Re: Misconceptions FAQ

[Doug Craigen <dcc@ESCAPE.CA>]

> I STRONGLY encourage you to choose a topic, cull the sources together and
> start an appropriate page.  With enough external references, pictures and
> writing, you could publish the work, earn tenure, pay the mortgage etc.

Actually, I have no academic career to speak of anymore.  I do sessional
teaching at the University of Winnipeg on the side (running DC Tech
being my main occupation), but for the most part I have strayed so far
off the beaten track to tenure that I gave up any thought of such a
couple of years ago. What I do with physics on the net is motivated
primarily by my own interests - I make more money off of work I do in
other areas.  I would locate the Misconceptions FAQ on my University of
Winnipeg pages because they are the most appropriate location and I
appreciate the support they've given me so I plan to start locating some
of my new projects there as appropriate.

I've waited a little while to see what came on the PHYS-L list as well
as in my personal email on this topic before writing again.  There seems
to be a good base of support for the idea and Ludwik considers the list
he has compiled to be open for others to work from.  I would like to
start putting this together by hearing from anybody who would be willing
to either write about any specific misconceptions, or review the
writings of others - all to be given credit.  Please use private email
rather than PHYS-L itself to start getting this together.

For an idea of what level of detail is expected, take a look at the
sci.physics faq at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/faq.html

One thing that needs to be done is to define the scope of the FAQ.
*  I see no reason to overlap with existing sources such as the
sci.physics faq, Bad Astronomy, Physics Textbook Errata etc.
*  Errata is not misconception.  If you know of places that mistakes are
made in textbooks - meaning something the author themself will probably
have fixed in the next edition (typos, calculation errors etc), I
maintain separate pages for those.
* For the beginning at least I would like to keep the faq to concrete
items such as those found on Ludwik's list where one can cite something
like an experiment that debunks a belief (rather than debating the best
way of looking at a concept).

A few general comments about FAQs for those not familiar with them:
* a faq is not intended to be the end of debate on any given subject,
rather it is a reference to the things usually said within a discussion
group on recurring topics.  This enables people to make quick reference
to standard answers and concentrate on new angles.
* the faq does not belong to the group or present the official position
of the group.  Generally somebody simply presumes to begin a faq.  The
better ones get taken seriously (mirrored around the web etc).
* a faq can be controversial.  In fact, it is common for several people
in a group to make their own faq to disagree with the faq that somebody
else has made up.

Please drop me a personal email if you would like to take part in making
up a misconceptions faq based predominantly on PHYS-L discussions.  As I
get a better idea of how many people are interested in doing what I'll
be back in touch with a web site that will start to pull it together.

()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()-()

Doug Craigen
          Latest Project - the Physics E-source
          http://www.dctech.com/physics/