will be dynamic rather than static information. The OP has a point about articles about the arts, such as cine music. Even though all information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be verifiable from reputable sources there is no clear direction about which of many published reviews and criticisms may be weighed as noteworthy. Since some people are intensely involved in particular arts. possibly as creators themselves, there is a tendency for fancruft to enter the articles. It is hard for me to translate "Bharatiya Cine Sangeet Parampara". Does it mean something like "The movement to improve concerts of movie music" or have I got that all wrong?. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If an editor provides references to authoritative sources, it does not matter who he is.   If he doesn't do that, then he has edited improperly, and someone else will eventually fix the article. APL (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, given your philosophical approach you may be interested in reading about the fallacy Appeal to authority. Given that wikipedia is intended to do no more than report on other verifiable sources in a balanced way, (in theory) the author should be of little consequence 124.171.217.32 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia editors do develop reputations associated with their online names, there's no reason for their 'real identities' to be revealed unless they're editing with a conflict of interest, and that generally becomes obvious even without revealing their names. Since all Wikipedia information must be sourced, the professor and the janitor are equally able to make useful contributions.  In fact, at Wikipedia, it's generally considered in bad taste to try to prevail in an editing disagreement by claiming to be an authority on the subject, instead of producing good sources.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitt or Rutgers for computer engineering?
I was admmited to Swanson Engineering school in Pitt and ECE in Rutgers-new brunswick. I do not know which is the right choice. I noticed that the engineering ranking of Pitt is far less satisfying than Rutger's. However, I might get resources about engineering from CMU, which strong point is engineering. I get confused. Please help me and give some advice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geniusgg (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a good place to ask advice about where to go to college. It is a good place to tell you to use spell check especially if you want to be in a computer oriented field. Deciding where to go to school is an intensely personal decision and is based largely on personal factors in addition to any academic ones. Shadowjams (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just use spellcheck - learn to spell. The computer spellchecker can only tell you that it has spotted a mistake; relying on it to correct that mistake is foolhardy. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To extend that, I'd say that the computer spellchecker can only tell you that it thinks it has spotted a mistake. A few years ago, a colleague of mine in a biochemistry laboratory let a spellchecker loose on one of his manuscripts.  It helpfully 'corrected' "we destained the gel" – that is, washed excess stain from the gel – to "we disdained the gel".  Bad spell check, or Freudian slip?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you able to travel to these schools at short notice? I suggest you contact them mentioning that you have been admitted and asking if you can meet with a computer engineering lecturer before deciding to accept. You may be surprised how easy it is to get such a meeting and you will come away with a much better feeling for the particular school environment than by looking at rankings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. National ratings are a useful starting point, but they may not be what you want to use as a final arbiter.  If, for instance, Pitt's ranking is heavily influenced by graduate research, will that benefit you as an undergraduate?  Maybe you'll have undergrad research opportunities; that'd be good.  Maybe your professors will have grad students doing most of the teaching; that may not be so good.  And what of the rest of the college experience?  Do you like the campus?  Are there interesting non-engineering programs available (as you may conclude that engineering isn't for you, or, failing that, just want an interesting minor)?  Does one fit your budget better than another?  What's their track record helping students find internship or co-op opportunities?  Study abroad programs?  Grad school or job market entry?  Traditional dorms versus suite-style?  Do the shower stalls have, you know, stalls?  And so forth. For that matter, go to one of the schools and ask a professor "why should I want to come here instead of ?" &mdash; Lomn 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Most recognized academic publishers
Is there a list somewhere of the most highly regarded academic publishers? I'm trying to figure out whether Oxford University Press or Cambridge University Press is the most prestigious, or whether it's a different publisher. Geraldavon (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was Elsevier, but it's possible that they're highly regarded only in mathematics, not in all areas they publish. &#x2013; b_jonas 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Elsevier has been caught doing some extremely slimy things recently. The biggest scandal involves conflicts of interest and deceptive publishing practices in a group of medical journals that tended to print only papers favorable to Merck&mdash;see Elsevier. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point that this may vary depending on discipline. My area of interest (in particular) is social sciences. I think of Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Palgrave, Routledge and Harvard University Press as the ones making the top list, but I may be wrong. Geraldavon (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In my area (neuroscience), I believe that MIT Press publishes the most important stuff, with Oxford University Press probably second. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on MIT Press being a very major publisher on scientific topics. HUP, OUP etc. built their reputations on literary stuff (IIRC, OUP owns the British copyright on the KJV Bible).   With e-books gaining sway, I suspect the era of "real publishers" maybe nearing an end.  Collect (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost: so far as Britain is concerned OUP, CUP and HarperCollins are licensed to print and sell the Authorised Version, but the copyright is still held by the Crown (see Authorized King James Version). OUP and CUP shared the copyright in the Revised Version until it expired, and they still share the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible. --Antiquary (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The US also has some "perpetual copyrights" (not counting Disney) including Mary Baker Eddy's work, etc. Collect (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Springer also is a high-volume reputable publisher, and one of the top publishers of conference proceedings in computer science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It really, really, really varies by discipline. Some of those listed above as being great for some disciplines are considered crap in my discipline. I'm sure the reverse applies as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. Even limiting to a single discipline doesn't help much: "X is the most prestigious publisher in the field of Y" is a very debatable claim. If we're interested in journals only, we could examine quantifiable things like impact factor, or other metrics such as those published by Thomson_Reuters/ISI. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Siphon Pump Metering above the source
A SIPHON is a curved upside down U-shaped pipe that uses atmospheric pressure to draw liquid from one place to a height of around 25 feet and over and back down to a level below the source. Why has the subject of Siphon Pump Metering not been covered under any spelling or transliteration or other name or expression here? A measured amount of liquid can be dispensed at the crown of a siphon through the use of an inline canister, and this metered process is accomplished by cyclically starting and stopping the liquid flow. US Patent # 5358000 was the first to teach water pumping in this process and manner, and this is a renewable energy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.194.237 (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Siphon article needs to be improved, perhaps you could work on it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Well, you are welcome to add that info to our siphon article. However, it's only a renewable form of energy if the water at the higher level is continuously renewed, such as from rainfall, and if you put a turbine in the line.  As such, this sounds like a subset of hydroelectric energy, but the small output from such a system might make it impractical. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, you could presumably just drill a hole thru the ground in between and eliminate the need for a siphon. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your description is of one particular design of siphon, not of a siphon in general. I don't know what the patent was for, but the principle of the hydraulic ram for pumping water by stopping and starting the flow is as old as the USA!  If you have a renewable head of water at low pressure, then a reverse Archimedes' screw is generally considered to be the most efficient method for obtaining energy.    D b f i r s   08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)