Hi Ruslan, sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:01:31 +0300 Ruslan <[email protected]> wrote: > Answering your questions: > > 1. Yes, this conference proceedings paper is sufficiently reliable to be > included into a wikipedia article. (Notability of the paper does not > matter.) The full reference is > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2001576.2001836 > 2. No, discussion threads are not reliable sources and can not be > included. > I see. Well, my dilemma here is that if I wrote that the best performing known solver todate could only solve 98% of the first 32,000 layouts, that will be very misleading (because like I said hobbyist solvers exist that can solve 31,999 of the deals and I was also able to verify these solutions as legal ones using a verification code). So what can we do? If I (or someone else) prepare a small public research document, which won't be an academic paper but will still have reproducible results, and publish it somewhere (with sources on GitHub, but also a version available on a static HTML site) and then cite that - will this be good enough? Or will this violate Wikipedia's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research policy? Thanks in advance, -- Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/Google-Discontinues-Services/ A wiseman can learn from a fool much more than a fool can ever learn from a wiseman. — http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
