This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dark forest hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Dark forest hypothesis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Source: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JBIS...68..142Y/abstract ( PDF)
Converted from a redirect by Shibbolethink ( talk). Nominated by LordPeterII ( talk) at 16:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
I made an edit to this article based on the linked-to Brin article. Brin uses the term “Deadly Probes” to describe something that as far as I can tell is nearly identical to the “Dark Forest” hypothesis that Wikipedia attributes to Liu Cixin. I don’t understand why my change was reverted. The revert notice says something to the effect that if I have another source, we can discuss; the other source is the Brin article. I don’t understand why various Wikipedia articles maintain that the Liu Cixin novel is the origin of the hypothesis, when Brin clearly stated it in 1983. Can we reinstate my changes? — Elysdir ( talk) 05:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "dark forest" hypothesis is not very novel nor very well defined. Attempting to claim that one source or another was "first" is only going to result in fruitless arguments.
I reverted an edit by @ Joncolvin because the source refers to preceding work. The source is a book review for the Bear book and as such is not authoritative on the history of the concept. It's not like the reviewer has done deep research, he just reviewed the book based on his other reading.
I don't think anyone disputes that the name of this particular variant comes from the novel "The Dark Forest". The concept predates the novel. So far we don't have resources that say much more. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The source
Discusses Brin first, quote:
Then Cixin, quote:
The current introduction incorrectly fails to mention the Brin work.
The Chao Yu source never uses the word "beserker" and thus cannot be a reference for the similarity of that idea and the dark-forest idea. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The reference
never mentions "Dark forest". It was written before the Cixin book.
The Webb book also does not mention Bear's Forge of God book.
Therefore this source cannot be used to explain the Dark Forest story or directly its relationship to any other Fermi paradox story. The source can be used for history pre-dating 2002, eg the Berserker or Brin work. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The Fermi paradox article is fabulous and provides all the context discussed in this article and much more. The section Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_dangerous is a repeat of most of this article. Wikipedia readers and editors would be better served if "Dark forest hypothesis" redirected to Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_dangerous Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Dark forest hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Dark forest hypothesis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 November 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
20:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Source: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015JBIS...68..142Y/abstract ( PDF)
Converted from a redirect by Shibbolethink ( talk). Nominated by LordPeterII ( talk) at 16:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
I made an edit to this article based on the linked-to Brin article. Brin uses the term “Deadly Probes” to describe something that as far as I can tell is nearly identical to the “Dark Forest” hypothesis that Wikipedia attributes to Liu Cixin. I don’t understand why my change was reverted. The revert notice says something to the effect that if I have another source, we can discuss; the other source is the Brin article. I don’t understand why various Wikipedia articles maintain that the Liu Cixin novel is the origin of the hypothesis, when Brin clearly stated it in 1983. Can we reinstate my changes? — Elysdir ( talk) 05:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, the "dark forest" hypothesis is not very novel nor very well defined. Attempting to claim that one source or another was "first" is only going to result in fruitless arguments.
I reverted an edit by @ Joncolvin because the source refers to preceding work. The source is a book review for the Bear book and as such is not authoritative on the history of the concept. It's not like the reviewer has done deep research, he just reviewed the book based on his other reading.
I don't think anyone disputes that the name of this particular variant comes from the novel "The Dark Forest". The concept predates the novel. So far we don't have resources that say much more. Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The source
Discusses Brin first, quote:
Then Cixin, quote:
The current introduction incorrectly fails to mention the Brin work.
The Chao Yu source never uses the word "beserker" and thus cannot be a reference for the similarity of that idea and the dark-forest idea. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The reference
never mentions "Dark forest". It was written before the Cixin book.
The Webb book also does not mention Bear's Forge of God book.
Therefore this source cannot be used to explain the Dark Forest story or directly its relationship to any other Fermi paradox story. The source can be used for history pre-dating 2002, eg the Berserker or Brin work. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The Fermi paradox article is fabulous and provides all the context discussed in this article and much more. The section Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_dangerous is a repeat of most of this article. Wikipedia readers and editors would be better served if "Dark forest hypothesis" redirected to Fermi_paradox#Communication_is_dangerous Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)