Talk:List of important publications in computer science/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Categories of important publications
Please note Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls##Categories of important publications. Thanks, APH 10:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
original research or unverified claims
I believe that what is called the original research in the list is its very existence. All the entries in the list are indeed publications and the reference enables verifying that. As for the list itself, it is a tool used for a larger project intended to write articles and categories such publications. Therefore, one should view the current status of the list as only temporary. For more information about the project, it rational and the publications that should be part of it please see the Science pearls. Due to that, I'm removing the "original research" templates from the list.APH 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The original research concern was about the method we seem to be using to decide what counts as an "important publication", which is basically that someone will add an entry and it will be removed if someone doesn't agree. Ideally, this article would have references asserting the importance of each of these publications. Digging those up is certainly not a fun task, but it would be a welcome improvement. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- When the science pearls project started I was sure that an important publication is hard to define but easy to judge. As time went by, it seems that I was wrong. In order to cope with the problem we try some methods.
- The most organized procedure is used in the chemistry list, where each new entry is discussed and approved. We try to formalize rules for inclusion but there are no satisfying rules for now and we wonder whether such rules are possible.
- Recently I started trying a new approach the can be called "Recommendation by authority". The idea behind it to as to ask experts in the field about the additions and modifications to the lists. I hope that most people will agree that if a Turing award winner says that a publication in his field is important then we should include it in the list.
- One should note that the list is the initial phase in the science pearls project. The goal is to have wikipedia article on the publication and to classify them using categories. At this stage I guess we will be able to be quite liberal with the definition of important publication.APH 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Entry disscussion
The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego & Greed In The Quest For Machines That Think
Description: The definitive book on the business of creating artificial intelligence.
Importance:
Are there any arguments for the inclusion/ exclusion of this publication?
Suggested addition
Lowe, D. G. Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vision 60, 2 (Nov. 2004), 91-110. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94
Reasons
- Influence
- Latest and greatest
- Can you specify more about the paper and its importance? Thanks, APH 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Selection of papers in crypto section
The choice of cryptography articles needs some thought. For example, important practical results are missing (I would suggest Boneh et al on The Importance of Checking Computations, as well as Kocher et al on Timing Attacks and Differential Power Analysis as notable omissions). In contrast, theoretical work such as Jeux's work on SHA-1 has little practical significance compared to many of the other papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.36.60 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why in the world is this seminal programming language work excluded? Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie's work started C, a shockingly influence and popular language. 154.20.187.88 (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- They never published anything interesting from an academic perspective (although on this criteria the textbooks in this list should be deleted). C was a breakthrough for computer programming, not computer science. Mistercupcake (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)