![]() StartingPoints Referenced by
|
Meta Discussion 2
Unfortunately, I am having problems while trying to edit MetaDiscussion. For some unknown reason I cannot insert any characters. Therefore, I open this page as a (temporary) second part and hope that someone who can actually edit part 1 corrects a typo spelling of my name. --RobertJasiek What do I like about Sensei's Library? It is an open forum in between newsgroup, book, and webpage! What do I dislike? Sometimes it requires more time than one has available to promote factual contents in a way suitable also for newcomers of a topic. This leads us directly to meta discussion about scoring and counting. Yes, these months I lack time for any extensive contributions to the library. Nevertheless, it had been necessary to launch a discussion about scoring and counting so that everybody understands that there is a difference and what it is and to edit page names and local links in a supporting manner. Fortunately, the discussion has had success: A distinction is maintained, can be accessed via the rules page, and explains both concepts scoring and counting. Although, I might slightly disagree about some presentation details (every editor has his own preferences...) and some pages or parts thereof (like that about basic rules) might need a wiki master editing in future, generally coverage about scoring and counting is rather reasonable these days. MtnViewMark, I provided factual (maths type) descriptions of some particular counting methods because I had them available ready on my website, I like precise text, I wanted to offer a first draft suitable for reediting, and expected all you eager library writers to do exactly that. So in a way, I should be grateful to you as the person having done "reediting". Your intention of making the contents more "user-friendly" is very nice indeed. However, I find it unfortunate that your replacing texts in ChineseCounting, JapaneseCounting, and StoneCountingMethod contain factually doubtful terms in wrong contexts, as I have indicated there appropriately. In rules matters it is essential to use a language where the choice of words and phrases equals intended semantics. IMO, you still need to learn the power of clear rules language. This should be improved by a wiki master editor, if someone wants to do it before I will find time. Bill, my friend, you are right that traditional or informal usage of rules language (like in the phrase Japanese counting) coexists. Personally, I try to be very strict about my stylistic usage of rules language since I teach it as a clear, precise, unequivocal, mighty research and didactics tool. This does not mean that everybody needs to be as strict, however, whenever somebody is not, one must recall exactly his semantic intentions and possibly just his knowledge depth. Here, e.g., calling counting the traditional way of denoting scoring is wrong because of being too simplifying; equally likely "a particular combination of scoring and mechanical counting procedure" could be meant, i.e. the speaker would not know (or bother about) a clear distinction between scoring and counting. This is a copy of the living page "Meta Discussion 2" at Sensei's Library. (C) the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0. |