Timeline for Compiling a book's errors in a single question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 6, 2014 at 3:14 | comment | added | user10851 | I'm really completely neutral on the on/off-topicness of such questions, but I feel it's important to point out that this site's UI just doesn't seem work for such things. Most textbooks have scores of mistakes, and scrolling through so many differently-formatted answers, together with their comments, and having to click to another page at some point (breaking any searchability), just seems like too much of a pain. Errata should be collected, by authors and/or publishers, but in a single, well-formated, concise, vetted, ordered, and searchable document. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 23:30 | answer | added | tpg2114 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 14:26 | comment | added | joshphysics | @KyleKanos Well apparently I dont know how to read. Thanks. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 11:01 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | And for good measure, here's a guy who has a list of errata for Weinberg's QFT book: usna.edu/Users/aero/brsmith (which also came up with the aforementioned Google search phrase). | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 11:00 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | @joshphysics: This scribd site contains the errata to the 1st edition: scribd.com/doc/237878142/…. All I did was search "Weinberg quantum mechanics errata" and it came up. <insert shrug emoticon>. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 2:59 | comment | added | joshphysics | @KyleKanos If you can find such a site for Weinberg's QM book, that would be helpful. My comment about thousands of people was not meant to claim that such a number of people is necessary, but rather that having a large user base contribute possible errors would be extremely useful. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 2:33 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | I have yet to see an author that didn't keep an errata on their websites (not saying it doesn't happen, just that I haven't seen it). And I do not believe that it takes "a team of thousands of people to provide feedback about whether proposed errors were in fact errors," maybe 3 people outside the author might be necessary. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 2:11 | comment | added | joshphysics | @KyleKanos Yes. If only every book's author maintained a webpage with errata and had a team of thousands of people to provide feedback about whether proposed errors were in fact errors. In any event, I'm in no way married to this proposal. If the user base deems this to be a bad idea, then so be it. | |
| Sep 2, 2014 at 1:35 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Isn't that what Errata are for? | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 21:33 | history | edited | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 21:32 | comment | added | Danu | I feel like this would be a hopelessly specific effort, even if the spirit behind it is good. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 21:30 | history | edited | QmechanicMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 66 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 21:24 | history | asked | joshphysics | CC BY-SA 3.0 |