Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 205 posts

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#21

Post by rtkwe »

_mtkq wrote: post #7

An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".

The person writing that review is going to need to cite it somehow though so the question of how best to cite an ephemeral anonymous post that's only available through archives or secondary summaries (like the linked wiki) still stands.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#24

Post by qubax »

_mtkq wrote: post #7

An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".

> Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".

Which is sad because most peer-reviewed material are not trustworthy either.

https://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-pub...

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

It's worrying that academia is slowly turning into a rigid "appeal to authority" church rather than a space for truth and inquiry.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#25

Post by fs111 »

montenegrohugo wrote: post #2

This is fantastic. Imagine having to cite "Anonymous user on 4chan" on your paper. I'd probably just do it for the novelty (who else can say they have a more unusual source??)

citing "anonymous", if it is unclear who the author is, is nothing new. I did that a long time ago when I a cited something from the nmap man page in a paper for university . Back then it was unclear - at least to me - who the author is. This is a very common practice. I do not see, where the novelty is.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#26

Post by empath75 »

_mtkq wrote: post #7

An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".

Indeed, someone[1] has already done that:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MTUwMTUx...

[1] http://jaypantone.com/

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#27

Post by kop316 »

_mtkq wrote: post #7

An "academically correct" solution (i.e., not to taint the prestige of a scholar who cites the solution) would be to cite a real, proxy scholar who checks the solution, but gives all credit to the anonymous 4chan user. Scientists often abhor citing from blogs, forums, and Wikipedia, as those publications "are not peer-reviewed by trustworthy professionals".

I actually feel that the response here is a great one:

"I feel like you should be able (forced even!) to cite things that aren't journal articles- even blog posts- if they contributed to your body of work. But citing things that aren't prestigious reduces the perceived prestige of your own, which is a perverse incentive not to cite."

EDIT: I can't seem to figure out how to link to specific tweets, so this is the guy that said it: https://twitter.com/_delta_zero

He has a great point. If the proof is correct, you should cite the raw document. If you have to cite it through a proxy scholar, it feels like a form of gate keeping.

Re: Nobody knows how to cite 4chan mathematicians who solved an interesting problem

#29

Post by btrettel »

I would cite the wiki with a note in the citation that the wiki was a copy of the 4chan thread. And I'd put a copy on an web archive service. WebCite was mentioned in the Twitter thread: http://www.webcitation.org/

If this isn't credible enough for most academics, then I think they have their priorities wrong. I want to cite the best work, not just work that looks good superficially. I assume that the claim that this is the best known lower bound is true. In that case, if I am writing a relevant paper, it's my duty to cite the result regardless of where it came from as far as I am concerned.

Edit: Same sentiment in this post a few minutes before mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18292438

Post reply on HN