![]() | A fact from Herculaneum papyri appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 August 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand the recent page move by Gluepix. The edit summary says "Change to sentence case ( MOS:AT)", but sentence case would mean a lower case "p" - which is what we had before, per WP:NCCPT. Furius ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
§ Process currently describes what the Seales group was up to in 2016. In the context of the Vesuvius Challenge, some parts of the description are quite outdated, even using the Seales group's own updated tutorial for the prize.
Right now we are devoting a lot of text to an outdated way to do S&F. We should be describing what made the ΠΟΡΦΥΡΑϹ word possible: new S&F tooling, a bunch of people doing the S&F, and finally AI engineers trying stuff on the flattened volume. Artoria 2e5 🌉 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
In the "Virtual unrolling"-section, it seems as though Vito Mocella recently has been citing a lot of his own research in a non-neutral tone, and also removed some other material without explanation in the process. Citing own work, in and of itself, is fine according to
WP:SELFCITE. However, I have tried to restore a sensible Wikivoice as well as the removed material. (Other changes have been kept. In some places, <ref name="Mocella2015"/>
has been tucked onto already cited material, which might be against the spirit of SELFCITE?)
I don't know much about these scrolls, so it might be good if someone checks whether the current version makes sense. This, of course, includes Dr. Mocella himself. I added a notice to the talk page of User talk:VitoMocella68. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This is starting to look like an edit war, so I'm pinging a few experienced and recent substantial contributors to the article. @ WatkynBassett, NeverBeGameOver, Artem.G, and Scott: Could any of you please give your opinions on this? — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 18:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion is misleading, the discussion is not about self-citation, but about the correct sequence of experimental papers using phase-contrast tomography, i.e. the first one that showed that the technique worked successfully and the others that confirmed the result. The discussion, if it can be called a discussion since you are not answering on the merits, is about this. Can you answer on the merits? Do you think that citing a paper from late 2016 before one from early 2015, almost two years earlier, and saying "many groups have proposed ..." is just confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitoMocella68 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@ VitoMocella68: In my opinion you are engaged in WP:Disruptive editing. I'm considering different venues for WP:Conflict resolution, starting with a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Dispute at Herculaneum papyri. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 09:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I've now made a notice about the situation at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 14:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I object to the repeated re-naming of this section by VitoMocella68, most recently to "On the origin of the phase-contrast technique applied to the Herculaneum papyri". This does not describe the contents of this discussion. What I have reacted and objected to is issues of tone, style, bias and self-interest, not factual matters. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
What are reliable secondary sources: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP:
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.
intervening in the discussion, made their very first edit about two hours after User:Philodemous was blocked. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 18:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that both the accounts User:VitoMocella68, User:Philodemous and User:LeLouptPierre have now been blocked as sockpuppets. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (updated 28 February) (UTC)
I have read this page and now this discussion, and I would like to highlight a few points that seem important to me and that I think deserve some reflection.
- this is a page about papyri containing ancient philosophy and some literature. It is NOT a site about technological applications, however important they may be. Of course, they can and must have their own place, but they cannot be predominant.
-In this light, the discussion of the 'Process' section is disproportionate, essentially referring to a single article by Burkeva et al. (2016). The spraying is disproportionate in any case, as I do not feel that this article, while significant, represents a breakthrough.
- The New Yorker article quoted below seems to me to illustrate very well the evolution of technological applications that led to the ability to read inside papyri and that underpin current AI applications. I am quoting from the New Yorker, which in the language adopted above is a secondary source, I would say journalistically (not scientifically) very reliable.
I am quoting literally from the New Yorker:
The article in which the team reported their findings, “Revealing Letters in Rolled Herculaneum Papyri by X-Ray Phase-Contrast Imaging,” published in Nature Communications, in January, 2015, brought almost as much attention to the scrolls as had Paderni’s letter to Mead. As proof that the concept of virtual unwrapping could work, it was a milestone. “It’s the first hope of real progress we’ve had in a long time,” David Sider, of N.Y.U., told me. But, so far, the rate at which the team is reading the text makes Piaggio’s machine seem positively to hum by comparison.”
- The aforementioned Burkeva 2016 article, apart from the differences in data analysis, is a tentative confirmation of the 2015 technique, if you like, a secondary source apart from the hundreds of citations the article itself has.
-In light of the above, I suggest that:
-The centrality of a philosophical literary theme needs to be re-established on this page.
-some parts should be significantly reduced, namely the section Process
-The 2015 article (milestone, as the New Yorker calls it) must be in its proper place, without prejudice to subsequent developments.If the doubts expressed by Seales in an interview are to be reported, and they may be legitimate, they must be emphasised as a personal opinion, not backed up by scientific articles.
Please comment with appropriate references, and not by reporting personal opinions without adequate referencing.
Leftsupercazzola (
talk)
15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
References
![]() | A fact from Herculaneum papyri appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 August 2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand the recent page move by Gluepix. The edit summary says "Change to sentence case ( MOS:AT)", but sentence case would mean a lower case "p" - which is what we had before, per WP:NCCPT. Furius ( talk) 08:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
§ Process currently describes what the Seales group was up to in 2016. In the context of the Vesuvius Challenge, some parts of the description are quite outdated, even using the Seales group's own updated tutorial for the prize.
Right now we are devoting a lot of text to an outdated way to do S&F. We should be describing what made the ΠΟΡΦΥΡΑϹ word possible: new S&F tooling, a bunch of people doing the S&F, and finally AI engineers trying stuff on the flattened volume. Artoria 2e5 🌉 06:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
In the "Virtual unrolling"-section, it seems as though Vito Mocella recently has been citing a lot of his own research in a non-neutral tone, and also removed some other material without explanation in the process. Citing own work, in and of itself, is fine according to
WP:SELFCITE. However, I have tried to restore a sensible Wikivoice as well as the removed material. (Other changes have been kept. In some places, <ref name="Mocella2015"/>
has been tucked onto already cited material, which might be against the spirit of SELFCITE?)
I don't know much about these scrolls, so it might be good if someone checks whether the current version makes sense. This, of course, includes Dr. Mocella himself. I added a notice to the talk page of User talk:VitoMocella68. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
This is starting to look like an edit war, so I'm pinging a few experienced and recent substantial contributors to the article. @ WatkynBassett, NeverBeGameOver, Artem.G, and Scott: Could any of you please give your opinions on this? — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 18:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The topic of this discussion is misleading, the discussion is not about self-citation, but about the correct sequence of experimental papers using phase-contrast tomography, i.e. the first one that showed that the technique worked successfully and the others that confirmed the result. The discussion, if it can be called a discussion since you are not answering on the merits, is about this. Can you answer on the merits? Do you think that citing a paper from late 2016 before one from early 2015, almost two years earlier, and saying "many groups have proposed ..." is just confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VitoMocella68 ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@ VitoMocella68: In my opinion you are engaged in WP:Disruptive editing. I'm considering different venues for WP:Conflict resolution, starting with a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Dispute at Herculaneum papyri. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 09:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I've now made a notice about the situation at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 14:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I object to the repeated re-naming of this section by VitoMocella68, most recently to "On the origin of the phase-contrast technique applied to the Herculaneum papyri". This does not describe the contents of this discussion. What I have reacted and objected to is issues of tone, style, bias and self-interest, not factual matters. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
What are reliable secondary sources: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP:
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.
intervening in the discussion, made their very first edit about two hours after User:Philodemous was blocked. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 18:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that both the accounts User:VitoMocella68, User:Philodemous and User:LeLouptPierre have now been blocked as sockpuppets. — St.Nerol ( talk, contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2024 (updated 28 February) (UTC)
I have read this page and now this discussion, and I would like to highlight a few points that seem important to me and that I think deserve some reflection.
- this is a page about papyri containing ancient philosophy and some literature. It is NOT a site about technological applications, however important they may be. Of course, they can and must have their own place, but they cannot be predominant.
-In this light, the discussion of the 'Process' section is disproportionate, essentially referring to a single article by Burkeva et al. (2016). The spraying is disproportionate in any case, as I do not feel that this article, while significant, represents a breakthrough.
- The New Yorker article quoted below seems to me to illustrate very well the evolution of technological applications that led to the ability to read inside papyri and that underpin current AI applications. I am quoting from the New Yorker, which in the language adopted above is a secondary source, I would say journalistically (not scientifically) very reliable.
I am quoting literally from the New Yorker:
The article in which the team reported their findings, “Revealing Letters in Rolled Herculaneum Papyri by X-Ray Phase-Contrast Imaging,” published in Nature Communications, in January, 2015, brought almost as much attention to the scrolls as had Paderni’s letter to Mead. As proof that the concept of virtual unwrapping could work, it was a milestone. “It’s the first hope of real progress we’ve had in a long time,” David Sider, of N.Y.U., told me. But, so far, the rate at which the team is reading the text makes Piaggio’s machine seem positively to hum by comparison.”
- The aforementioned Burkeva 2016 article, apart from the differences in data analysis, is a tentative confirmation of the 2015 technique, if you like, a secondary source apart from the hundreds of citations the article itself has.
-In light of the above, I suggest that:
-The centrality of a philosophical literary theme needs to be re-established on this page.
-some parts should be significantly reduced, namely the section Process
-The 2015 article (milestone, as the New Yorker calls it) must be in its proper place, without prejudice to subsequent developments.If the doubts expressed by Seales in an interview are to be reported, and they may be legitimate, they must be emphasised as a personal opinion, not backed up by scientific articles.
Please comment with appropriate references, and not by reporting personal opinions without adequate referencing.
Leftsupercazzola (
talk)
15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
References