While I found the concept interesting, having to request an account through a contact form just to edit an article [1] doesn't really live up to the “wiki” part.<p>[1]: <a href="https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become" rel="nofollow">https://wikenigma.org.uk/info/notes_for_contributors/become</a>
A brief review of a single Wikenigma article suggests that it doesn't cover known topics particularly well. The mechanism for color vision in humans is poorly understood. We do know that there are four ocular photoreceptors, and at least one extraocular photosensitive cell in humans. The Wikenigma article erroneously states that "human eyes have three different types of retinal cells (cone cells) which respond to light". Of the several human photoreceptors, it is accurate that cone cells respond to light intensities at which we perceive color, but these are not the only human photoreceptors.
I noticed this on the page about infinity:<p>> Are some infinities larger than others?<p>But didn't Cantor prove the answer to that is "yes" back in the 19th century?
There's a lot of work to do.<p>* At least some of the articles in psychology and language have been written by someone with an agenda, or a limited education in the field. E.g., the article about turn taking (<a href="https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversation" rel="nofollow">https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/language/general/conversati...</a>) talks about "endogenous oscillators" as if it is accepted that that's the solution to the problem.<p>* Philosophy mentions the Liar Paradox next to Free Will. These two are not quite the same.<p>* The article on intelligence doesn't even try. "Further reading" refers to a 27 year old report that had to calm the seas after the publication of The Bell Curve.<p>On the other hand, what's the point of listing everything in language, psychology and philosophy? We know next to nothing about these with any level of certainty. They could just be single entries. Now it seems as if the only thing unknown about language is the origin of the word <i>abacadabra</i>.
Always a favourite of mine: we still don’t know how Paracetamol works. <a href="https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/medicine/drugs/paracetamol" rel="nofollow">https://wikenigma.org.uk/content/medicine/drugs/paracetamol</a>
This is great! Many of my questions on Stack Overflow are unanswered, or answered by me months later. Maybe the unanswered questions could be used to create a scaffolding at Wikenigma:<p><a href="https://stackoverflow.com/unanswered" rel="nofollow">https://stackoverflow.com/unanswered</a><p><a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered" rel="nofollow">https://physics.stackexchange.com/unanswered</a><p>...<p>Looks like Quora doesn't quite get it though:<p><a href="https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-unanswered-questions-on-Quora" rel="nofollow">https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-find-unanswered-questions-o...</a><p>I enjoy dabbling in fringe topics, and feel that the greatest danger to understanding is certitude. People get so certain that they know something that all further consideration of the topic ceases and they sit in satisfaction even when answers are contradictory or don't connect to greater understanding. Debating someone who uses circular logic feels like banging one's head against the wall.<p>On a related note, we need a better framework for metaphysical discussion. I've noticed a huge increase in woo woo phenomena since the pandemic. It's probably just a change in my own attention. But since science and religion can't explain consciousness, I feel that there is more to reality and the mental models we use to understand it than is generally discussed. Wikenigma could use pages on synchronicity, manifestation, placebo, etc:<p><a href="https://www.wrf.org/complementary-therapies/power-of-mind-placebo" rel="nofollow">https://www.wrf.org/complementary-therapies/power-of-mind-pl...</a><p>“In a recent study of a new kind of chemotherapy, 30 percent of the individuals in the control group, the group given placebos, lost their hair.”<p>For the placebo effect to be real, it would mean that the mind creates physical effects in the body. I take it further in my own life by believing that the mind creates the body and possibly the universe around it. Or at least, the mind/body/universe are somehow involved in co-creation. That's heretical to science, but, people experience it every day. So what the heck is that?
> Listing scientific and academic questions to which no-one, anywhere, has yet been able to provide a definitive answer.<p>It feels a bit healthier to assume this is all of them, and even the ones that are "true" in some binary yes/no sense, may still have nuance to be discovered.<p>One of the things I like about the original Wikipedia is that it's rarely so binary about things, often covering contemporary controversies and areas of current research.
They really should NOT make this look like wikipedia, even if it's similar in concept. Wikipedia (and its software, mediawiki) are three things: 1. content that is generated, 2. the community and culture and 3. a standard toolset. This site has very little in common with any of these, and especially the third point. The visual cue of the site's appearance indicates at least 3, but they aren't even using Mediawiki software.
Doesn't look good:<p><pre><code> Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded
resource limit. Please try again later.</code></pre>
So is this the equivalent of one of the stories in the 1997 movie "Good Will Hunting," but on the Internet for everyone to take a crack at some hard problems to solve?
Anecdata but I see so many projects on the Internet that are both British in origin or hosting and inspired to the point of plagiarism, often without acknowledging the components of the original idea. What gives?
Irrational Numbers<p>Not sure what I am supposed to get from that. Irrational numbers are just reals that aren't rationals. Why is this enigmatic?<p>It's marked as Known Unknowns, but what is unknown?<p>Virtually all numbers are irrational. Are numbers enigmatic?